Class warfare and the feral right

The Liberal and National Parties lost the last election because Peter Dutton was more off-putting than Scott Morrison. Dutton’s abrasive nature and Morrison’s aloof disposition painted them as unyielding figures, embodying a typical conservative image.

Since the election, Sussan Ley, the new Liberal leader, and David Littleproud, leader of the National Party, have each told their parties and supporters why they lost. They admitted they could no longer explain what they stood for and said this needed to change.

Since the election, there has been a lot of talk, but no one has mentioned changing the parties’ image. They keep criticising Labor as if nothing has changed. Ley especially seems unwilling to shift her party’s image from one of representing the wealthy, while Labor still stands for those with less. A recent poll from Redbridge, courtesy of “The Poll Bludger”, shows Labor at 34%, down one on the previous poll but still their best result in any poll since then. One Nation is up fully nine points to 26%, while the Coalition is down seven points to 19%, and the Greens are down two points to 11%. The increasingly speculative two-party preferred measure has Labor back in the territory of its landslide win last May with a lead of 56-44 over the former Coalition parties. According to a recent Guardian Essential poll, 55 per cent of voters believe Peter Dutton is out of touch with ordinary Australians, though even more believe this about

Anthony Albanese

Why do people feel the need to be so hostile in their thinking? Within conservative parties, reasoned debate and persuasion no longer seem sufficient.

I’ve always believed that before reviewing their policies or political tactics, they need to drop their elitist and conceited image. They never present policies before elections, believing that comes after one’s accession to power.

They should make changes now that reflect their true values going forward. Andrew Leigh has served as a Labor member of the Australian House of Representatives since 2010, first representing the seat of Fraser and then Fenner, according to Wikipedia. A concrete step towards this transformation could be implementing tax reforms to close loopholes for the wealthiest, thereby signalling a commitment to fairness. Additionally, setting donation limits for political campaigns would demonstrate a move towards greater transparency and reduce the influence of big money in politics. Expanding on these initiatives, adopting universal services such as publicly funded healthcare and education could further align the party’s actions with its values. Implementing a progressive wage policy that ensures fair pay aligned with living costs would be another step toward equitable economic improvement. Lastly, prioritizing housing justice initiatives aimed at addressing affordability and access issues would reflect a deep commitment to social welfare in practice.

With that in mind, here are some thoughts:

What is it in people’s backgrounds that leads to narcissism and an inability to accept difference or equality? Racism is one example.

Are inherited attitudes that cause racism? In the media, is it loyalty to powerful figures or simply acceptance of their place? Why do talkback hosts with hateful speech attract such large audiences, and why do people like Andrew Bolt, who twist the truth, have so many readers and viewers? The concentration of media ownership, with companies such as News Corp wielding significant control over the media landscape, fosters a unified editorial stance that can heavily influence public sentiment. For instance, News Corp accounts for approximately 70% of daily metropolitan newspaper circulation in Australia, underscoring its significant influence. However, it is crucial to differentiate between the structural forces at play and individual audience motives.

A report from the Australia Institute notes that the influence of major media companies over voter opinion has declined, suggesting that while provocative content may attract attention, media outlets are no longer as dominant in shaping political views as they once were. Why do these parties align with neoconservatism and nationalism, and let themselves be taken over by extremism? A vivid illustration of this paradox appears when contrasting a worker’s stagnant wages with CEOs’ skyrocketing pay, highlighting the deepening divide between the elite agenda and the grievances of everyday voters. Why do people who feel ignored believe right-wing leaders will help them, when those leaders mainly care about making money? The psychological allure for these voters often lies in the shared identity and perceived status gained from aligning with leaders who project strength and decisiveness. This identification can provide a sense of belonging and empowerment, even when the policies themselves offer little direct benefit.
Perhaps the answer lies in materialism. Or in an entitlement society. Maybe it’s those elements of Christianity who believe in a gospel of wealth. Do people believe it’s their individual right to take ownership of prosperity and cultural worth? Perhaps the deliberate assassination by the political and religious right of science has something to do with it.

