Latest / The Morning Edition / Morality first, politics second – Waleed Aly on political violence

Transcript

Morality first, politics second – Waleed Aly on political violence · The Morning Edition

• 0:01
  S1: I'm Jacqueline Maley, and this is Inside Politics, from the
• 0:04
  S1: newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and the age. With
• 0:07
  S1: the attack on Helen Haines, this week has been a
• 0:10
  S1: real horror week in Australian politics. And last week, the
• 0:13
  S1: Sydney Morning Herald and Age columnist Waleed Aly, who I'm
• 0:17
  S1: sure listeners will know, wrote a column titled More Australians
• 0:20
  S1: believe in political violence than go to church each week.
• 0:24
  S1: This won't end well. And given the chilling presence of
• 0:28
  S1: that column and its title, I wanted to ask Waleed
• 0:31
  S1: to join me on the podcast this week to discuss
• 0:34
  S1: the issue of political violence. Waleed, welcome to Inside Politics.
• 0:39
  S1: I just wonder, first of all, how do you feel
• 0:41
  S1: when you hear that headline? It's sort of a very
• 0:44
  S1: sad and sickening coincidence that you wrote that last week,
• 0:48
  S1: and this week the threat came to fruition.
• 0:53
  S2: It was a pretty horrible feeling in a lot of ways.
• 0:57
  S2: What kind of one of those ones I felt in
• 0:58
  S2: my gut, Um, particularly when you look at the last
• 1:02
  S2: line of that piece, um, which was along the lines
• 1:06
  S2: of I'll just paraphrase it, but along the lines of,
• 1:09
  S2: you know, if, if a tragedy happens, if the worst
• 1:11
  S2: comes to pass, we'll have no right to say that
• 1:14
  S2: we didn't see it coming. The saddest thing about that
• 1:18
  S2: column is that I think I could have probably written
• 1:20
  S2: that any week, that there is always a news hook
• 1:25
  S2: for it. There is always some story of a politician
• 1:28
  S2: being threatened, some court case. There are quite a lot
• 1:30
  S2: of court cases actually of, um, people being prosecuted for
• 1:36
  S2: threatening politicians. I think there were 20 that concerned the
• 1:40
  S2: Prime Minister alone. So you think about that. This is
• 1:43
  S2: a growing phenomenon. And then you look globally and you
• 1:46
  S2: see that it's been growing, growing, particularly in the United
• 1:48
  S2: States and Britain. And I think we've kind of from
• 1:51
  S2: from an Australian distance, looked at that and said, wow,
• 1:54
  S2: this is, um, look at America. This is all very American.
• 1:58
  S2: And it's true. There is are some things that are
• 2:00
  S2: quite American about what's been going on over there. But actually,
• 2:04
  S2: it's it's bigger than that and it's broader than that
• 2:07
  S2: and it's growing. And I think it's been concerning me
• 2:11
  S2: for quite a while, actually. I've written quite a few
• 2:12
  S2: columns over the years about the growing condition of political violence.
• 2:16
  S2: And I use that word deliberately because I think one
• 2:19
  S2: of the mistakes we very often make when we look
• 2:22
  S2: at something like political violence emerging, is we try to
• 2:26
  S2: particularize it. It's about this group of people. It's about
• 2:29
  S2: this ideological orientation. It's about this set of victims and
• 2:33
  S2: so on. And it's not that those things are untrue,
• 2:36
  S2: it's just that they're quite partial and we miss the
• 2:39
  S2: bigger picture. And that actually often when you get, um,
• 2:42
  S2: a spate of violent acts and this particular one is
• 2:47
  S2: clearly a really tragic version of that. Um, that's just the,
• 2:51
  S2: that's the cresting of the wave, but there is a
• 2:53
  S2: wave beneath it and we've been ignoring it, I think,
• 2:55
  S2: for quite a while.
• 2:56
  S1: Yeah. You talk about that. Particularization. And I think we're
• 2:59
  S1: seeing even in the media coverage since the attack, um,
• 3:03
  S1: you know, which happened earlier this week, that there are
• 3:06
  S1: efforts to particularize it, as you say, to kind of
• 3:09
  S1: and the more we know about the alleged attacker, the
• 3:12
  S1: more people are trying to put him into a certain
• 3:15
  S1: kind of box in almost sort of to explain why
• 3:18
  S1: and to try to understand and grapple with why he
• 3:20
  S1: would have done something so horrific or allegedly done it.
• 3:24
  S1: What do you think about those attempts? I mean, there
• 3:26
  S1: are sort of there are things on on his online
• 3:28
  S1: history that show that he was a bit he was
• 3:30
  S1: really into ecological issues. Um, some people are sort of
• 3:33
  S1: labeled him as left wing. Does any of that really matter?
