Comments Off on The Fall of Intellectual Diversity
Unconventional Wisdom
It’s no secret that the majority of students at the ANU are fairly left-wing. In fact, it’s safe to say that the majority of university campuses in the West share this with the ANU. This is a problem. It’s a problem for conservatives, but it’s also a problem for the Left.
Data from the Higher Education Research Institute suggests that in the USA, the ratio of leftist to conservative professors has widened over the last few decades. This growing imbalance has arguably made leftist students overly sensitive and intellectually fragile. They have become used to living in a community that constantly reaffirms their views. Thus, when they inevitably hear differing views, they feel uncomfortable.
This can be seen in the epidemic of protests against ‘blasphemous’ public speakers. Universities have become ‘safe spaces’ for left-wing students, where conservative speakers are seen to have infiltrated their progressive stronghold.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that since 2000, at least 240 campaigns have been launched to prevent public speakers from appearing on US campuses, the majority of which occurred after 2009.
Warren Farrell, a champion of second wave feminism and a Hillary Clinton supporter, was protested at the University of Toronto in 2013 for speaking about social issues specific to men – something many of the protesters considered ‘hate speech’. The first African American female Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, was disinvited from Rutgers University for her involvement in the Bush administration. When Brown University organised a debate on the topic of rape culture, a safe space was created, equipped with Play-Doh, pillows, cookies, and a video of frolicking puppies.
These outcries do not stop at public speaking events. When Erika Christakis of Yale University wrote an email to Silliman College residents urging them to be less vindictive towards students who wore ‘offensive’ Halloween costumes, her husband became the victim of an onslaught of abuse from students. One of whom accused Christakis of being racist for not remembering her name. While Christakis politely answered the concerns of his students, someone said to him, as several students broke down in tears around him, ‘I am sick looking at you … You are disgusting … I want your job to be taken from you. I am disgusted that you work at Yale University.’ Another student claimed that Mr. Christakis and his wife had engaged in ‘an act of violence’. No one intervened to stop the abuse; in fact, bystanders nodded and applauded.
When the University of Sydney’s Conservative Club organised a screening of a documentary about the Men’s Rights movement, the University of Sydney Union defunded the event. The event went ahead but was protested by about 50-60 students. ‘All I really want is for there to be a discussion about legitimate male issues,’ a member of the Conservative Club told the ABC.
Even at the ANU, a campaign was launched in March against former US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper. Targeting his involvement in the Iraq war and for ‘lying’ to Congress, the campaign protested his visit to the university. There are a number of reasons why Clapper ‘lied’ that make accusations of wrongdoing mere conjecture. Barack Obama understood this, which is why he retained Clapper as his DNI after being the one to appoint him in the first place. I wonder if the ANU’s valiant protesters would protest Obama if he were to visit the campus.
One’s immune system becomes stronger from exposure to infection and disease. One’s intellectual resolve works in a similar way. In this case, differing opinions are the vaccine and many left-wing students have clearly not been vaccinated.
If the trend of a maximising leftist-conservative imbalance continues, the very fabric of what a university is supposed to be will be destroyed. Both Harvard and Yale’s mottos contain the word veritas, Latin for ‘truth’. If a university fails in the quest for truth, it fails as a university.
Jonathan Haidt of New York University argues that truth comes about through the process of institutionalised disconfirmation. Everyone, no matter their political persuasion, engages in motivated reasoning. That is, we are motivated to prove what we already believe.
Leftists are motivated to disprove conservatives and conservatives are motivated to disprove leftists. This institutionalised back and forth between leftists and conservatives ensures that biases are counteracted. With less and less conservative voices, the leftist bias has run amok, unchallenged. Not only because there are so few conservatives available to challenge the leftist bias, but because the small number of conservatives at universities are understandably too afraid to speak up. They are, in a sense, ‘walking on eggshells’.
Professors are even revising their syllabuses to ensure they don’t contain any conservative, ‘boat-rocking’ content. This is now a reality for academics, according to a college professor under the pseudonym Edward Schlosser, who wrote the article ‘I’m a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me’ for Vox in 2015. Professors would rather scrub their syllabuses clean of contentious content than risk having their reputation tarnished. If you thought university was boring now, just you wait.
We should be outraged by this, just as we would be if conservatives dominated the academic conversation. We need the Left and the Right to have an equal say in order to get a nuanced understanding of the truth; when one dominates, we get simple, repetitive and inaccurate answers.
John Stuart Mill once said that if someone is ‘unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.’ The lack of intellectual diversity on campus is a problem – it’s about time we start recognising it.
Gazing into the Abyss
This column explores the topic of sustainability: what it is, what challenges and opportunities it presents, and what we can do as individuals and communities to live more sustainably.
A Look at Mike Pompeo’s Confirmation Hearing
On 12 January, 2017, a fascinating Senate Intelligence Committee confirmation took place. Californian Democratic Senator Kamala Harris was grilling Trump’s nominee for CIA director, Mike Pompeo. Instead of spies and surveillance, her questions were about climate change. One thing she wanted to know was if the CIA under Pompeo would continue to recognise climate change as a causal factor in the sorts of regional instability the CIA is tasked with monitoring.
I use the words ‘continue to recognise’ because the CIA has, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, long recognised that climate change can play a significant role in precipitating conflicts. CIA director John Brennan’s frank and honest assessment, delivered in 2015, is worth quoting at length:
‘Mankind’s relationship with the natural world is aggravating these problems and is a potential source of crisis itself. Last year was the warmest on record, and this year is on track to be even warmer. Extreme weather … can worsen or create humanitarian crises. Of the most immediate concern, sharply reduced crop yields in multiple places simultaneously could trigger a shock in food prices with devastating effect, especially in already fragile regions such as Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.’
Brennan’s comments echo the wider – and thankfully growing – awareness that recent conflicts such as the Syrian civil war are partly attributable to the effects of climate change on food security in the region. Syria is not the only example of this, just the best-known one.
Pompeo’s response was far more mixed. At one point, he implied that under his leadership the CIA would deprioritise climate change as an issue, complaining that he ‘would prefer today not to get into the details of climate debate and science. It just seems my role is going to be so different and unique from that’. He went on to describe what he saw as the difference; he would be working with ‘warriors’ (implication: not climatologists) to keep America safe.
While this statement caused concern, it must be noted he also said, ‘to the extent that changes in climatic activity are part of that foreign intelligence collection task, we will deliver that information to you all and to the president.’ Given this remark directly addressed the question of how the CIA would respond to the issue of climate change, there is no reason to suggest a change in policy. Unfortunately, however, some news media outlets failed to include the remarks, painting an incomplete picture of the exchange that led to some incomplete conclusions.
