By Steve Davies
My reasons for deciding to use the Liberal Party’s document as a case study are to:
- Demonstrate the speed and value of using AI in conjunction mechanisms of moral disengagement and moral engagement to carry out such analysis
- Show how easily the AI prompts can be added to increase the depth of analysis.
- Show case the quality and integrity of the analysis.
Please note the following:
- I am not affiliated with of or a member of any political party
- The AI prompts work with Deepseek and Grok. Like others I have found that DeepSeek has an edge due to the detail and comprehensiveness of its output. However, what needs be noted is that both platforms come to very similar conclusions. This is very good as it logically means the prompts will work on other platforms.
- In its document Priorities of a Dutton Coalition Government great importance is attached to government waste (Pages 38 and 39).
- In light of media reports such as these I decided to focus on that matter.
- “But the opposition leader suggested the full extent of the cuts wouldn’t be disclosed before the election, meaning voters would be in the dark when they cast their ballot.”…“We need to sit down and look through an ERC [expenditure review committee] process, which would be the normal course of things,” Dutton said on Sunday. “We’ll do that in government.” (The Guardian).
I decided to use the AI prompt below. Why? Because the document is a declared l manifesto.
The analyses, the assessment, provided by goes into great detail step by step. I’m not including that in this piece. Why? Because I want to focus the important addition to the prompt and keep this piece short.
“DeepSeek, evaluate the following political speech for signs of moral disengagement. Identify any use of euphemistic language, advantageous comparisons, or attribution of blame. Provide recommendations for how the speaker could reframe their message to promote moral engagement and accountability. In your conclusions please analyse the logic of this Australian Liberal Party speech. In your conclusion please comment on the degree of moral disengagement and moral engagement in relation to the Australian people.”
I also decided to do so to show people that when using any of the prompts templated they can, at the same time ask for more complex analysis that pulls everything together and/or has a particular focus.
Evaluation of the Speech for Moral Disengagement
As per my earlier comment when reading this analysis think document rather than speech. It really makes no difference in this context.
Deepseek’s introduction to its assessment and analysis
The speech by the Australian Liberal Party (referred to as the Coalition) exhibits several signs of moral disengagement, a psychological mechanism that allows individuals or groups to justify criticism or harmful rhetoric by distancing themselves from responsibility or ethical considerations. Below is an analysis of the speech, identifying key strategies of moral disengagement, followed by recommendations for reframing the message to promote moral engagement and accountability.
Now let’s skip to the analysis of what I asked Deep Seek in its conclusions.
Analysis of the Logic of the Speech
The speech employs a populist logic, appealing to the frustrations of “everyday Australians” by framing Labor as out of touch and irresponsible. It relies on emotional appeals (e.g., “hurting Australian households”) and simplistic narratives (e.g., “Australia is heading in the wrong direction”) rather than nuanced analysis. The use of selective facts and advantageous comparisons creates a false dichotomy between the Coalition’s “responsible” approach and Labor’s “wasteful” actions.
However, the speech lacks contextual depth. For example:
- It does not acknowledge global factors influencing inflation and interest rates.
It does not compare Labor’s spending to historical precedents or international benchmarks.
- It does not provide evidence for claims like “the performance of the Labor Government across key indicators in service delivery has plummeted.”
This lack of context undermines the speech’s credibility and reinforces a partisan narrative rather than fostering a constructive dialogue.
Degree of Moral Disengagement and Moral Engagement
The speech exhibits a high degree of moral disengagement, as it:
- Uses euphemistic language and advantageous comparisons to dismiss Labor’s actions.
- Attributes blame solely to Labor without acknowledging broader factors or shared responsibility.
- Demonizes Labor as self-serving and out of touch with “everyday Australians.”
Conversely, the speech shows limited moral engagement. While it appeals to values like “responsible budget management” and “efficient government,” it does so in a way that excludes Labor and frames the Coalition as the sole arbiter of these values. There is little effort to promote unity, shared responsibility, or constructive dialogue.
Conclusion
The speech reflects a partisan and divisive approach that prioritizes moral disengagement over moral engagement. While it effectively appeals to the frustrations of some Australians, it fails to provide a balanced or constructive critique of Labor’s policies. By reframing the message to acknowledge complexity, promote unity, and focus on solutions, the speaker could foster a more inclusive and morally engaged political discourse. This would not only enhance the Coalition’s credibility but also contribute to a healthier democratic debate that benefits all Australians.
Hints and Tips
The prompt templates can be added to as per the example in this case study. Think carefully about what you want.
It takes no time at all to paste in the prompt and, once that is done paste in the content where indicated in the prompt templates.
If you want to publish or share the assessment, paste it into Word or whatever software you prefer. When you do, select Paste and match formatting.
Then it’s a question of carefully reading and editing as needed or wanted. The output from DeepSeek is quite ugly. Personally, I don’t mind as it forces me to read very carefully. However, I will reach out to them about it.
Note: Some of you may be aware that I started this work with Grok, and we still tick tack.
Grok’s analysis and assessment is much the same.
More from Steve soon.
Steve Davies is a retired public servant. His expertise is in the areas of organisational research and people development. He’s always been attracted to forward looking work. He’s a vocal critic of destructive, cruel and backwards looking behaviours and practices.
Over the years he’s spoken in depth with whistleblowers and advocated the use of technology (including social media tech) to empower people to do great things together.
His thinking and work have been heavily influenced by such great thinkers and researchers as Shoshana Zuboff, Albert Bandura and Peter Senge for decades.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
All here seems useful, relevant and quite mild. Dutton, for the position he aspires to, is actually a completely unqualified dill, unfit to talk, incapable of reasonable levels of thought, not at all intellectually sharp, a stranger to truth, decency, legality, ethics, morals and the other half of a dictionary. Conservatives have one core policy.., “me”, and the egofixated extreme versions of that make others victims. Never be fooled by talk, lying talk, for bumkicker Dutton of old is here still, the Flea.
Yes, Phil, you are right. The other part of that equation though is that there are a lot of gullible, ignorant people who do not want to think beyond the negativity being presented and will happily go along with the ‘trust me, I will fix it when I get the keys to the treasury, but don’t ask me how’ mantra Dutton is presenting.
Bert and others: At the risk of sounding like the proverbial “stuck record”, let me repeat:
1. We live in a highly technological world, far beyond the understanding of any single person.
2. Most people have no idea what is going on and do not have the time or energy to figure it all out.
3. Those with money and other resources find it so easy to bamboozle them with nonsense, particularly using “targeted” social media (now revealed)
4. The “capture” of our “democracy” is pretty complete. How we can get out of it, is not something I know. At least I know the problem.
5. If humanity at large does not solve this problem, it will surely go extinct, notwithstanding brave statements made by the likes of Elon Musk et. al.