• 3:38
  S2: It matters in this particular case. And it matters as
• 3:41
  S2: proof of, I guess, a certain kind of concept that,
• 3:44
  S2: you know, this does identify a certain kind of person
• 3:48
  S2: who may be swept within the orbit of this overarching
• 3:52
  S2: phenomenon and all this. Of course, we have to say, um, Jack,
• 3:57
  S2: as is alleged. Like we don't even have guilt established yet. So,
• 4:01
  S2: you know, so much of it is premature. And a
• 4:03
  S2: lot of what we do in these moments is we
• 4:05
  S2: seek definitive explanations at precisely the moment where we know
• 4:08
  S2: the least, because we seek to kind of helps us
• 4:11
  S2: deal with it in a certain way. So there's something
• 4:13
  S2: natural about that. But it's not that the particularities are
• 4:16
  S2: irrelevant or that they're wrong. The problem comes, I think,
• 4:20
  S2: when we start to generalize from them as though, all right,
• 4:23
  S2: we have a case in front of us that should
• 4:25
  S2: give us the full picture of what's going on, the
• 4:27
  S2: full picture of the problem that we're confronted with. Um,
• 4:30
  S2: and it just, it just doesn't. So we saw this
• 4:32
  S2: play out in the US a lot, right? I remember
• 4:35
  S2: writing columns about the emerging phenomenon of political violence in America, um,
• 4:40
  S2: years ago, I think it might have been even when
• 4:42
  S2: Nancy Pelosi, the attempted assassination of Nancy Pelosi. So what
• 4:45
  S2: was that, 2024, maybe off the top of my head. Um,
• 4:49
  S2: and I remember getting people responding to that saying, why
• 4:54
  S2: are you both citing this? Um, you know, this is
• 4:58
  S2: a right wing problem. Uh, and you're, you know, you're
• 5:03
  S2: just doing this faux centrism, etc.. And those sort of
• 5:06
  S2: responses really frustrated me because at the same time, you
• 5:10
  S2: had someone who'd been kind of on the, on the
• 5:12
  S2: orbit of the Bernie Sanders campaign, undertake a shooting at
• 5:16
  S2: a congressional baseball training session. You since had, um, Supreme
• 5:20
  S2: Court judges, conservative Supreme Court judge, in a sense, an
• 5:24
  S2: attempted assassination attempt in the aftermath of the overturning of
• 5:26
  S2: Roe v Wade. The problem isn't that there are not
• 5:30
  S2: bad actors. The problem is when you try to reduce
• 5:33
  S2: some a phenomenon like this to mere bad actors, you know,
• 5:39
  S2: it's if we draw a circle around this group of people,
• 5:41
  S2: then we can say there's there's, you know, we've come
• 5:44
  S2: to grips with the situation. And very often what I
• 5:46
  S2: think we're doing in those situations is we are saying, um,
• 5:50
  S2: we're coming up with a way that allows us to
• 5:53
  S2: come to grips with a really big phenomenon simply because
• 5:55
  S2: we've got one case study and will generalize from that.
• 5:58
  S2: But also we're coming up with a mode of self exoneration.
• 6:01
  S2: As long as I can say this person's not like
• 6:03
  S2: me or my people or whatever, then now I can
• 6:08
  S2: come to terms with it and we can move on
• 6:09
  S2: or we can continue politics as normal. Um, you know,
• 6:14
  S2: I just caution against it. It's perfectly natural. We all
• 6:17
  S2: do it. I'm not saying I don't do it, but
• 6:19
  S2: but we've just got to be really, really careful because
• 6:22
  S2: I think it can blind us to the growing phenomenon.
• 6:26
  S2: And that's a condition. It's think of it as a
• 6:28
  S2: shared disease and there are some really bad symptoms. And
• 6:31
  S2: not everyone has the same symptoms, but it's something that's
• 6:34
  S2: more participatory actually, than that.
• 6:37
  S1: I want to I want to examine you further on
• 6:38
  S1: that in a moment, because there'll be a lot of
• 6:40
  S1: people listening to the podcast who think, I don't participate
• 6:42
  S1: in that kind of politics. I don't I'm not uncivil
• 6:45
  S1: to my neighbors. I'm I'm just going about my business.
• 6:47
  S1: But I mean, the phenomenon that you wrote about and
• 6:50
  S1: that we're talking about that's dominating discussion this week, I
• 6:53
  S1: think we can fairly safely assume that it is a
• 6:55
  S1: thing and it's not just a sort of assertion or
• 6:58
  S1: a contention at this stage that the statistics bear it out,
• 7:01
  S1: as well as a wealth of anecdotal evidence. But I
• 7:04
  S1: just want to ask you what your thoughts are on
• 7:07
  S1: the causes of this phenomenon, this growing phenomenon. A lot
• 7:09
  S1: of people talk about social media. Some people talk about
• 7:12
  S1: the rise of the populist right, economic conditions. What are
• 7:15
  S1: your sort of grab bag of theories on that?