Harris’ next question was if Pompeo believed that climate change is caused by human actions. Citing a NASA report that pointed to a 97 per cent consensus rate among scientists on this matter, she asked if he doubted NASA’s own findings, and thereby the consensus. Pompeo ducked the question, replying that he wasn’t familiar with the report and therefore couldn’t comment specifically on it. His body language and tone, however, suggested the answer was a resolute ‘no’. His ties to oil industry barons like the Koch brothers – whose company has donated over $350,000 to Pompeo’s campaigns – would suggest likewise.
Perhaps we shouldn’t care what Pompeo thinks about the causes of climate change. So long as he isn’t denying its occurrence his acknowledgement of climate change’s driving mechanisms doesn’t seem that important. He is not in charge of energy policy, the EPA, or any other government department where the causal factors behind climate change are important. In one sense, it doesn’t matter if he thinks it’s human actions, natural factors, or acts of God causing climate change. So long as he responds appropriately in his new role, then all is good, right? Perhaps not.
There is an argument here about what his refusal represents. Driven by what are presumably political or ideological reasons, he is ignoring an evidence-based consensus on a globally significant issue with profound implications for our species and planet. I can understand why some might find this an alarming behaviour from a CIA director-to-be. If he is willing to ignore evidence to push a given agenda here, is he perhaps willing to do the same thing elsewhere? It’s a fair question, and a fair reason to have concerns. This is particularly relevant given the recent history of US intelligence agencies ignoring evidence on the Iraqi WMD programs, to push the Bush administration’s foreign policy agenda. With that as a backdrop, Senator Harris’ second question becomes frighteningly relevant.
Ignoring that perspective – and the CIA’s track record – Fox News commentators took turns ridiculing Harris for broaching the subject of climate change. It was labelled a ‘dumb question’ on Outnumbered by Rachel Campos-Duffy, a woman who also serves as the spokesperson for The Libre Initiative, a Koch-funded organisation comporting itself as a grassroots movement. Erich Bolling, co-host of The Five, claimed Kamela’s questions were ‘ridiculous’, and that the CIA’s job was to ‘gather intel on bad guys, not the weather.’ Co-host of Fox & Friends Steve Doocy wondered if Harris ‘thinks the C in CIA stands for climate,’ perhaps, ‘but it doesn’t. It stands for Central.’
Clearly, there are elements within Fox that remain unaware of what the CIA has been doing and saying about climate change these last decades, or choose to ignore these facts to push agendas. Unfortunately, one can see in comments on social media and beyond that people are willing to adopt Fox’s perspective on this issue unquestioningly, most likely without realising this contradicts the CIA itself. Such an outcome is as perverse as it is disappointing.
Meanwhile, the UK government has been accused of burying a five-yearly assessment that identifies climate change as a serious domestic risk to food security. As the adage goes, a country is only three skipped meals away from revolution. What the UK shows us is that not only do we need leaders like Brennan who recognise the importance of climate change, but we need ones who are brave enough to communicate the risks its poses, as he did, no matter how politically charged or unpalatable they may seem.
Comments Off on A Budget with Nothing to be Excited About
This is a Budget which is at great pains not be heinously awful. And in that, it succeeds.
In the recent past we’ve seen how a Liberal Budget can be a horror show of dramatic cuts, ideologically motivated maneuvers and blatantly awful policies.
That was then, this is now.
This time around, unlike 2014, we’ve been given something a lot more subtle. There’s more nuance here. But it’s not all rosy and wonderful – it’s a thinly veiled plea for political survival which puts its burden on young people. Malcolm Turnbull needs this Budget to go well if he’s to cling on as prime minister.
This is all fairly academic to students. The Liberals have never been concerned with what students think of their policies – they are seen as voters who will never be won over anyway, so why bother catering to what they think? Never mind that young people are the future.
So a fairly moderate increase to student fees is the firm policy replacement to the alarming plans of the Abbott-era to fully deregulate university fees and the uncertainty which followed when that faltered in the Senate.
Most students will be able to cope with the changes to fee increases. Decreasing the salary threshold to $42,000 to push for payback will sting. Someone earning $42,000 a year takes home about $600 a week after tax, and eating into to this any further by making low-income earners pay back their student loans is unfair.
But the most troubling thing is the rhetoric the federal government uses to talk about higher education.
‘In higher education, we are launching a fairer system, with students asked to pay a bit more for their own education costs. However, taxpayers will continue to subsidise more than half the cost of each and every student’s higher education.
‘A 2.5 per cent efficiency dividend will be applied to universities for the next two years to to ensure taxpayers and students get better value for their investments,’ the treasurer, Scott Morrison, said in his Budget speech.
What nerve.
To portray education as a financial investment, nothing more than a business decision and transaction is deeply worrying. Of course, education is an investment: in the future, in young people. But it should never be reduced to solely economic terms.
Education costs money. Its return is qualitatively more than dollars can ever record on the Budget bottom line.
Student protesters have described the proposals this week as ‘fee deregulation by stealth’. While the current model is not nearly as hideous as full fee deregulation, its motivations come from the same place: a blatant disregard for the transformative and positive power of spending on education.
There is an ideological war being waged on young people. Potential drug testing for youth allowance recipients, increases to university fees, no real action on housing affordability other than measures which economists are already musing will simply push prices further out of our reach. There is scant here, as a young person, to be excited about.
The government ought to be commended on their measures to give regional students a chance to pursue a tertiary education. But there is more to be done. Sadly this Budget lacks the long-term vision that would be required to achieve it.
Once again young people are collateral in the political scheme of a government vying for survival, internally and electorally. This is a Budget more in line with the appearance of Old Malcolm Turnbull: operating from the Centre.
But if Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership has taught us anything, it’s that a politician’s appearance has no bearing on how they will actually behave.
Elections signal new hope. This is the beauty of democracy; power can be easily transferred from one party to the other, and mature democracies like Australia and the United States are perfect examples. The electorate can show support for an incumbent through a vote of confidence or to voice discontent through voting for the opposition. Albeit within a short history of democracy, for South Koreans, this presidential election could be the turning point in Korean politics.
With the first female President of Korea, Park Geun-Hye, being impeached on 10 March, the presidential election took place on 9 May. The title of ‘first female president’ was a signal of hope, progress and gender equality in politics. That hope has been shattered with the corruption and the bureaucratic failure of Park’s administration.
Korean politics has traditionally been about regionalism between Honam and Yeongnam area. The former is liberal and progressive while the latter is staunchly conservative. Former president Park Geun-Hye and her father, Park Chung-hee, are from the Yeongnam area and naturally have the conservatives as the core of their supporters. However, with the strongman’s daughter falling out of politics in a disgraceful manner, it seems to have highlighted the fragility and superficiality of regional politics to the Korean electorate.
