Predictably today in the main stream media and online people are voicing their opinions about the Government’s decision to virtually cut of access to Australian shores for those seeking asylum. Many supporters of the ALP find the decision an affront to their ideological instincts of social justice. The Greens are outraged and the conservatives outwitted. There is much indignation that we have divorced ourselves of our international responsibilities under the refugee convention.

“There of those who like to opine about politics yet conveniently leave out the political consequences when forming it?”

I have read with sympathetic eyes the discourse of people on this subject. I understand the principles with which they argue and I fall into the same category of moral indignation. Where I differ though is that I take into account the politics of the argument. Others see things purely in black and white terms or in simple solutions to highly complex problems. For example do I stand on my soapbox of idealistic belief in the knowledge that it might cost government? How does one measure the cost of a principle against the loss of government?

For me the extension to an argument is ‘’how does this fit into my theory of the greater good?’’ The first rule of politics is to attain power and the second rule is to retain it. Otherwise your ideology is worth nothing. You can do much for the greater good in government but little in opposition.

It’s all very fine to bath in the waters of idealism but sometimes we have to dry ourselves with a towel of political compromise and pragmatism.

So if at the heart of this matter is the altruistically paramount concern for saving lives then surely the Prime Minister should be applauded. Wasn’t it all about that? If it wasn’t and it was about winning government then those of that ilk are now revealed.
Tony Abbotts mantra or three word slogan of ‘’Stop the boats’’ has for three years rung in the ears of Australians and entered the labyrinth of our conscience and abused it. With the use of language unbecoming of decent men he and Scott Morrison have demonised those seeking asylum disgracefully. The result being that they ran from man’s grace and benevolence into the arms of unrighteousness. They and the likes of Howard turned our cherished belief of everyone’s right to a fair go into a draconian pit of racism. And all for a few votes. May the conscience of human rights be upon them? One of my facebook friends Brendan J Kelly had this to say. He should have included the opposition in his summary.

”Unfortunately, there are a great many Australians who have been driven to a xenophobic frenzy by the MSM. The fears of these people have been fed by media bias and by shock jocks who care more about ratings than the truth.
The problem is it exists. We cannot destroy it through our ideals or even, it would appear by sound argument. How can sound argument stand against emotionally charged, fear-filled rhetoric?”

The political consequences of this decision (and others) are enormous. In the space of three weeks Kevin Rudd has turned the political discourse on its ear. The opposition have been forced to accept this solution because of its previous intransigence and has taken away a major part of its electoral platform. Tony Abbotts belief that oppositions are there to oppose has come back to haunt him where as being constructive might have benefited him. The same can be said for the problem of Climate Change. His negativity has spread like rust through the community but Rudd has politically outfoxed him and the ALP have more than an even chance of winning this election.
No I will never always agree with every policy of the party I support but I know that having them in office is one hundred per cent better than having a person of such little character like Tony Abbott in the lodge.
Therefore I am prepared to compromise my idealism. Not easily but I do.

As I have written previously Tony Abbott if nothing else is a very colourful character. He is aggressive both physically and in the use of language. His negativity is legendary and he has little consideration for any ideas other than his own and says NO to his opponents policies regardless of their worthiness. He is by evidence and his own admission a liar of some regularity. Added to that he has a political gutter mentality and little respect for the institution of parliament and its conventions.

Would you be willing to turn over government to such a man? Or compromise your idealism?