• 7:19
  S2: Uh, I think all of those things are correct. Um,
• 7:22
  S2: but it's not one dimensional. So so this is I mean,
• 7:25
  S2: we've clearly seen an acceleration of this. It's really taken
• 7:27
  S2: off in Australia. By this, I think what I'm talking
• 7:30
  S2: about is threats to parliamentarians, but also a growing acceptance
• 7:35
  S2: or growing number of people who accept the possibility that
• 7:38
  S2: violence might be legitimate under some circumstances. Um, that used
• 7:43
  S2: to just be an axiom. You would just say, well,
• 7:45
  S2: as long as it's not violent, right? And, and we
• 7:46
  S2: didn't even need to argue the point that was just
• 7:49
  S2: the way it is. It was, it was an axiom
• 7:51
  S2: of life. Um, that's starting to come under question at
• 7:56
  S2: small levels. The particular survey I quoted from the in
• 7:59
  S2: the column last week was from the McKinnon index, which
• 8:02
  S2: found that 9% of Australians are prepared to say that
• 8:05
  S2: violence is sometimes legitimate. Um, but we've seen overseas that
• 8:09
  S2: that figure has been growing over time. We're seeing growing
• 8:11
  S2: threats in Australia since the end of Covid. So there
• 8:14
  S2: are circumstantial factors. But then there are also factors that
• 8:18
  S2: I think we need to pay more attention to, which
• 8:20
  S2: are how would I describe these factors that are to
• 8:24
  S2: do with our habits, our civic habits, our disposition, our
• 8:27
  S2: way of doing business? Because when we start to say
• 8:32
  S2: that violence might sometimes be a legitimate way of doing politics,
• 8:36
  S2: we are not. We might think what we're doing is
• 8:40
  S2: fighting for a particular cause or elevating something that's really important.
• 8:44
  S2: It's like it's so important that sometimes it's a moral necessity.
• 8:46
  S1: A.
• 8:47
  S2: Shortcut. Yeah, there's a moral case for doing this. And
• 8:50
  S2: I think, and we're looking for an outcome. The thing
• 8:53
  S2: that matters is the outcome. And what we very quickly
• 8:56
  S2: forget in those circumstances are that actually morality generally, but
• 9:01
  S2: also politics and especially democratic politics, is a politics of means.
• 9:07
  S2: The method is just as important as the outcome, actually,
• 9:10
  S2: because if you start to resort to methods like this,
• 9:13
  S2: the end result is that you make those methods legitimate
• 9:17
  S2: for everybody. And then that's how this sort of grows.
• 9:20
  S2: So the social media element of this I do think
• 9:22
  S2: is really important. Not that it's everything, but it's really
• 9:24
  S2: important because of the habits that it inculcates in us
• 9:28
  S2: and as citizens and the rules that we think it
• 9:31
  S2: starts to place around how political conversation should happen, and
• 9:36
  S2: how we should engage with each other and understand each other.
• 9:39
  S2: And that's kind of, I think, the roots of the
• 9:42
  S2: problem that then delivers all these horrible symptoms.
• 9:45
  S1: And can you give me a practical example of that,
• 9:47
  S1: where social media has sort of warped or changed our
• 9:49
  S1: habits in terms of the way we engage in politics?
• 9:53
  S2: Well, I think we're all familiar with the concept of
• 9:55
  S2: social media silos of the way in which we are. So.
• 9:59
  S2: So think about it this way. It's kind of what
• 10:01
  S2: I've tried to write in a subsequent column, however successfully, um,
• 10:05
  S2: that how do we actually understand those people we regard
• 10:09
  S2: as our political foes? Do we understand them from them?
• 10:15
  S2: Like if we could, if we could articulate back to
• 10:18
  S2: them who we think they are, would they recognize themselves
• 10:20
  S2: in our description, or would we actually be sharing back
• 10:23
  S2: to them a caricature that has been delivered to us
• 10:26
  S2: pre-digested from a particular subculture, in this case online, but
• 10:30
  S2: it could also be in conventional media or whatever. Um,
• 10:34
  S2: that actually presents them as a caricature that is specifically
• 10:36
  S2: designed for the perpetuation of our own pre-existing opinions. In
• 10:40
  S2: other words, are they caricatures that fit into a box
• 10:44
  S2: that we've already got, we've already built for them, as
• 10:47
  S2: opposed to something that understands them in their full humanity? Um,
• 10:51
  S2: this sounds kind of abstract, but I think we're familiar
• 10:53
  S2: with this pattern of behavior. Right. All I need to
• 10:56
  S2: know about you. I already know because it has come
• 10:59
  S2: to me pre-packaged, with a set of political conclusions about you.
• 11:03
  S1: As in from someone's own social media profile.
• 11:07
  S2: Yeah, it could be through social. Yeah, exactly.
• 11:10
  S1: Which compresses personality and character. So, so sort of imprecisely anyway,
• 11:14
  S1: I suppose.
• 11:15
  S2: Yeah. And I mean, we call we have avatars on
• 11:18
  S2: social media for a reason. Avatars are not people. They,
• 11:21
  S2: they are the thing that stands in for them. In
• 11:22
  S2: some ways, it's no surprise that this gets directed very
• 11:25
  S2: strongly at politicians, because who's less human than a politician? They.
• 11:30
  S2: Politicians are the great unpeople. We have no. We approach
• 11:34
  S2: them with total cynicism. We have no appreciation for their
• 11:37
  S2: underlying humanity, etc. things change actually, when you have to
• 11:40
  S2: look at people in the eye. I've had this experience
• 11:44
  S2: in places I didn't expect. I kind of had this
• 11:46
  S2: experience of a sort. Back in 2016, when I went
• 11:49
  S2: to a Trump rally and suddenly I was surrounded. And
• 11:51
  S2: this is when Trump was still kind of this new
• 11:53
  S2: phenomenon we're trying to get to grips with. And I
• 11:55
  S2: just met people there I didn't expect. I've had this
• 11:58
  S2: experience in the subsequent US election in 2024, I was
• 12:01
  S2: in Michigan. I wrote a piece about it actually for
• 12:04
  S2: The Sydney Morning Herald at the time, because I was
• 12:06
  S2: so struck by it, having people explain to me from
• 12:08
  S2: the depths of their soul the fact of the stolen election.