For example, the People’s Party is very strong in the Honam area, holding 23 out of 28 parliamentary seats. However, during the recent election the People Party’s presidential candidate, Ahn Cheol-soo, enjoyed support from the centre-right and conservatives. Such a phenomenon is eccentric because in the 2012 presidential elections, Ahn’s support base was largely young adults who are liberal. Perhaps it signals that Korean democracy is moving in a matured direction where it is no longer plagued by the regional rivalry, and the electorate now looks at the candidate’s’ abilities and policies. Or it could just have been conservatives’ attempts to prevent the more liberal Moon Jae-in of the Democratic Party from taking power. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that the impeachment of Park Geun-Hye signals the strength of democracy in Korea and the Korean people’s power.
President-elect Moon Jae-in being more liberal and progressive is expected to shake up South Korea’s foreign policy. Compared to the aggressive and hard-line approach against the North by the previous conservative government, Moon Jae-in is expected to take friendlier approach to Kim Jong Un and his regime, hoping to replicate the détente enjoyed in early 2000s between the liberal governments of Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun and Kim’s father, Kim Jong Il.
Similarly, Moon will be hoping to improve relations with neighbouring China, with the issue of controversial implementation of THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) to be tackled. Moon will also seek to re-negotiate the landmark agreement between South Korea and Japan regarding the wartime sex slaves also known as ‘comfort women’.
Moon Jae-in won the elections with 41.1 per cent of votes while runners-up Hong Jun-pyo and Ahn Cheol-soo received 24 and 21.4 per cent respectively. While one may argue that with 59 per cent of the electorate voting for another candidate Moon does not have the backing of the public, Moon had nearly 5.6 million more votes than Hong, the biggest margin in the history of democratic South Korea.
So far, Moon Jae-in’s first few days in the Blue House have been freshening and he seems to be living up to the expectations of the public – a recent survey shows that 83.8 per cent of the population feel Moon will do a good job. Another presidential election is finally over in South Korea. The electorate chose to voice its discontent with the conservative government through voting for Moon, resulting in his rise to presidency. Now it’s time for Moon to prove to the Korean electorate that they made the right decision in voting for him.
If you had been following Indonesian politics, then Ahok must have been like a real breath of fresh air.
Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, better known as ‘Ahok’, is the incumbent Governor of Jakarta. He is a peculiar figure in Indonesian politics, and he is outspoken and brash – two character traits you don’t expect from an Indonesian politician. What made him much more unorthodox was that he was a ‘double-minority’, being a Christian and Chinese.
After Joko Widodo became president in 2014, Ahok automatically became his replacement as governor of Jakarta. It quickly became apparent that he was good. He carried on Joko’s system of e-budgeting for the city’s budget, which made the budget transparent for all to see. He launched an app that allowed citizens to make reports to the public service, which was able to reduce red tape. He adopted a no-nonsense approach to Jakarta’s bureaucrats. Under him, Jakarta’s notorious floods dried quicker than before and its streets are cleaner than ever. He tore down the notorious Kalijodo red light district in Jakarta and replaced it with a public park complete with skateboard ramp. He enforced a rule which forbids street-hawkers from the National Monument complex in Jakarta, thus preventing the area from being congested and untidy.
You might think that after all of this, Ahok would be a popular man. But his abrasive personality and brutal honesty made him some powerful enemies. This included figures from Jakarta’s city council, which he stared down over the city’s budget. The fact that he was basically an independent politician certainly did not help either.
Despite this, it was clear that Ahok was the favourite in the 2017 Gubernatorial election. Polls have consistently rated him as the most popular candidate for the job. His enemies had nothing to criticise him for, aside from his impoliteness. This made me sure that he was going to win.
But fate threw a curveball. In late 2016, a video surfaced where he appeared to insult a certain part of the Islamic holy book, the Quran. This was the opportunity that his political enemies needed. It doesn’t matter to them that the video was edited. His opponent in the race stayed silent, to them this was a political boon to boost their trailing poll numbers. To the ultraconservative Muslims, he was now the consummate blasphemer, a political dajjal (antichrist). This resulted in a massive demonstration involving 250,000 people in Jakarta, self-titled the ‘peaceful action’ even though the rhetoric was certainly not. The following month saw political chaos which included the arrest of certain public figures for charges of conspiracy and the trial of Ahok for blasphemy, which is a crime under Indonesian law.
Ahok cried as he read his defence statement in the court. He denied any intention to blaspheme Islam. The prosecutors brought out witness after witness, although it quickly became apparent that none of their statements were credible. The court case dragged on throughout the election, as Ahok was facing an ever-growing challenge from his two rivals, Agus Yudhoyono and Anies Baswedan.
All came to a head in the first round of polling. Ahok won the first round easily, and I was encouraged that after all of this, he would triumph in the end. I thought that there was no way that Jakartans will not re-elect a man who is that good at his job.
It was dinner time as I opened my phone to check the news on 19 April. I nearly choked. The polls showed Ahok trailing. I couldn’t believe it. I held out hope that some late surge will deliver him to victory. But, at the end of the day, he lost. By nearly one million votes, no less.
I was completely aghast. Did Jakartans refuse a man who demonstrated such an ability and courage for no apparent reason other than his minority status and his ‘blasphemy’, for which he had repeatedly apologised?
I thought that Jakartans would rise above petty, sectarian politics to elect someone purely on the basis of the competency. I was truly disillusioned.
I was prepared to give up on my country altogether. For me, this was not about who gets to be governor. It was a battle for Indonesia’s soul. A test on whether we are truly the tolerant nation we said we are. In a time where populism swallows Europe, America has put a sexist incompetent in charge and Turkey is effectively killing their democracy, I thought Indonesia could show the world we can be better by rejecting sectarianism and intolerance. To rub it in, the court actually sent him to jail. Has his work counted for nothing in the end?
But, I realised that it was not for nothing. For me, and hopefully, for many young Indonesians, Ahok was a hero. He restored my faith in politics and made me believe once again that politics can be a vehicle for change. His bravery and tenacity showed me, and many Indonesians, how we can and must stand up against corruption and incompetence. I believe that future generations will look at Ahok, not as a foul-mouthed blasphemer but a martyr, a man way ahead of its time trying to change a nation that just wasn’t ready to accept him. He may be defeated now, but the ideas he stood up for has not.
That is why I cannot afford to give up. That is why any Indonesian who shared my dream of a free, democratic, progressive Indonesia cannot afford to give up. That is why people from every nation who are disillusioned by their respective countries politics must not give up. We are the next generation. If we give up, those who seek to ruin our country will win. We owe it to our heroes, political martyrs like Ahok, to not give up. We owe it to the future generations to not give up. To paraphrase the man himself:
If we are right, we shall remain bright. Because no darkness can hold back the light of dawn.
