June 7, 2011

Whatever happened to "all thinking Australians"?

Remember back in the day, when Hawke or Howard would preface almost everything with "all thinking Australians will agree ..." (or some variation on that phrase), thus manipulating all non-thinking Australians into nodding vigoroulsy in agreement with whatever crap was being uttered?

It worked a treat.  We were a happy, thriving country for near on a good couple of decades.

Not now.

Our current bunch aren't even trying to manipulate us.  They're not even pretending that Australians think, and certainly not for themselves.  
Mr Swan will unveil new data saying that national income would be $8000 per person higher by 2020, even after the [carbon emissions] tax.

By 2050, national income was tipped to increase by $30,000 a person, a rise of 56 per cent.

"Our economy will continue to grow solidly while making deep cuts in carbon pollution," Mr Swan will tell the National Press Club.
No one has argued that the economy won't continue to grow.

No one has argued that incomes won't continue to rise.

(Destroy our economy, relative to others, yes, but that's a more sophisticated argument, and our current bunch of federal pollies have never been accused of having sophisticated intellects.)

WTF has this got to do with their case for an inefficient and ineffective carbon emissions tax, designed solely to redistribute income - at huge administrative cost?

Swan is unapologetically treating us as if we are stupid.

How about Mr Swan and Ms Gillard now add to their point and tell us by what percentage household expenses  will increase during those same periods of time - by what per cent will the cost of living increase? Without that data, the assertions and figures claimed for income growth are nothing more than insulting waffle.

I'm starting to miss Hawke - and Howard.

The good ol' days, when our pollies at least pretended that they didn't believe the voting public were twits. 

Swan says income growth won't be scarified

5 comments:

  1. It's a classic tactic: red herrings and straw men.

    For a most perspicacious dissection of this trend - most strongly evinced by the country's coterie of shock jocks and their flocks - see Elizabeth Farrelly's piece in today's SMH.

    The argument over CO2 percentages is revealed for what it is: buffoonery.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Farrelly writes:

    "My theory is this. Most shock jocks, and their audiences, are pretty long in the tooth. Perhaps there's just a certain kind of person who, as the hormones start to recede, needs this pseudo-emotion to feel alive."

    Alas, she is dead wrong on that one Father. The implication that somehow, once the old duffers fall off this mortal coil, the younger generations will never be, or become, so stupid, ignorant, or easily led. Not so.

    The same, and worse, attitudes are seen daily emanating from the younger - hormoned up - folk, made all the more cringe worthy by their apparent failure to have ever owned or used a dictionary.

    (Sorry, my pet hate at the moment is the misuse of words! Driving me batty!)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous6:57 PM

    Robert Thouless's list of dishonest tricks in argument, including caricature, anecdote and non sequitur. Or even Schopenhauer's list. Bombast, hyperbole, personal insult; certainly he employs most of them.

    And so did you Elizabeth. Socrates would be giggling his tits off. A more prudent opinion writer would have avoided playing the same game.


    j

    ReplyDelete
  4. Solomon7:07 PM

    I saw Hawke at the Byron Bay writer's festival last year promoting Blanche's book. I miss him like I miss jock itch.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not that I wish her any ill, but I'm hoping Blanche dies before Bob, lest we all have to endure yet another book about Bob by Blanche.

    ReplyDelete