• 12:11
  S2: But there was something about which I was, I think
• 12:14
  S2: is ridiculous, but there was something about having them say
• 12:17
  S2: it to me in the family of other things they
• 12:19
  S2: were saying to me that made me go, I see
• 12:21
  S2: now where this fits within your social experience. I don't
• 12:24
  S2: accept it. I'm happy to have an argument about it
• 12:27
  S2: with you or or to have a conversation about it,
• 12:30
  S2: but I now appreciate it in a way that's just fuller.
• 12:32
  S2: That's just different. It's not enough for me now to say, oh,
• 12:36
  S2: I've got you in the box. I fully understand you,
• 12:38
  S2: and I have nothing left to learn from you. Because
• 12:42
  S2: once you have that point, once you reach that point,
• 12:45
  S2: then actually all kinds of forms of politics we might
• 12:48
  S2: call undemocratic even or, or verging towards the violent, the
• 12:53
  S2: total shunning of the human being behind it that becomes
• 12:56
  S2: really imaginable, I think.
• 12:57
  S1: Yeah. So, so the very sort of form of social
• 13:00
  S1: media in the way we engage with it basically flattens
• 13:02
  S1: people into archetypes or stereotypes that are very easy to
• 13:06
  S1: dehumanize and to dismiss.
• 13:09
  S2: Yes. So in social media facilitates that. The question I
• 13:13
  S2: think that we all have to ask ourselves now, can
• 13:15
  S2: I be clear? I'm not excluding myself from any of
• 13:17
  S2: this is to what extent is that just the machine
• 13:22
  S2: operating on us? And to what extent is that the
• 13:24
  S2: machine actually reflecting the kind of like it? Exactly. That actually,
• 13:28
  S2: you know, so so we look at politicians and we
• 13:30
  S2: complain about the way they talk and we are right
• 13:33
  S2: to do so, but we should also acknowledge that it
• 13:35
  S2: works and that they talk that way, perhaps because we
• 13:40
  S2: confer political profit upon people who talk that way. And
• 13:44
  S2: so this requires a discipline at the level of everybody.
• 13:47
  S2: That's a less comfortable conversation, and it's less guaranteed to
• 13:50
  S2: yield results in our minds, I think. But it might
• 13:52
  S2: be the only path we have.
• 13:54
  S1: I want to ask you about language, because ASIO boss
• 13:57
  S1: Mike Burgess said just this week he's warned about political
• 14:01
  S1: violence and, you know, the heightened political temperature a lot.
• 14:03
  S1: But after the attack on Helen Haines this week, he
• 14:06
  S1: said that ASIO has seen direct correlations between inflamed language
• 14:09
  S1: and inflamed tensions and acts of violence. We hear this
• 14:12
  S1: a lot that words matter, language matters. And I mean,
• 14:15
  S1: as writers, I think we both we both would firmly
• 14:18
  S1: agree with that. But I want to ask you to
• 14:20
  S1: sort of unpack it. Like, in what way is it
• 14:22
  S1: that a particular set of words said in a particular
• 14:24
  S1: emotive way can persuade people into violence, or is it
• 14:28
  S1: more about the dehumanising effects of certain types of abusive language,
• 14:32
  S1: or denigrating language that allow us to dismiss people and
• 14:36
  S1: lower the sort of moral bar for hurting those people
• 14:38
  S1: or abusing those people? How does it how does it work?
• 14:41
  S2: Yeah, I'd probably categorize it as the latter. One of
• 14:44
  S2: the preconditions to violence, especially political violence, is what, you know,
• 14:48
  S2: sometimes the jargon calls Subspeciation. Right. So this idea that a.
• 14:53
  S1: Lot of syllables in that word.
• 14:55
  S2: Yeah, there are, but you'll understand most of them. I
• 14:58
  S2: think it's fine. But basically what it is, is it's
• 15:02
  S2: a form of dehumanization, right? So maybe think about it
• 15:04
  S2: this way before you can or not, you before anyone
• 15:09
  S2: can enact violence on another member of our species, we
• 15:13
  S2: actually have to engage in a kind of psychological trick
• 15:16
  S2: that makes us recognize them as something other than of
• 15:18
  S2: our species. Right? It's a really good example. Um, you
• 15:22
  S2: might remember Anders Behring Breivik, who was the terrorist who killed,
• 15:28
  S2: was 70 odd people from a sort of social democratic
• 15:31
  S2: movement in Norway. About 2011. As he was doing this,
• 15:36
  S2: he was listening to filmic music, because when you do
• 15:40
  S2: something like that, you transform the human being in front
• 15:45
  S2: of you into an object, and it becomes a film scene.
• 15:48
  S2: And there's something epic, and you don't have to hear
• 15:50
  S2: the screams and you don't have to. There's something about that.
• 15:52
  S2: To kill someone from a distance by pressing a button
• 15:54
  S2: on a drone is probably easier than to do it
• 15:57
  S2: in hand to hand combat, right? So the greater, the
• 15:59
  S2: greater the human distance we can create, the better. And language.