Comments Off on Immigration Changes: Necessary or Xenophobic?
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton’s recent announcement of several changes to the 457 visa scheme and the pathway to citizenship has sparked debate around the country. The Government claims that the proposed changes promote jobs for Australians and ensure that people who want to become citizens are fully integrated into Australian society before they have the privilege of being an Australian. At the same time, some people also consider this as unfair policy that is fueled by a rise in xenophobia. Has a lot really changed, or has there been an overreaction in the media to spruik reactions and sell news?
The first change saw the government scrap the 457 visa and replace it with two additional visas. For those people who are not familiar with the 457 visa, it is a temporary work permit provided to foreigners who are sponsored by an Australian employer to come to Australia. The 457 visa is valid for four years, and under the previous conditions, holders could apply for permanent residence after two years.
The two new visas that will replace the 457 visa will vary in length. The first one will be valid for two years, and anyone with an occupation on the Short-term Skilled Occupation List (STSOL) can qualify. The second is valid for four years, and anyone with an occupation on the Medium and Long-term Strategic Skills List (MLTSSL) can qualify. Both of these occupation lists have been culled massively, with around 200 occupations being cut. These lists are also used for determining eligibility to apply for permanent residence visas.
Obviously, many people will be affected by these changes, and workers on 457 visas who dreamed of becoming Australian citizens will have to look at other options. However harsh these changes are on immigrants, however, they are necessary.
Several occupations previously on the skill lists should not have required foreign workers. A variety of unskilled jobs, such as blacksmiths, should go to Australians as it does not take a lot of time, money and resources to train people for low-skilled jobs. The current unemployment rate in Australia is around 5.8 per cent, so it makes no sense to bring in people from overseas to do these low-skilled jobs.
Many people believe that the culling of the skilled occupation lists has not been sufficient, however, and that it would be in the best interest of the country to slash even more occupations. For example, at a time when law graduates are struggling to find jobs after university due to market oversaturation, barristers and lawyers are still on the MLTSSL and STSOL. This means that international students in law can apply for permanent residence shortly after graduating.
It is obvious that certain skills necessary for the country need to be imported, otherwise economic growth would take a hit. IT professionals, doctors and certain types of engineers from overseas keep these industries alive and booming. It is in the best interest of the country to let people in occupations that are experiencing genuine shortages of domestic labour become permanent residents, but that should be the extent of it.
The other significant changes to the new immigration laws are the requirements for foreigners to become Australian citizens. Previously, an applicant had to live in Australia legally for four years, holding permanent residency for at least one of these years. The new amendments mean that foreigners will have to be permanent residents for four years before they will be eligible to apply for citizenship.
Migrants will also have to demonstrate integration within Australian society. The new citizenship test will ask migrants about their values to make sure they align with Australian values. They will also be obliged to sit a separate English test to ensure they have sufficient English language skills thrive in the Australian community.
Most of these changes are reasonable enough. It is the duty of migrants to integrate properly into society if they want to live and work in a foreign country, let alone become a citizen of the country. These changes will encourage migrants integrate into society better before they have the privilege of becoming Australian citizens.
However, the English test requirement seems somewhat redundant in some situations. Migrants on skilled permanent visas already had to take English language tests (such as the IELTS or TOEFL), and meet the stringent score requirements on the test in order to be eligible to apply for their permanent visas. Therefore, it seems unnecessary to subject them to another English test after they have already displayed competent English language skills.
Migrants on permanent humanitarian visas, however, should be subject to an English proficiency test. When refugees are granted permanent protection visas, they are not required to take an English test. If they want to become Australian citizens, they must be made to prove that their English language skills are good enough to allow them to be contributing members of the Australian community.
This is obviously a sensitive debate. Many people see the changes to Australia’s immigration policies as necessary in order to put Australians first, while others see it as a xenophobic ploy to win back supporters from far-right parties like One Nation. It is true that many aspiring Australian citizens will be affected, with many no longer being able to even qualify for a visa to work in the country. However, the Government’s duty is to serve its own people first, and if that means stricter immigration policies, the government has every right to do so. Overall, these changes will be of benefit to Australia, because they will ensure that new Australian citizens respect and practice Australian values, and are better integrated into society.
Warrandyte, Melbourne. A stone war memorial rests amongst native flora. On the eve of Anzac Day, 2017, residents discovered that the shrine had been defaced with one explicit message: ‘war is hell’. The graffiti was a protest. It attempted to subvert the prevailing notion that Australia’s national identity was born through a display of sacrifice, heroism and mateship on the shores of Gallipoli in 1915.
At an institutional level, recent debates surrounding the place of the Frontier Wars in Australian military history have prompted the Australian War Memorial (AWM) to shift its interpretative remit. In this case, grassroots movements have largely orchestrated the renegotiation. On Anzac Day, this year, protesters from the Aboriginal Tent Embassy attempted to recast the traditional narrative with a more nuanced understanding of a past that began long before 1915. Observing the interaction between these two competing narratives is one prism through which to comprehend the changing nature of Anzac commemoration in contemporary Australia.
On Australia Day 2017, the Indigenous Australian hip-hop duo A.B Original saw their politically charged anthem ‘January 26’ ascend to number 16 on the Triple J Hottest 100 chart. The song’s success, on the very day it protested, revealed how contentious debates over the Frontier Wars have risen to prominence within public discourse. In recent times, Australian historians have frequently described the relations between colonial settlers and Indigenous nations as a state of war. Many of these historians have called upon the AWM to recognise the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who died defending their lands against colonial invasion between 1788 and 1928. Media outlets, too, have increasingly urged the AWM to formally recognise the Frontier Wars by way of a permanent gallery.
Within the colonial galleries of the AWM, frontier conflict receives a cursory overview. Most recently, the Memorial has opened the temporary exhibition, For Country, For Nation. As described by the AWM, this exhibition seeks to portray the ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experience’ during ‘wartime and peace’. Notably, the Frontier Wars are frequently and overtly referenced throughout the exhibition. Permanently positioned outside this exhibition is Rover Thomas’ painting, Ruby Plains Massacre 1. In this painting, Thomas depicts the aftermath of an Aboriginal massacre perpetrated by a station-owner in the Kimberleys, Western Australia. These installations directly acknowledge frontier conflict.
