This is a form of argument so low that the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer rated it last of his 38 ways to win an argument you've actually lost. Kerry O'Brien has spent much of his career for the ABC in barracking for the ALP, so it must have hurt him considerably when Rudd crumbled in front of him last week. Rudd had been asked about his inept support for Global Warming. Remembering that Rudd could have gotten his ETS tax through parliament had he not forced the Liberal party to roll their leader, or had he negotiated with the Greens, instead of dismissing them. But at the time Rudd wasn't interested in Global Warming, he was interested in a double dissolution trigger with populist value. When the ETS populism collapsed in the wake of climate gate and the failure of Rudd at Copenhagen, he was able to indefinitely postpone his dumb policy and use the freed funds for more pork barrels. He didn't have a defense to the question Kerry asked, although that would not have stopped Gillard or Tanner, both of whom go into their fantasy land to answer questions that are difficult. One can imagine Gillard claiming that the conservatives don't believe in Global Warming, which while being largely true is beside the point. Rudd crumbled and called Kerry 'mate' and it looks really bad. So Kerry had to engineer a win. Kerry was interviewing Mr Abbott on the issue of the budget, but that didn't matter, he was to ask instead a question to do with a few months past, one in which the world had moved on.
Sadly, for Kerry, Mr Abbott answered the question well. It was badly phrased, as such attacks are, relying on length and artifice to pose the problem which would not be allowed in a court case before a judge (as with other questions like "When did you stop beating your wife"). Kerry asked about a radio interview in which Mr Abbott had claimed the vain hope of running for an election without new taxes. A month later, Mr Abbott had announced a policy platform that included a new tax on big business which would pay for maternity leave for working mothers. At the time, the ALP had called it excessive, claiming mothers that work don't want so much leave. But the ALP policy was more expensive to the Australian population and offered less. Despite the criticism from the usual quarters, the conservative policy was praised as workable. Mr Abbott reminded Red Kerry that he hadn't wanted the tax but it was the best that could be achieved under the circumstances. Red Kerry pointed out that there was a dissonance between the radio interview and the announcement, and Mr Abbott admitted as much, but pointed out the policy was good and didn't harm business .. like the ridiculous Miners tax will.
Under other circumstances, the interviewer would have accepted the answer and moved on. Mr Abbott still had a budget reply statement to make, but apparently Kerry wasn't prepared to ask other questions and needed his kill, so he exaggerated his claim, saying that the radio interview was a polar opposite to the policy announcement. Mr Abbott calmly restated his position, pointing out that there is a difference between a radio interview and a policy announcement. Kerry then claimed that Mr Abbott had admitted that he occasionally lied, which is a gross misrepresentation of what Mr Abbott said, but sufficient for Kerry to finish the interview and let the ALP supporters take their cue.
Much is being made of Mr Abbott's so called admission. It is similar as when celebrated journalist David Frost claimed he coerced President Nixon into claiming Watergate as his own. Frost was wrong then, as Kerry is now, but that didn't matter as those who serve the mighty ALP (or left wing) Pork Barrel can claim they don't understand the distinctions applied and involved.
It is fascinating to see the debate in terms of those same journalists commenting on Mr Dutton spending $2k on BHP shares, recognizing they are undervalued right now. True, they have lost more value, but should the abysmal Rudd government be dismissed, then through good economic management, they will achieve their real value. Mr Dutton is betting on a conservative win. It is also fascinating to see Tanner fall over his own argument on Q&A.
It is also fascinating that Mr Abbott remained calm throughout the interview, and honest. Neither of which the current PM is capable of.
No comments:
Post a Comment