• 16:02
  S2: I don't think language is everything. Um, but language is
• 16:07
  S2: one of the ways in which we can help create
• 16:08
  S2: that distance. So if I'm constantly referring to a group
• 16:11
  S2: of people as vermin. Yeah. Or I'm constantly referring to
• 16:15
  S2: them in ways that make them inhuman or beyond the pale.
• 16:20
  S2: Then there's a process that I'm psychologically starting to take on, um,
• 16:24
  S2: this idea that they become an object and when they're
• 16:27
  S2: an object and politicians, I keep coming back to this point.
• 16:30
  S2: Politicians work as a target of violence because they're the
• 16:32
  S2: ultimate objects, right? We're not they're not people. They're just
• 16:35
  S2: these things that turn up in this theater that we
• 16:37
  S2: call politics. And, and to, to enact violence upon them
• 16:41
  S2: is no different to enacting violence upon some fictional character
• 16:44
  S2: to us. Because, you know, I'm overstating the case, but
• 16:46
  S2: I think I think you see where I'm going.
• 16:48
  S1: I agree with you. And I wonder as a writer
• 16:51
  S1: if if you're sort of constantly aware of that and
• 16:54
  S1: aware of the sort of the ethics of the language
• 16:56
  S1: that you use, as well as also wanting to use
• 16:58
  S1: the full palette of, you know, that the English language
• 17:01
  S1: kind of has to offer us. I don't think either
• 17:03
  S1: of us would ever use the word vermin in our
• 17:05
  S1: columns or in our work, but there's been times when
• 17:08
  S1: I'd wanted to use very strong language to condemn, um,
• 17:11
  S1: you know, certain behaviors or even certain people who've behaved
• 17:15
  S1: in a way that I think warrants it. Do you
• 17:17
  S1: think about that consciously when you're writing?
• 17:20
  S2: Yeah, I do actually. Um.
• 17:24
  S1: You try to.
• 17:25
  S2: Moderate. Yeah. That's not always to say I pass the test.
• 17:28
  S2: I mean, readers will make their own mind up about that.
• 17:29
  S2: I just but as a move, I mean, one of
• 17:32
  S2: the things I've started thinking a lot more about, um,
• 17:36
  S2: whether I'm writing or speaking or whatever is, is just
• 17:39
  S2: to be really wary of this proceeding as though the
• 17:43
  S2: people you're speaking about are not in the room.
• 17:45
  S1: Yeah.
• 17:45
  S2: Though they're not in the audience. Um, this idea of
• 17:50
  S2: if you're going to describe people describing them in a
• 17:53
  S2: way that they would recognize, even if you're then going
• 17:55
  S2: to go on and criticize them. Um, and do you
• 17:58
  S2: know what? Now that I think about it, and I've
• 18:01
  S2: sort of started playing around with this idea in the column,
• 18:04
  S2: I just wrote it. The crisis is not purely one
• 18:09
  S2: of how we speak to each other. It's actually as much,
• 18:12
  S2: perhaps even more, a crisis of how we listen to
• 18:16
  S2: each other, because it becomes easier to speak about people
• 18:20
  S2: in caricatured terms if you haven't actually properly listened to
• 18:24
  S2: where they're coming from. Yeah. If you've gone, ah, I
• 18:27
  S2: get the gist of what you're about. Now let me
• 18:29
  S2: make the move of attributing to you your motivation. I'll
• 18:32
  S2: tell the real story of what you believe. And if
• 18:36
  S2: you don't agree with that, well, that's just because you're
• 18:37
  S2: trying to cover up your own tracks, etc.. Um, it's
• 18:40
  S2: not that those critiques are always untrue, it's just that
• 18:42
  S2: once that becomes a standard move, then there is no
• 18:45
  S2: conversation ultimately to be had. And so I do think
• 18:48
  S2: it behoves everyone. Now, you and I kind of have
• 18:50
  S2: professional and perhaps externally imposed reasons for thinking about it
• 18:53
  S2: that way. But maybe we need to think about these
• 18:55
  S2: things more as civic obligations rather than as professional ones.
• 18:59
  S1: Yeah. I want to ask you about the sort of, um,
• 19:03
  S1: splintering of the extremist threat. That is quite an interesting phenomenon,
• 19:07
  S1: as well as a sort of scary one. Home Affairs
• 19:10
  S1: Minister Tony Burke said earlier in October. So before this
• 19:13
  S1: attack of the terrorist threat, that, quote, we are getting
• 19:16
  S1: some weird mixed ideologies, logically inconsistent, all cohering on violence.
• 19:21
  S1: And this really real confusion between ideological lines, it seems
• 19:26
  S1: to me, is a very contemporary, social media driven phenomenon
• 19:30
  S1: and very, you know, very much a product of the
• 19:32
  S1: internet because we just get exposed to so much information
• 19:35
  S1: from all over the place, everything everywhere, all at once.
• 19:38
  S1: And whereas once you might have picked up a monograph
• 19:40
  S1: on Marxism, now you might watch a YouTube video on Marxism,
• 19:44
  S1: and then it directs you to some anti-vaxxer content and
• 19:47
  S1: some climate change content and then some anti-Israel content. It's
• 19:50
  S1: all of it. I mean, how, you know, can you
• 19:54
  S1: just talk a little bit about that, the radicalization threat
• 19:57
  S1: being so splintered and sort of mixed up and crazy?