When asked in a personal email, Dr Brendan Nelson, the director of the AWM, stated that the acquisition of Rover Thomas’ painting is to directly recognise the ‘Aboriginal perspective of colonial violence and dispossession’ that occurred during the Frontier Wars. Interestingly, this particular focus has only been recently adopted. In fact, when questioned on the inclusion of the Frontier Wars, in 2013, Nelson stated that ‘the Australian War Memorial is not in my very strong view the institution to tell that story’. It seems that the AWM’s interpretative approach is caught between two competing historical narratives – the progressive perspective of frontier conflict and the existing narrative.
Information from memorial staff sheds light on this tension. When asked in person, Chris Wagner, head of marketing and communications at the AWM, admitted that the identity of the institution is in a ‘transitioning phase’ amongst a changing political and military landscape. In Wagner’s eyes, the Memorial recognises frontier conflict only insofar as it provides the ‘social context’ for Indigenous servicepeople ‘who continued to sign up and fight within living memory of this tragic and awful time when massacres occurred’. Outside of providing this context, Wagner is ‘unsure’ if the AWM is suited to ‘tell the important story’ of the Frontier Wars.
These novel interpretative gestures illuminate the changing nature of Anzac commemoration. For one, it demonstrates that contentious cultural issues, which directly impact the fabric of national identity, are an impetus for a reinvention of the Anzac narrative. In 1979, historian Geoffrey Reynolds suggested in an internal report that the AWM would need to formally recognise the Frontier Wars within 10 years. Nearly 40 years on, the current state of affairs highlights a delay between the emergence of cultural contentions and a shift in interpretative practices. This suggests the current shift is not iconoclastic. In this respect, the AWM may be shackled to conservative roots and thus particularly resistant to change.
Of course, conservative commemorative influences are not insurmountable obstacles to formal recognition of the Frontier Wars. Despite being contained within the traditional narrative, these interpretative gestures directly allude to limitations with the conventional Anzac narrative. By operating on the border of critique and reverence, the institution is attempting to forge a new interpretation of the Anzac narrative that operates outside the purview of contentious issues yet can be understood in traditional terms. This attempts to avoid contentions altogether. Arguably, this particular shift suggests that reformist voices are remoulding the institutional narrative by wedging progressive ideas into conservative frameworks. It might equally indicate that conservative forces are resisting a total redefinition of the Anzac narrative.
***
Saul Alinsky’s renowned handbook Rules for Radicals declares that ‘no politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough’. On Anzac Day 2017, a grassroots protest channelled Alinsky’s advice by attempting to recast the conventional Anzac narrative in the terms of a deeper past. For the first time, Indigenous servicepeople lead the official marches. As this occurred, however, counter-marchers from the Aboriginal Tent Embassy unofficially conjoined themselves to the formal commemorations.
Smoke erupts from a simmering campfire at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Before the march embarked, a group of protestors, huddled around this fire, engage in vigorous political debate. From the discussion, I became aware that each individual viewed Anzac commemoration through a unique lens.
One hour later, as the march commenced amidst the patter of rain on Anzac Parade, these individual perspectives were welded into a united entity. The unity was solidified by an imposing banner that proclaimed the overarching message of the protest – ‘Lest We Forget: The Frontier Wars’. The physical formation of the group was further cemented by seven long banners which collectively listed every known massacre committed against Indigenous Australians during the Frontier Wars. Three wreaths, carried at the front of the formation, paid direct homage to Indigenous people slain in defence of their land.
***
Liaising with police whilst coordinating the march stands the eminent Aboriginal leader, Michael Ghillar Anderson, who envisaged and organised the first counter-march five years ago. From his perspective, the protest sought to initiate change by drawing attention to the ‘killings perpetrated by colonial settlers’. When questioned, Anderson noted that the Memorial is circumspectly incorporating frontier conflict into its interpretative practices because ‘there are serious legal and political implications that flow from recognising what really happened in this country’. Still, he believes that interpretative shifts within the institutional narrative can be augmented by grassroots movements.
Rather than entirely subverting the dominant interpretation, the protesters sought to realign the trajectory of contemporary commemorative culture by redefining the Anzac narrative. To achieve this, the protesters followed the last group of official marchers headed towards the AWM. They passed spectators who had gathered to recognise the overseas service of military servicepeople. Consequently, the list of massacres was conspicuously injected into the formal realm of official Anzac commemoration. Some spectators clapped in veneration. Others looked upon silently. Regardless, every spectator was made cognisant of the competing Anzac narrative. No protestor spoke a word. Looking around, I saw each individual was caught in a moment of reflection. The ambience of the protest was as solemn as the official commemorations.
Upon reaching the summit of Anzac Parade, the marchers were obstructed by a blockade of police. They were denied entry into the pantheon of national heroes. As the formal proceedings continued, the protestors from the Aboriginal Tent Embassy peacefully stood at the border dividing the institutional and grassroots narratives. When the Anzac Day ceremonies concluded, the general public were invited to lay wreaths. On behalf of the counter-marchers, Michael Anderson, amongst others, placed the memories of fallen Indigenous peoples onto the shrine outside the AWM. In this small and powerful gesture, the recognition of frontier conflict had pierced institutional barriers and breached an intensely public space.
The interaction between the two competing narratives demonstrates that grassroots movements can apply external pressure to the institutional narrative. Still, the AWM holds the principal power to enact shifts in Anzac commemoration. In this way, grassroots forces remain vital in setting the terms in which institutional interpretation is contained. At some point, the incremental achievements of grassroots protests will culminate, and subsequently prompt, a watershed moment that will realign the trajectory of the institutional narrative. Only then will the Memorial provide the recognition of the Frontier Wars that is so profoundly overdue.
I am indebted to the ANU School of History for the continuing support and intellectual inspiration.
I could write about Donald Trump until I’m orange in the face. Donald Trump is basically the poster boy for a china-shop-bull high on masculinity: he’s impulsive, irrational, aggressive, et cetera, et cetera. In spite of this, he claims his ‘strongest asset … is [his] temperament.’ Whatever you think of Hillary Clinton’s decision-making, you’ve got to concede that her temperament is steely. And yet somehow some ardent Trump supporters think that her menstrual cycle (yes, actually) could lead America to war.
You can point out the irrationalities there forever. You can use Trump as the perfect example of a ‘boys will be boys’ culture. You could also, rather defensibly, argue that it’s disingenuous to use Trump and his supporters as representative of men generally and say that Hillary Clinton is probably more measured and level-headed than most women, by virtue of being one hundred per cent steel. But masculinity in politics is not specifically or exclusively about men, and nor is the corollary telling the whole story.
Political careers and movements can skyrocket or plummet on the basis of perceptions. Prominent leaders in modern politics don’t fall sharply along absolute lines of masculinity and femininity. But the ‘masculine’ bundle of traits often sit more comfortably on the shoulders of a man and can contribute to boosting male careers more easily.
