One of the recurring themes in my writing is simple:
I think, therefore I question.
Not because I assume wrongdoing, but because democracy depends on citizens being willing to observe, question and evaluate those who hold power and influence. That isn’t cynicism. It’s civic responsibility.
Yesterday I shared a Financial Review column about Pauline Hanson and Gina Rinehart meeting at an exclusive resort in Sicily.
My accompanying comment was hardly controversial:
“These two are becoming very chummy. And the sudden appearance of Hanson at the hotel, with rooms going for $2,000 a night, is curious.”
That was it.
It was curious because Senator Hanson was still on an overseas trip that had already raised questions about the use of parliamentary travel and expenses. Her presence at an exclusive resort in Sicily looked to be an unannounced detour before travelling on to meet Australia’s Ambassador to the Holy See, Keith Pitt. Nothing more than that—just curious.
Yet the reaction was extraordinary.
I was called a parasite, a communist and an enemy of Australia. I was accused of being a “white woman destroying the country”, a Labor lefty, a liar, a hypocrite, a smear merchant and, in one particularly vile comment, “a stupid shank.”
Not one of those insults addressed the point I had actually made.
Instead of discussing the meeting, many chose to attack the person who observed it.
That reaction tells us something important.
We have reached a point where, for some people, questioning those they support is considered an act of disloyalty. Political identity has become so tribal that even mild observations are treated as personal attacks. Evidence gives way to emotion. Loyalty replaces reason. Abuse replaces argument.
Ironically, some of the same people who demand adherence to Australian values seem quite comfortable abandoning the civility, respect and fairness that should underpin them. If this is what passes for our political culture, or even Australian culture, we are in serious trouble.
And that is a dangerous direction for any democracy.
I don’t care whether the subject is Anthony Albanese, Gina Rinehart, Pauline Hanson, Angus Taylor or anyone else. If someone occupies a position of power or influence, they should expect public scrutiny. The standard should never depend on whether they belong to “our side.”
I’ve written many times about whataboutism. It’s intriguing that some of the very people criticising Anthony Albanese over his relationship with Anthony Pratt were outraged when I made a similarly mild observation about Pauline Hanson and Gina Rinehart. They called me a hypocrite, but the label was directed at the wrong person. Consistency means applying the same standard regardless of whose side someone is on. Whataboutism and personal abuse are both ways of avoiding the actual question.
And it hasn’t dawned on some people that when someone deploys whataboutism (“Yeah, but what about the other side?”), they’re implicitly conceding that the original criticism has at least enough merit to warrant deflection. Otherwise, why deflect instead of defend?
At the same time, they’re often inviting scrutiny of their own side’s actions without even realising it. Not everyone who uses whataboutism appreciates that they’re weakening their own position.
I refuse to accept that this is how political debate should work.
Civilisation advances through curiosity. Democracy survives through scrutiny. Neither survives if citizens become afraid to ask reasonable questions because they fear being shouted down by the tribe.
So I’ll continue asking questions.
I’ll continue to comment on the observations I make.
I’ll continue weighing evidence.
And I’ll continue judging public figures by the same standard, regardless of whose supporters happen to be offended.
