Scan barcode
drillvoice's review against another edition
3.0
This was a pleasant enough read: it didn't say that much, but it didn't take too long to say it, either.
Drawing upon her experience in social research, Huntley argues that Australians are, by and large, more progressive than our politics would have you believe. This includes a preference for redistributive taxation policy, a fairer housing system, and action on global warming. That said, it also includes a strong preference for boat turn backs and mandatory detention, perhaps belying Huntley's argument. This is all used for a worthwhile discussion of what it means to be a "social democrat" in the 21st century, and how past leaders have failed to adopt social democracy for the needs of the present.
The essay is clearly written with a view to the impending election and is virtually written to Bill Shorten and the ALP. In this, it feels a little too supplicatory. Huntley makes good points about what we could expect from a new ALP government. However, to then argue that the ALP should take bold action on important issues /because polling shows there is support for such action/ seems problematic. Especially given where 'the public' seems to stand on refugees, I'm wary of any argument that says a political party should draw inspiration from what focus groups are telling them.
Huntley also struggles to reconcile the fact that voters, despite their stated preferences, continue to vote for parties that have no intention of bringing in popular policies. Indeed, she highlights voter concern for the environment, only to highlight that these concerned voters largely vote for the ALP, and also for the Liberals. Given the environmental records of both parties, this is hardly evidence that voting decisions accord with the stated policy preferences of voters.
Rather, there is plenty of strong evidence for what actually influences voting decisions. George Lakoff and Drew Westen come to mind as authors who have explored this and come up with a much more robust model for understanding how and why voters support parties whose policies they oppose. Huntley's disregard of these thinkers is a disservice to the reader, but also to the ALP - who could surely benefit from a better understanding of how to appeal to the voting public.
Drawing upon her experience in social research, Huntley argues that Australians are, by and large, more progressive than our politics would have you believe. This includes a preference for redistributive taxation policy, a fairer housing system, and action on global warming. That said, it also includes a strong preference for boat turn backs and mandatory detention, perhaps belying Huntley's argument. This is all used for a worthwhile discussion of what it means to be a "social democrat" in the 21st century, and how past leaders have failed to adopt social democracy for the needs of the present.
The essay is clearly written with a view to the impending election and is virtually written to Bill Shorten and the ALP. In this, it feels a little too supplicatory. Huntley makes good points about what we could expect from a new ALP government. However, to then argue that the ALP should take bold action on important issues /because polling shows there is support for such action/ seems problematic. Especially given where 'the public' seems to stand on refugees, I'm wary of any argument that says a political party should draw inspiration from what focus groups are telling them.
Huntley also struggles to reconcile the fact that voters, despite their stated preferences, continue to vote for parties that have no intention of bringing in popular policies. Indeed, she highlights voter concern for the environment, only to highlight that these concerned voters largely vote for the ALP, and also for the Liberals. Given the environmental records of both parties, this is hardly evidence that voting decisions accord with the stated policy preferences of voters.
Rather, there is plenty of strong evidence for what actually influences voting decisions. George Lakoff and Drew Westen come to mind as authors who have explored this and come up with a much more robust model for understanding how and why voters support parties whose policies they oppose. Huntley's disregard of these thinkers is a disservice to the reader, but also to the ALP - who could surely benefit from a better understanding of how to appeal to the voting public.
rodhunt's review against another edition
4.0
Reading this reinforces my view that Morrison’s victory was crafted through deceit!
nabilhamzaki's review against another edition
3.0
An interesting read of the (misplaced?) optimism and revival of ALP's social democratic values in Australian life if Bill Shorten had won.
"What I love most about Australians … [is] their capacity to learn and change. We are all travelling, learning, growing. Whether we’re conscious of it or not, we’re on our way from something to something else. And along the way, we tend to ditch bad ideas and pick up better ones. Most often these changes are incremental, barely felt. Sometimes they’re traumatic. But the thing I remind myself of is that we do move on.We change. We’re actually pretty good at it."
"What I love most about Australians … [is] their capacity to learn and change. We are all travelling, learning, growing. Whether we’re conscious of it or not, we’re on our way from something to something else. And along the way, we tend to ditch bad ideas and pick up better ones. Most often these changes are incremental, barely felt. Sometimes they’re traumatic. But the thing I remind myself of is that we do move on.We change. We’re actually pretty good at it."
steph_84's review against another edition
4.0
Whoops this essay didn’t age well, based on the premise that the ALP would win the 2019 federal election. Nonetheless if Huntley is correct, she provides hope in a political environment where hope is much-needed, and the essay is an interesting read.
I also enjoyed the correspondence. It was thought-provoking and - rare for Quarterly Essay correspondence - so collaborative and friendly! It made me reserve Smee’s essay from the library immediately.
I also enjoyed the correspondence. It was thought-provoking and - rare for Quarterly Essay correspondence - so collaborative and friendly! It made me reserve Smee’s essay from the library immediately.
More...