Masculine supremacy – either explicit or implicit – is far from new. One of the oldest works of fiction, the Iliad, told a story about the unusually strong woman Andromache, whose name derives from the words for ‘man’ and ‘battle’. The origins of masculinity are pretty clear: men were the warriors, the hunters, and typically have a biological advantage for physical strength (notwithstanding the social stigmatisation of muscular women). As the former absolute rulers of most societies, the ideals of decisiveness and boldness fit within that framework.
But, as even Emma Watson realises, masculinity is restrictive and destructive for people of all genders. In Trump’s case, it acted permissively to excuse his litany of alleged criminal behaviours and bullying tendencies – enough for him to be palatable to enough of the country to be elected. Clinton’s biggest strengths were also her weaknesses, as she struggled to legitimately lay claim to the stern and measured temperament usually the domain of man.
But I said I wouldn’t talk about Trump too much, so let’s pop across the pond to Europe. Marine Le Pen, everyone’s favourite new (and now vanquished) existential threat to the political ruling class, sat at an interesting crossroads. She had to repair the Front’s national public image, reining in the more extreme elements which exist as unhelpful hate channels. That kind of conciliatory move can in part be traced to her portrayal as the bearer of her father’s torch. She continued his tradition of strength and boldness, but with refinement over time and gender.
Le Pen painted herself as a figure like Jeanne d’Arc, the historic French heroine famed for her military achievements and unshakeable fortitude. Despite being symbolic for the Front National more broadly, Le Pen referenced d’Arc in defending her own dark-toned wardrobe. In a phenomenon similarly witnessed with Julia Gillard, we saw Le Pen subject to questioning on her hair colour, reputation as a party girl, and being a woman who had lost weight to increase her appeal. While people may pose the question of whether these same things would be asked of a man, there is little doubt they wouldn’t be, and no doubt that if they were, the weight given to them would be far reduced. Le Pen’s interaction with political masculinity is a bit of a mixed bag. She enjoys a limited amount of the implicit strength of character that comes with the image of being the successor to both her strong father and a steely national heroine, while also being freed from some of the more onerous elements of maintaining the visage.
Julia Gillard was also affected by political masculinity, and clearly suffered hugely from misogyny – if you’re going to question that I don’t think there’s much I can do to win you over. The continual implicit and explicit sexist attacks she received damaged her electability in spite of her prodigious parliamentary efficiency. It degraded her perceived ability to wrangle her party and her government, as well as the free trustworthiness bona fides you get for being a male prime minister.
That is not to say that men are only held to account for parts of their character that aren’t referable to masculinity.
Trump had question marks raised about his figure, but never had to seriously grapple with them, despite his medical obesity. Bill Shorten, on the other hand, seems like he has a harder time shaking questions about his weight. The media often seems to deride him while he tries to get in shape by devoting full segments to his ‘man boobs’. Putting aside any political opinions, there’s just something that seems more stable about Turnbull, isn’t there? Malcolm has the money, he always stands up straight, and he emphasises his points with a clenched fist. Bill Shorten goes in for snarky ‘zingers’, was subjected to mocking on pretty classist terms when he copped the ‘sycophant’ roast, and consistently struggles to portray himself in the same cool, calm and collected way.
It’s comparing two men, but there are gendered undertones. The strength and success of one make him seem far more likeable and trustworthy than the social climbing guy with man-boobs. Clearly, there are many biases playing into this, but Malcolm Turnbull sits far more easily into the idealised conception of masculinity.
It’s a hugely complex concept to unravel and speaks to why confrontation of it is so hard and rare. It’s not often that any particular observation about human behaviour can ever be absolutely true. Masculinity is no exception, as is clear from examining many of our leaders. It seems like, as a general rule, traits typically associated with masculinity tend to be traits that will lead to success in politics. The perception and assumption of these traits vest themselves more immediately in our male leaders, and have to be acquired by sacrifice and hard work by women, who enjoy them to a lesser extent.
Masculinity manifests in varied ways: it is more a collection of characteristics than any single or monolithic trait. So often in politics, masculinity is a collection of a series of assumed positives, and freely excused character flaws for men. Meanwhile, everyone else has to fight to prove anything of themselves, and those flaws seem to be assumed at the drop of a hat, or perhaps even an email.
Comments Off on How Will the Federal Budget Affect ANU Students?
The Federal Government’s Budget for the coming financial year was made public to the nation last night. Although few students were present in the room to receive it, this budget features multiple changes to policy that will directly affect the lives of Australian students and young people. But how? Is this budget to be feared, reviled or welcomed? We invited four student pundits to tell us what to expect from the changes on our horizon.
Getting Less For More
Robyn Lewis, ANUSA Education Officer 2017
The 2017 – 18 budget is one that seeks to divide and pit parts of society against each other. Those who need government services are being forced to compete with the next generation, homeowners and businesses. With this sort of framing, Scott Morrison has once again demonstrated his commitment to helping big business and those already well off, while leaving average people, not to mention the most vulnerable, behind.
It doesn’t have to be this way. It is the role of government to look after and protect all its citizens, as well as the future of the country. In a wealthy country like Australia, that’s not a lofty aspiration but a very achievable goal … if the government wanted to do so. We could fund healthcare, welfare and education properly. This, however, was far from what the Treasurer announced last night.
So what does this budget mean for university students? Simply that we will be paying more for less. The efficiency dividend is a 2.5 per cent cut that will almost certainly be taken straight out of teaching. This means less staff, and more casualisation with fewer hours paid to those teaching. For students, this means that you’re going to have academics who care less about your subject, are overworked, and who are not paid enough to be able to mark your work in a considered fashion, to respond to your emails or go beyond the lectures to enhance your learning. It also means we are likely to see more courses culled – ANU has already seen deep cuts to music and the humanities, and this budget means more are likely to follow.
The increase in course fees by 7.5 per cent means, if you’re a domestic student, your degree could end up costing up to $75,000. This is a stepping stone to deregulation and will increase the amount you’re paying by thousands of dollars, for a degree with fewer options and worse teaching quality. A Guardian poll this week showed that around half of Australians oppose tuition fees whatsoever, and certainly higher education in other countries is moving increasingly towards lower fees for students. It seems bizarre that policy in Australia is regressing when we could fund universities and invest in the future of the country properly if we simply, I don’t know, made corporations pay proper tax.
So what will you do after you’ve paid more for a degree that has a lower quality? Well, you’re going to have to start paying back your HECS a lot sooner. You will now have to start paying back your debt once you earn $42,000 a year, which goes against the very philosophy of HECS, whether you believe in it or not. HECS debt is intended to allow you only to begin repaying your fees when you have started to gain some of the value of your degree. $42,000 is not far above the minimum wage, meaning graduates will not have realised any of the value of their degree in higher earnings whatsoever, and will be paying off a degree that has not benefitted them in the job market yet.
