Please note, this is essentially an ethical ‘analysis’ of the campaign and election, not a serious political one. There is much to flesh-out on that score and with a great deal of luck I may have the time and energy to explore those matters.
Dan Rowden is a freelance writer and philosopher who has been active in philosophical and political discourse since Malcolm Turnbull invented the Internet in Australia. For the last 15 years he has contributed to and administered Internet philosophy forums. Politics is a secondary interest, but he recognises moments of significance in Australia's political history.
Australia badly needs some independent formal, disciplined, political analysis.
From my experience, the so-called independent sites who imagine themselves the last havens of progressiveness are inclined to be reactionary in the extreme; homes for carping dogmatists, and downright liars, and crazy fabulists, who turn ferociously on any visitor who does not agree with the house doctrine. They can be sad and pathological.
I hope you may have the time to work on some analysis of the purposeless atmosphere of progressive politics in Australia – an atmosphere far worse in this regard than the U.S.
May I suggest an analysis of the insular and reactionary inclinations of one or two so-named independent sites that I know you have experienced. They harbour so much that is both listless and fanatical.
Their response to any disagreement is anti-intelectual and regressive.
It would be nice, just somewhere, anywhere, to have some constructive disagreement, where different sides in an argument could even learn from each other even – instead of the abuse and threats triggered merely by a visitor who does not follow the repetitive, formulaic consensus, and even dares to argue her case.
‘anti-intellectual’ – for some reason either spellcheck did not signal or I did not notice it.