• 20:01
  S2: It's a really fascinating development. I think the, um, the
• 20:04
  S2: FBI started noticing this a little while ago and talking
• 20:07
  S2: about nihilistic, um, terrorism. So and, you know, here the
• 20:12
  S2: paradigm case might even have been someone like Luigi Mangione,
• 20:15
  S2: who and this is important to note, there are all
• 20:18
  S2: these kind of online subcultures that celebrate him. Now, he's
• 20:20
  S2: the person who's in court over killing a CEO of
• 20:25
  S2: a health insurance company. Right? Um, in fact, he's admitted
• 20:29
  S2: to doing it in court. He's explained exactly what he did. Um,
• 20:32
  S2: what's interesting about his case is ideologically becomes difficult to categorize. So,
• 20:36
  S2: you know, he's really into Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or whatever. But
• 20:40
  S2: then at the same time, he's listening to Joe Rogan
• 20:42
  S2: and there's all this stuff. And so what it ends
• 20:45
  S2: up becoming is more a mood, like a posture. This
• 20:48
  S2: is why I think it's it's helpful to think about
• 20:50
  S2: violence as a condition, right? It's in the air. And
• 20:54
  S2: once it becomes just part of the political toolkit, then
• 20:56
  S2: people see the tool, they reach for it. And it
• 20:58
  S2: doesn't need to be allied to a particular, um, or alloyed,
• 21:02
  S2: I should say, to a particular ideological. It doesn't need
• 21:05
  S2: to stem from some grand theory. It just becomes part
• 21:08
  S2: of what can happen. Part of what you can do. Um,
• 21:12
  S2: so the internet is a really interesting element in that
• 21:15
  S2: because you're right to talk about this sense of overwhelm,
• 21:18
  S2: of just this phrase that I heard fleetingly maybe a
• 21:21
  S2: decade ago, and then it disappeared. But I think it's
• 21:23
  S2: actually a wonderful way of encapsulating it, this phenomenon of
• 21:25
  S2: info obesity, right?
• 21:27
  S1: It's just we're all we're all info based these days.
• 21:31
  S2: Yeah. It's terrible. And no nutrition. Just amount. Yeah. Right.
• 21:35
  S2: That's it. And, and so there's that overwhelm. But also
• 21:39
  S2: what there is, and this is something the internet does
• 21:41
  S2: really well at the same time as it atomizes us.
• 21:44
  S2: It does allow us to group ourselves in, I think,
• 21:48
  S2: quite anemic ways, like digital ways, but ways that are
• 21:51
  S2: nonetheless important because one of the things that political violence
• 21:54
  S2: has always been is a group activity. That's why if
• 21:57
  S2: you look at the history of terrorism, lone wolves were
• 22:00
  S2: really rare, really rare, and very often psychologically disturbed. You know,
• 22:05
  S2: the Unabomber is an example of that. But very often,
• 22:07
  S2: usually it's groups, right? Networks. Here's the leader, you know,
• 22:10
  S2: and here's the idea. And now there's cells. We spoke
• 22:13
  S2: about it that way and then it started devolving. One
• 22:16
  S2: of the things that's happened, I think, is not just
• 22:18
  S2: that all these atomized people have decided to undertake political
• 22:21
  S2: violence or anything like that. I think that that is true.
• 22:24
  S2: But they also have managed to cobble together all kinds
• 22:27
  S2: of little social groups, global in scope, perhaps local in scope, um,
• 22:32
  S2: not tightly bound in a kind of personal way, but
• 22:35
  S2: bound in a kind of, you know, there's a mood
• 22:38
  S2: that surrounds these things. There's kind of a radicalization in
• 22:41
  S2: the posturing. And then that can attach to any idea
• 22:44
  S2: that can attach to no particular idea. What matters is
• 22:48
  S2: the mood. What matters is the move that then, um,
• 22:51
  S2: that that license is. And that's, I think part of
• 22:53
  S2: what we're seeing.
• 22:53
  S1: Yeah. And I'm sure there's some camaraderie in that there's
• 22:55
  S1: some sort of pleasure in that. And it's almost pro-social
• 22:58
  S1: in even if it's a very antisocial thing that is
• 23:01
  S1: being discussed. I want to ask you about the influence
• 23:05
  S1: of international politics, because you said in your column last
• 23:09
  S1: week that we can't just assume Australia is the same
• 23:11
  S1: as the US or the UK, but just with a
• 23:13
  S1: lag time of ten years. But it does seem like
• 23:15
  S1: with the attack on Helen Haines, that that's kind of
• 23:18
  S1: exactly what we're seeing. We're seeing, you know, a lone wolf,
• 23:21
  S1: kind of apparently a lone wolf, very strange attack, violent
• 23:25
  S1: attack on a politician, just as we've seen in the
• 23:28
  S1: UK and the US in the last ten years. So
• 23:30
  S1: can you tell me about what you think the effect
• 23:32
  S1: of international politics is on the Australian public in that
• 23:37
  S1: sense now?
• 23:39
  S2: Yeah, I think we're definitely seeing a we're in a
• 23:42
  S2: moment of trend setting, aren't we? Um, particularly from the US.