Ultimately, these measures come on the heels of the Government having to drop the zombie-cuts from 2014 that were never going to pass the Senate, including the flagship fee deregulation measure. Morrison has tried to sell a more palatable package to the Australian public, but this budget is still terrible for students, terrible for young people, and once again, it’s time to fight back.
ANUSA in conjunction with the NUS will be holding a National Day of Action in Union Court at 12.30pm on Wednesday, 17 May.
A Good Budget for Students Begs the Question: At What Point is Fair Unaffordable?
Robert Bower is a member of the Liberal Party
Whilst complaints are inevitable, the Budget handed down last night was good for students, and good for the future of Australia. The government is set to return the budget to surplus: they are on track to ensure that from the 2018 – 19 financial year, all government spending will be funded by government revenue. At the same time, the government has taken steps to ensure that this has not come at a cost of equity, taking measured but achievable steps to act on youth unemployment, housing affordability, health care, and the intergenerational debt bomb. It begs the question, what more can be realistically expected under the current policy settings? This is a good budget for students and young people: the government is securing tax relief for small to medium business, which will free up budgets to invest in new capital and employ staff for more hours. This is matched by increased funding for 300,000 VET and apprenticeship places, which, along with the PaTH program from last year’s Budget, should go a long way to upskilling young people and addressing youth unemployment levels. Medicare funding is to be enshrined in legislation, only to be spent on Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The eternal question of the NDIS funding has been solved by a modest increase to the Medicare levy. The Future Fund has similarly been legislatively secured from being pillaged for pork barrelling. Attractive super schemes for first home buyers and retirees will make it easier to save for a deposit, and increase housing stock. Infrastructure spending will ensure the benefits of Australia’s economic growth are shared broadly across the country. Yes, university fees will go up. Yet the Cro-Magnon bleatings of the NUS and Labor will not change the fact that the proposed changes are modest. The increase is a small percentage of the overall cost of a degree and comes at no additional up-front cost. If that weren’t enough, the lower repayment threshold is accompanied by a lower repayment rate. Since the uncapping of university places in 2010, universities have seen enrolment skyrocket by as much as 68 per cent. Yet the funding mechanism has stayed the same, meaning education costs to the taxpayer are skyrocketing alongside enrolments. There are finite tax receipts to go around, yet the Left would have us believe that the funding mechanism for university can stay the same with no impact to other services. This is a too-cute line that readers should treat with scepticism. No policy occurs in a vacuum and cries for more funding ignore the reality. As a Liberal supporter, I can say many of us see the reliance on increased taxes to maintain extensive social spending is less than ideal. As the US and the UK are seeking to reduce taxes, Australia is increasing an already high tax burden: should all the budget measures pass, Australia will be taxing the highest and spending the biggest it has in 10 years. At the same time Australian national debt has passed $500 billion for the first time in history. Household debt has reached 180 per cent of household income, leaving the economy highly shock prone. Despite opposition to budget savings across the past four years, by 2064, the debt burden of each Australian tax payer is still projected to be $64,000 per person. Is that fair? Modest pain now to save future generations being in hock to international lending agencies? For those who want more, where do they expect the money to come from? Where does it end? Internationally imposed austerity will be less obliging than Coalition governments.
No Surprises from a Liberal Budget
Katrina Millner, ACT Greens
A $3.8 billion cut to funding for universities is the key take away for students from this budget. The second affront to students comes in the Government’s failure to deal with housing and rent affordability. While there is no funding to target climate change – one of the biggest challenges to young people’s future wellbeing and cost of living – somehow there is still money to fund fracking. The budget announced on Tuesday night presented a rather poor future for students, but are we really surprised?
In a world where the cost of living is already high, and the cost of housing is even higher, the proposed changes to HECS will further burden students’ lives. Although we will not be hit with these costs up front, in the long run we are worse off. Our student debts will be higher and we will be paying them off earlier. The ABC recently published a detailed cost analysis of how these HECS changes will affect us. At an annual income of $42,000, we will be required to begin to repay our HECS debts. Calculating necessary deductions of tax, the Medicare levy and your HECS contribution, we are left with an income of $683 a week. To many students, this may still seem like a more than adequate income – but it quickly dwindles when the needs to pay rent, save for a house, and support a partner or young family are taken into consideration.
Furthermore, the Government’s so-called solution to housing affordability is a joke. Their plan is to allow people to save money through their superannuation funds, therefore lessening tax on those savings. While this is a welcome measure to help students save for a deposit, it goes no way to targeting the problem. Once again the Liberal government has refused to target negative gearing and capital gains taxes, and ignores the impact they have on housing and rent affordability in Australia. The cost of studying and renting is already high, and last night’s budget didn’t provide much to help with that.
Education is the key to a successful workforce and is fundamental in breaking cycles of poverty. That is why education is a right, not a privilege. We should be making it cheaper to access, and more affordable to survive whilst you are accessing it. The Government has again failed to recognise the need to support everyone who wishes to further their skills. We cannot leave students behind because of so-called crisis budget deficits, or accept high costs with no returns. Education is the future of the country, and unless we wish to fall behind, we have to make tertiary studies accessible to all. However, last night was an example of Liberals balancing their budget on the backs of students.
Climate change is another topic high on many young people’s priorities, given its devastating potential to alter our futures. But who needs to fund that anyway? It didn’t even rate a mention in this Budget, though given our sitting Liberal government that isn’t shocking. We all want a future we can live in, and that’s not what was given to us in this year’s Budget.
In a society where it is getting more and more expensive for students to survive, this Budget doesn’t give us high hopes, but I’m not surprised.
Stand up, Fight Back
Freya Willis, ANU Labor Left
Another year, another set of cuts to the higher education sector. This has become the new normal under the Liberal government. Under this year’s Budget, students will be paying more back, sooner and for less.
The HECS debt repayment threshold has been lowered to $42,000. That is nearly half of the median household income and only $8,000 more than the annual salary of someone working on the minimum wage. The student contribution is planned to increase by, on average, $3,600.
There is a clear message being sent here: The Liberals do not value education. They are increasingly pushing the cost of university back onto students. These changes to the HECS system form a slippery slope. How poor is too poor to have to pay back your HECS debt? Continual cuts – no matter how small the government claims they are – places more financial stress on lower earning graduates, and discourages students from pursuing tertiary education in the first place.
This policy is extremely short-sighted. It ignores the fact that the higher education, and a skilled and educated workforce, is the key to growing the economy, to innovation and to productivity.