Maybe it’s the death of truth as we know it.

In my lifetime, as society has grown wealthier, the left has definitely shifted to the centre-right, weakening its political philosophy. Maybe now that Labor holds the centre, they have nowhere else to go.

Maybe it’s the flood of right-wing propaganda in our media. This propaganda manifests in both overt rhetoric and subtle manipulation, shaping perceptions through repetition. Whatever the reason, the narrative is engineered to create division and fortify existing power structures. I’ll outline how this operates across different platforms, detailing its reach and impact. Consider the tactic of framing, where media selects certain aspects of a perceived reality to promote a particular interpretation; for instance, highlighting economic policies in a negative light to sway public sentiment. Repetition is also key, as it reinforces certain viewpoints by continually presenting them to the audience. Emotional triggers are skillfully embedded within messages, aiming to elicit strong reactions that align with the agenda being pushed. Why are they so aggressive about it? Let’s delve into the mechanisms behind this strategy and the motivations that drive it.

For the media, I think it’s the fear of losing relevance and profits. Social media and bloggers are now challenging their power and influence.

People say that, with pornography, it has to get more extreme over time to keep viewers interested. I’m no expert, but the point stands.

That’s exactly what mainstream media is doing. In trying to stay relevant, they’ve sold out. Now, they rely on lies and biased opinions. Many news outlets reportedly focused on sensational soundbites rather than substantive policy issues during the first televised debate of the last election cycle. However, according to ABC News, the first leaders’ debate of the 2022 federal election campaign between Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese was closely examined and fact-checked to ensure accurate reporting. During the debate coverage, ABC News focused on in-depth analysis and factual reporting, avoiding sensationalism and providing a more comprehensive understanding of the issues. This shift from factual reporting to sensationalism exemplifies the media’s pursuit of ratings over truth.

As for politicians, they’ve picked up the worst habits from American Republicanism, Trumpism, and the Tea Party. It’s loud, forceful, and crude, and always wants its own way.

An observation

Poverty is often perceived as the victim’s fault, while wealth is seen as a virtue upheld by the natural order of things. However, studies suggest that this belief is a misconception. For example, a longitudinal analysis of intergenerational mobility reveals that many individuals born into poverty remain stuck due to systemic barriers, rather than personal failings. Citing such data can provide a more substantial basis for understanding the complex dynamics of economic inequality.

This notion has recently been illustrated by government policy actions, such as significant welfare cuts alongside tax breaks for the affluent. These actions leave lower-income individuals more vulnerable, reinforcing the belief that wealth is a testament to character, while poverty merely reflects personal failings.

What I don’t understand is why people in the middle and lower classes think their lives will get better by electing leaders who care the least about them.

An observation

The purpose of propaganda is to make you feel good about the wrongs being perpetrated on you. This kind of messaging often taps into deep-seated fears and hopes, creating a powerful emotional hook. For instance, a headline like ‘Government Overreach Threatens Your Freedom’ plays on fear of losing personal liberties, while promising security against imagined threats. By framing the narrative as a defensive stance against external forces, propaganda effectively manipulates public sentiment, making citizens more accepting of controversial actions.

Whenever the left in Australia calls for fairness, equality, and equity, the right responds with claims of envy, class warfare, and jealousy.

But what exactly is this class warfare people keep mentioning? I always thought Australia had less class distinction than many other countries, at least on the surface. Still, we have a ‘them-and-us’ attitude. It describes the wealthy, who are privileged beyond reason, and then there’s the rest of us. To illustrate this divide with data, consider Australia’s Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality: a higher score indicates a larger gap between the rich and the poor. Additionally, Australia’s social mobility ranking further emphasises the challenge of moving beyond one’s economic class, reinforcing the entrenched ‘them-and-us’ mentality.

There are battlers who hope to become wealthy, though they know not everyone can. But if you are wealthy, you get better education, medical care, and access to the law.