• 23:45
  S2: And I think that has always been true to some extent.
• 23:49
  S2: But one of the things the internet has done is collapsed.
• 23:52
  S2: The space, even perhaps the cultural space between different parts
• 23:55
  S2: of the world. Um, it is amazing how much of
• 23:58
  S2: Australian online discourse is a version of American online discourse. Um,
• 24:03
  S2: to the extent that you have, I mean, one of
• 24:05
  S2: my favorite examples of this favorite, you know, I use
• 24:07
  S2: in a particular way was in the lead up to
• 24:09
  S2: the Queensland election, the last Queensland election, where there were
• 24:12
  S2: all these ideas going around that, um, that that election
• 24:16
  S2: was going to be rigged by the use of Dominion
• 24:18
  S2: voting machines.
• 24:19
  S1: Right.
• 24:20
  S2: And we don't we don't even use voting machines at
• 24:22
  S2: all in Australia, let alone Dominion ones. Where are we
• 24:25
  S2: getting these? How are these ideas sort of seeding. So,
• 24:29
  S2: you know, as as the importance of physical space collapses.
• 24:33
  S2: And I would say that that collapse of physical space
• 24:36
  S2: is actually thinning out our civic bonds. It's also collapsing the, the,
• 24:43
  S2: the trend lines or that the lag in trends. The
• 24:46
  S2: distance in trends, perhaps between. Another place and hours, particularly
• 24:50
  S2: if it's coming from somewhere like America because it's so dominant. Online.
• 24:54
  S2: Online culture is in so many ways, not totally, but
• 24:56
  S2: in so many ways American. And so that is definitely
• 25:00
  S2: going on. Um, but, but if we're going to say
• 25:04
  S2: that at least part of this and I stress it's part, um,
• 25:07
  S2: is to do with the way in which the online
• 25:10
  S2: world has infiltrated our civic lives, the way we talk
• 25:12
  S2: to each other, the way we listen or don't listen
• 25:14
  S2: to each other, all those sorts of things, then that
• 25:17
  S2: is a phenomenon that is going to restructure the way
• 25:20
  S2: that we our attitudes to things like political violence. And
• 25:24
  S2: so the fact that it happens in America, we have
• 25:27
  S2: a different political system that's not going to protect us
• 25:29
  S2: because we're living in a very similar informational ecosystem. Um,
• 25:33
  S2: if you like, a very similar civic space, which is
• 25:36
  S2: one that actually thins out those civic bonds. So I
• 25:40
  S2: don't think it's so much about time lag as it's
• 25:42
  S2: really about shared conditions. Some of those will be economic,
• 25:45
  S2: some of those will be ideological, some of whatever. But
• 25:47
  S2: some of those are just experiential. Just day by day
• 25:50
  S2: when we log on, when we have these conversations with
• 25:53
  S2: and about other people that we've never met in our lives. Um,
• 25:56
  S2: this is where we're walking a similar road, whether we
• 25:59
  S2: intend to or not.
• 26:00
  S1: So what's the antidote then is the antidote. Um, you know,
• 26:04
  S1: it seems to me someone like Helen Haines was kind
• 26:07
  S1: of the antidote. She was a community independent whose entire
• 26:11
  S1: operating model was to meet people individually and listen to
• 26:14
  S1: their stories. I even heard someone this week talking about
• 26:17
  S1: how she was an amazing, active listener. Just what you've
• 26:20
  S1: been saying that her whole body would be listening when
• 26:22
  S1: she spoke to a constituent over a kitchen table or
• 26:25
  S1: wherever she encountered them. So it seems to me that, yeah,
• 26:29
  S1: the more that you talk to your neighbors and the
• 26:31
  S1: more you engage with your community, the more you develop
• 26:33
  S1: a sense of acceptance and general tolerance. I mean, what,
• 26:37
  S1: how can we, what can we do as a society
• 26:39
  S1: to sort of develop that muscle?
• 26:43
  S2: This is where it gets tricky because at the individual level, honestly, nothing.
• 26:48
  S2: There's not a thing.
• 26:49
  S1: Where you're an influential columnist. I actually I actually disagree
• 26:52
  S1: with that. I think you can do your bit and
• 26:54
  S1: I can probably do mine as well in our work.
• 26:56
  S2: Yeah. No, I'm not saying we have no responsibility.
• 26:58
  S1: Yeah.
• 26:59
  S2: I'm just saying there is no but for case that
• 27:01
  S2: involves an individual that fixes it.
• 27:04
  S1: The chain of causation with all of this stuff is
• 27:06
  S1: just it's impossible to pin down. Yeah.
• 27:09
  S2: And and, and this is kind of what I mean
• 27:11
  S2: about it being a condition. So then the question becomes,
• 27:14
  S2: am I contributing to this condition? Or am I doing
• 27:18
  S2: something that helps make the symptoms milder or perhaps even
• 27:21
  S2: helps cure it? And that becomes really the only question
• 27:24
  S2: that we can ask ourselves at an individual level. So
• 27:26
  S2: you're right to point to the Helen Haines example. Um,
• 27:29
  S2: the point is not that Helen Haines behaved in this way,
• 27:32
  S2: therefore she should have been immune. That's not it. The
• 27:35
  S2: question is, are there enough Helen Haines in the world? Um,
• 27:39
  S2: and are we moving in that direction or are we
• 27:41
  S2: not moving in that direction. Um, you know, at that
• 27:46
  S2: broader communal level, I think there are some really obvious things.