This attack on students cannot be looked at in isolation either. It comes on the back of cuts to penalty rates, as well as systemic problems with Centrelink and fake debt notices. All of which make it harder for students to pay their way through university and cause massive financial stress.
And while students are paying more, the government are paying less.
They have proposed a two – three per cent ‘efficiency dividend’, let’s cut the bullshit – an efficiency divided is another word for a funding cut. What is unclear, however, is where exactly these ‘efficiency’ savings can be made. Is it by transferring more teaching online? It is by cutting student services? Is it by cutting courses like we have already seen happen in ANU’s School of Culture, History and Language? Is it moving to the trimester system, a change which has already occurred at many other Universities?
The government’s justification for this is that, via a combination of fees and government funding, universities already have enough money to cover the cost of teaching for most degrees, plus a little bit extra. But if university funding only covers operational costs, then innovation stagnates, student services can’t grow their capacity as student numbers increase, class sizes continue to get larger and infrastructure redevelopment is limited. The quality of our universities, and their global competitiveness, is compromised.
Next, they tell us that this is just a temporary measure, a necessary evil while the budget is pinched. Interestingly, the Liberals seem to have found room in the budget for a $50bn corporate tax cut. They seem to have found room to repeal the deficit levy, giving more money back to those who earn over $180,000 per annum.
So yes, the Budget is tight. But only if you are a student.
Tanya Ma is studying a Bachelor of Politics, Philosophy and Economics/Bachelor of Laws (Honours), and is passionate about human rights.
Far-right right populist politics is gaining ground throughout many areas of Europe. In recent years, the National Front in France, PVV in the Netherlands, True Finns in Finland as well as their far-right party equivalents in Austria, Switzerland and Denmark have also secured increasing supporter numbers in polling and election data. Following the recent successes of the Brexit vote and Trump’s election as President of the US, we can see right-wing populist ideals as not only rising within our national communities but succeeding within politics to affect change in domestic policy.
Broadly speaking, populist parties have strategically gained success through linking policy to two key ideologies – ethnonationalism and xenophobia manifested in anti-immigration sentiments. The ethnonationalist message generally puts forward the idea that the rights of the nation transcend those of the individual. As a result, it is common for the rights of the population to be compromised, in favour of what appears to the far-right leaders, as overall benefits for the nation. This can lead to policies that afford ethnic citizens special treatment by discriminating against immigrants and citizens of a different ethnic origin.
The ethnonationalist political strategy bolsters the image of multinational corporations and immigration as obstacles to the nation’s progress. For example, the Front National’s campaign for closed nationalism rests on the conception that political, economic and cultural openness is a threat to essence of French national identity. The party advocates for a notion of ‘national preference’ alongside a campaign slogan of putting the ‘French first’. This would bring about policies giving preference to ethnically French citizens in the labour market, welfare grants, healthcare as well as other public services. Thus, both immigrants and citizens with non-French ethnic origin would be excluded from certain benefits and services offered by the state.
Another strategy underpinning the successes of far-right parties in elections has been through demonising non-ethnic groups as the cause of national problems in the form of xenophobic statements and anti-immigration appeals. Four common approaches for framing immigrants as problems by populist candidates have shown to be largely effective. The first has been to establish immigrants as a threat to ethnonational identity. This has been successful for Le Pen in France with the increasing support for the jus sanguinis in smaller towns – a principle that only those born to French parents should obtain French citizenship.
The second is to frame unemployment as the result of too many immigrants coming into the country. The significant increase in immigration to Italy from African and Asian countries, along with several northern Italian regions offering employment opportunities to immigrants, has sparked fears within their local communities. In 1996, Lega Nord was able to successfully capitalise on this issue through openly xenophobic propaganda to increase their electoral base in lower class groups worried about competition from immigrants who were willing to work without union protection and lower pay. Data collected from election polls, including those from the recent Dutch parliamentary elections, also show large numbers of the unemployed voting for PVV.
The third strategy is to pose immigration as a major cause of criminal activity and insecurity. This has fuelled many radical-right anti-Muslim political campaigns around the world. In 1993, SVP/UDC in Switzerland launched a referendum on ‘illegal immigration’ and used crime statistics to emphasise the dangers of multiculturalism through eliciting concepts of the ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. This is a popular argument amongst right-wing candidates for stricter immigration control.
Lastly, many extreme-right parties also politicise immigration as a national problem through characterisation of immigrants as abusing the welfare systems of established state democracies. The common argument is that while working citizens are earning a living through hard labour, their income is being taxed to immigrants who are reaping national welfare benefits for a living. This has targeted many citizens of the middle working class to vote for populist far-right candidates in elections. Consequently, immigrants are strategically framed as a detriment to society regardless of whether they are employed or not working.
These ideological understandings of ethnonationalism and immigration are spreading throughout the politics around the globe. With the recent election of Trump as president of the US, we can see the actualisation of these ideologies in his trade, migration, health care and other policies. Two major policy reforms, in particular, reflect this policy shift predicted by the populist ideologies for political right extremism. Firstly, on 23 January, Trump successfully initiated an executive order to pull the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). America’s National Association of Manufacturers predicts large economic losses of having to close trade markets in Asia and eradicating good relations from years of exchange with foreign governments by rebuilding barriers. In spite of a looming collapse in global trade, Trump continues to push in the direction towards protectionist trade policies, with the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the prospective enforcement of a Trump tax reform plan.
The second major change in policy direction since the inauguration of Trump was the first platform to close US borders to immigrants enacted on 27 January. This executive order from the President was proclaimed to keep Islamic terrorists out of the US through denying individuals from Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Syria entry into US borders for 90 days and barred refugee entry for 120 days. By the next day, protests brewed at airports across the country, interpreting his order as a ‘Muslim ban’, whilst several hundreds of immigrants and refugee were stuck in a limbo situation. This policy largely aimed to block out immigration, once again paralleling directions for policy with far-right populist ideologies.
As the seeds of right-wing ideologies are slowly taking root in cities throughout Europe, where does this leave us, as global citizens of the international community? The rise of populism throughout state politics highlights the escalation of political discontent amongst citizens with their governing systems. It appears that the more state systems are receptive to multinational corporations and international organisations, the stronger populist rhetoric becomes by offering protection from globalisation movements and security of traditional values. It is important that we acknowledge that far-right parties are not only an opposition but in many cases, have become successful power-sharing participants in governments and policy making. Nevertheless, it is also paramount that we do not blame domestic security issues and shortfalls of the economy on an inclusive and diverse national identity when we become discontent with our political systems – the victims of this far-right spectre haunting Europe are the minority communities that already lack a political voice in our institutions.