According to The Guardian, superannuation concessions cost the Australian federal budget nearly $50 billion annually, and rental tax deductions – much of them due to negative gearing – have increased by over 50 per cent in the past three years. These financial advantages are typically more accessible to wealthier Australians. The phrase ‘Class Warfare’ has often been used by Fox News and Republican figures in the United States as a criticism of left-leaning policies. As with many things rooted in the worship of wealth and privilege, the Australian right takes the same negative stance. Fox News also talks about a ‘War on wealth’ to push the idea that everyone should want to be rich, even though not everyone can be.

Who is waging this so-called war? I don’t see the middle and lower classes up in arms over their treatment. But I do see the wealthy and the super-rich getting cranky every time there is a threat to their privilege. Or at the suggestion that they should contribute more to the public coffers. In fact, never in the history of this nation have the rich and the privileged been so openly brazen about their economic self-righteousness.

They are ably supported by the Murdoch press, who invariably perpetuate and use the phrase “Class Warfare” in a manner that suggests the lower and middle classes and particularly the Labor Party, are at war with the rich. But ask yourself who is doing all the complaining. It’s the wealthiest, it’s ”them”, not ”us”.

When, for the first time, Australian mining companies campaigned against the Rudd government, effectively telling them how much tax they were prepared to pay, they were playing the class warfare card. Such was the power of wealth that Gina Rinehart, Twiggy Forrest, and Clive Palmer got away with it. The fact that the minerals belong to all of us seemed unimportant to them. Not to mention the enormous taxpayer-funded subsidies they receive. They don’t seem to understand the concept of fairness. There is only ‘them’ and ‘us.’ The mining companies spent an estimated $22 million on an advertising blitz to oppose the mining tax, a figure that underscores the influence of wealth on political outcomes.

When Wayne Swan made his speech some years ago, encouraging an equitable share of the country’s wealth, he was accused of engaging in class warfare. Isn’t tax meant to be redistributed?

Even newspapers like the Herald Sun, which pitch to a general audience, pander to the rich without hesitation. Perhaps it’s because they are owned by one of the world’s wealthiest men. Ironic, isn’t it?

Let’s look at the GST, for example. It burdens the poor and those with the least capacity to pay. It discriminates against the poor and pensioners who live hand to mouth and spend the bulk of their income on necessities such as clothing, rent, heating, and power. To humanise these numbers, imagine a pensioner’s weekly receipts, primarily for essential goods and services, being disproportionately affected by GST compared to those of a top earner, whose spending might include luxuries that are less GST-intensive. The middle and lower classes pay more GST than the rich, but I don’t see them in open warfare because of it. Goodness, once the rich had to pay a 33% luxury tax on their BMWs. Now it’s 10%. This stands in stark contrast to a progressive consumption tax model, which imposes higher rates on luxury goods and reduces the burden on essential items. Such a model could ensure that those with greater financial means contribute more equitably by taxing non-essential spending at higher rates while easing the financial pressure on everyday necessities consumed by lower-income families.

Research on media commentary shows that the Murdoch press is the main source of this idea of class warfare. The Australian Financial Review ran 10 articles on it, the Daily Telegraph 21, and The Australian 77. Add in a few unhappy Labor insiders, and it’s clear who’s leading the charge.

When the wealthiest people have spent years avoiding taxes – sometimes paying none at all – and big corporations do the same, who’s really playing class warfare?

When anyone questions this behaviour, right-wing media call it an attack on the wealthy. ‘It’s class warfare,’ they shout.

However, at the time of Swan’s essay, the Coalition planned to cut the rebate for low-income earners (mainly women) and take away the school bonus subsidies, as the war became a one-sided impasse. And when Abbott’s 2014 Budget was universally condemned as the most unfair ever because it placed the burden of budget repair on the poor and middle class, the right had the audacity to call it class warfare on the rich.

To illustrate this irony more vividly, consider the contrasting measures introduced in the 2014 Budget. On the one hand, there were significant cuts aimed at low-income families and women, stripping them of essential rebates and subsidies. On the other hand, top-bracket earners enjoyed concessions that further widened the economic divide.