• 27:49
  S2: They're just really hard to bring into practice in a
• 27:51
  S2: concrete way. You know, clearly community is being so thinned
• 27:54
  S2: out in, in our experience, right down to the extent that,
• 27:58
  S2: you know, the way we do do fitness now is
• 28:00
  S2: to go to the gym rather than participating in some
• 28:02
  S2: kind of association like a sporting club. Right? So all
• 28:05
  S2: of these things are going on. We are lacking a
• 28:07
  S2: political space that is space where we can come together
• 28:10
  S2: over a common object of community concern, or perhaps a
• 28:13
  S2: common hobby or whatever it is. That means that we
• 28:16
  S2: can build bridges with people with whom we have no
• 28:19
  S2: or very little political overlap, but we can create a
• 28:21
  S2: different sort of overlap, which then makes conversation possible. That's
• 28:24
  S2: not selling out. That's actually making the possibility of exchange
• 28:28
  S2: and persuasion possible. Right? Maybe another way of thinking about
• 28:33
  S2: this is we seem to have worked ourselves into a
• 28:36
  S2: position where we think politics is the world and everything,
• 28:41
  S2: including morality, should be subsumed within it. And so that
• 28:45
  S2: if the politics is good, if the political outcome is good,
• 28:48
  S2: then that's a moral outcome. Actually, I think it's meant
• 28:51
  S2: to work the other way around. Um, morality is meant
• 28:54
  S2: to come first. The question of how we engage with
• 28:57
  S2: each other and, and the rules by which we live
• 29:00
  S2: that make common life possible. That's the first bit. And
• 29:04
  S2: then we do politics in a way that accords with that.
• 29:07
  S2: And we see what falls out of it. And I
• 29:09
  S2: think when we are incapable of imagining a moral world
• 29:12
  S2: that is not about politics, then we end up with
• 29:15
  S2: a politics that looks a bit like this. I think
• 29:17
  S2: because we lose the importance of means, and we focus
• 29:21
  S2: in the end on ends and only ends. And if
• 29:23
  S2: that's all we're looking at, well, honestly, any means becomes justified.
• 29:26
  S2: We all become Machiavellian.
• 29:28
  S1: Um, I keep actually thinking when you're talking about that,
• 29:31
  S1: I keep going back to just our most important and
• 29:34
  S1: cherished democracy ritual, which is election day, when we all
• 29:37
  S1: go to the local school and get our sausage and
• 29:40
  S1: maybe raise a bit of money for the PNC and
• 29:43
  S1: talk to each other?
• 29:44
  S2: Can I, can I just mention something about that? You're right.
• 29:48
  S2: But the challenge is actually now to extend that to
• 29:50
  S2: every day.
• 29:50
  S1: Yeah.
• 29:51
  S2: So I think something takes place in democracies that's a
• 29:54
  S2: bit a bit lamentable, which is we think there are
• 29:56
  S2: bad elections. Mhm. They're actually about all the bits between elections.
• 30:01
  S2: It's democracy is meant to be a process of constant deliberation.
• 30:06
  S2: And if we've decided to give up on the deliberative
• 30:08
  S2: aspect of it and just turn it into a contest,
• 30:11
  S2: and there's a scoreboard that, you know, gets lit up
• 30:15
  S2: every three years or four years or whatever. Then I
• 30:17
  S2: think we end up in that sort of position. Um,
• 30:21
  S2: the test isn't now to, for each of us to
• 30:23
  S2: figure out how to behave in a way that's going
• 30:25
  S2: to fix it. I think the test is just to
• 30:27
  S2: look at what's in front of us and go, what
• 30:28
  S2: am I being asked to do in this moment? And
• 30:31
  S2: I'll commit to doing it whether or not it works.
• 30:33
  S2: And it seems to me that's probably the only way
• 30:36
  S2: that we get out of this, if indeed we do.
• 30:37
  S1: Yeah. Well, thank you so much. And I hope we
• 30:41
  S1: can have you back on the podcast. Now that we
• 30:43
  S1: have had you for the first time. There has to
• 30:46
  S1: be a second time, I hope.
• 30:47
  S2: That's very generous of you to say. The only problem
• 30:49
  S2: is I'd rather listen to the podcast. Now. I've got
• 30:51
  S2: no need to listen to this one, but thank you.
• 30:52
  S1: Yeah, but everybody will want to listen to you. I'm
• 30:54
  S1: sure of it. So thank you very much. And we'll
• 30:56
  S1: see you again soon, I hope.
• 30:58
  S2: Thanks, Joe.
• 30:59
  S1: Appreciate it. You can read all of our political news
• 31:06
  S1: on our website, si.com.au or sm.com.au. Today's episode was produced
• 31:13
  S1: by Cathy Wong. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and
• 31:17
  S1: our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick.
• 31:21
  S1: Before you go, follow Inside Politics and leave a review
• 31:24
  S1: for us on Apple or Spotify. I'm Jacqueline Maley. Thanks
• 31:29
  S1: for listening.