Here’s a before-and-after snapshot to highlight the disparity:

Cuts affecting low-income earners:

• Rebate reduction for low-income earners
• Elimination of school bonus subsidies

Top-bracket concessions:

• Continued tax breaks
• Introduction of favourable superannuation terms

Yes, the rich are in a class of their own. And their success is judged on the size and value of their assets. A poor measure by any standard.

Even when it’s suggested that equality of opportunity in education is a noble pursuit and the right of every child, people like Christopher Pyne said it was class warfare, and he ludicrously described the Gonski reforms as such. Mind you, he confessed he had never read the report.

When a person like Pyne suggests that the implementation of Gonski is practising class warfare, it’s easy to see who is actually practising it. Those elitist bastards, not us.

It seems the only ones fighting this war are the wealthy, who can afford it. Poor things. If they’re struggling that much, I almost feel like giving them 10% of my pension.

So this ‘Class War’ seems to be a fake one at best. Only one side is really fighting. It’s ‘them,’ not ‘us.’ And it’s tough to reason with people who think what’s theirs is theirs, and what’s yours is up for grabs.

Yet, recognizing this imbalance, we can collectively strive to create a more equitable society. It’s time to engage with representatives to demand more just policies and support initiatives that bridge these social divides. By coming together and voicing our concerns, we can work towards a future where shared values and mutual respect form the core of our communities. A practical first step could be writing to your local Member of Parliament to express your concerns about economic inequality and urge for reforms that promote fairness. Additionally, consider joining a local community forum or advocacy group working for social justice so your voice can contribute to meaningful dialogue and action.

For those looking to participate in organized efforts, consider campaigns focusing on living wage policies or advocating for climate justice, which intersect with economic inequality. Protests organised by environmental and social justice coalitions can offer a platform for collective expression, amplifying the demand for change. Digital activism, such as signing online petitions or using social media to spread awareness and engage others, can also play a significant role. Look into joining movements such as the Fight for $15 in wage campaigns, or becoming part of initiatives like Climate Strike, both of which emphasise systemic reforms. These actions, when multiplied across many participants, can lead to impactful change and foster solidarity in pursuing social justice.

When you think about all the taxpayer subsidies for mining companies, negative gearing, tax loopholes, and the wealthy who pay no tax at all, it’s no surprise the rich feel threatened. As more people realise that banks and big business are taking advantage of us, it’s clear that the rich are the ones fueling class warfare and growing inequality.

One thing’s for sure: when a conservative government and right-wing media talk about class warfare, they really mean, ‘They’re trying to take something from us that we deserve. It’s not fair.’ And don’t forget, Maggie told us the poor would be looked after by the rich’s trickle-down effect.

That’s never happened before, and it never will.

It seems to me that the right of politics knows it must change, but it knows not what to do. That is their dilemma. Instead of stagnating in this uncertainty, conservatives might consider adopting strategies from successful models, such as the Scandinavian approach. Emphasising social welfare without compromising economic growth could bridge divides. For instance, implementing universal childcare ensures that families have access to affordable early childhood education, supporting both economic participation and child development. Additionally, collective wage bargaining can lead to fairer wages and improved working conditions, contributing to a more equitable society. Inviting dialogue, learning from diverse governance models, and committing to equity could turn this dilemma into a vibrant discussion on future possibilities and mutual understanding.

Australian progressives could advocate for or adapt these international models by promoting specific policy initiatives. For example, they could work towards establishing universal childcare at a national level, similar to what Nordic countries offer, which would provide widespread economic and social benefits. Collective bargaining could be encouraged through legislative reforms that support workers’ rights to organise and negotiate better pay and conditions. Progressives might also focus on building alliances with local organisations to lobby for changes that align with successful international practices, making these adaptations both actionable and relevant to the Australian context.

My thought for the day

“Meritocracy” is a term used to imply that those at the top of the social scale have merit and a slur against those at the bottom. This narrative often justifies inequality by suggesting that social and economic positions are deserved, effectively masking systemic barriers that prevent equal opportunity. It shifts focus away from structural issues and maintains the status quo by blaming those who are less fortunate for their situation.

Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN

Dear Reader,

Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.

Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.

Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.

With gratitude, The AIMN Team