In my first reaction to this video (play on the left or click to see in YouTube) I had some sympathy for the "Leader of the Opposition" (his name is Tony Abbott) who I at first thought was being publicly shamed by the Prime Minister. Was this OK in any circumstances? That is a philosophical ethics question that I struggle with. Even when I may agree with a particular argument, the treatment of one's opponent as a human being is important. (note: I think now that the Prime Minister kept good boundaries.)
In later research on the ways that Tony Abbott has characterized and attempted to embarrass the Prime Minister, I am reminded of my reaction to the U.S. political arena as what I call "5th grade playground politics." Hurtful in ways we don't, as adults, like to acknowledge, but nonetheless influential in our ultimate attitudes and behavior.
I decided that the speech could be a first step in opening the can of worms that is political rhetoric, and, though messy, perhaps needs to be opened. It is not that I generally believe in shaming or embarrassing one's opponent in an argument, but it is satisfying to see the kind of political hypocrisy that exists in most forms of government and most political arenas called out. (e.g. the 5th grader yelling, "you acted like a bully and it hurt me, and I'm not going to take it anymore!")
Many are calling on Barack Obama to take this kind of stance and tone with the endless hypocritical attacks that he has borne from Republican politicians. From the New York Times blog:
It was so powerful that some analysts suggested that President Barack Obama, who appeared distracted and even submissive in his first debate with Mitt Romney last week, might use Ms. Gillard’s performance as a model and motivation for the next debate.Of course, the counter-attacks have begun, and there will be damage control and there will be retribution - but as I watched this display, it occurred to me that perhaps the most powerful thing Tony Abbott could have done in response to this tirade would have been to take the Prime Minister's advice, reflect on his behavior and sincerely apologize. Wouldn't that have been a moment to remember? Wouldn't that have had the most neutralizing effect of this whole episode?
I think this video is going viral, not because Julia Gillard "slammed" the opposition, but because she brought her real self into the chamber. Whether or not those that hear agree with her, she has set her own boundary of toleration. Has she given others the gift of her true voice?
If only all politicians would bring their real self and true voice to the table!! However, unless that miracle occurs, I'll be avoiding television for the duration of election season.
ReplyDeleteGreat stuff. I really enjoyed watching this.
ReplyDeleteOne of the ways that discourse is stifled is through leaders (politicians) defining "civil" discourse in particular ways.
I don't struggle with the ethics of this public shaming at all. If you're in the chamber, you should be on notice that your behavior is up for question. And if it's shameful, then thank goodness someone has the spine to stand up and talk about it.
This reminds me of a discussion on MPR where I heard (and I keep hearing this) Governer Dayton say that people who support the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage are "decent" people with values that they are applying. I don't agree. I don't think "decent" people deny the right of others. I don't think "decent" people select passages from their book of faith to impose their will on others.
I do hope that Barack comes to the next debate.
This video has opened up to me the high drama of Australian politics. The chamber voted in support of the position of the Prime Minister by 1 vote. Subsequently, however, that same day the Speaker, Peter Slipper, did resign his office. I also watched his heartfelt resignation speech which seemed to be designed to heal the wounds. Great theater over there across the "other pond."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZIvlicJPs0U
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree that in politics and public life, behavior is up for question, or that we can be very tough in our challenge to hypocrisy or hurtful behavior. I think, though, that our effectiveness is compromised when we dehumanize our opponents.
To me, this means that instead of characterizing our disagreement by saying (in effect) "you made a mistake" we say (in effect) "you are a mistake." To me, shaming is a way of communicating the latter. There seems to be a dance where we can, in the strongest terms, point out the mistake without crossing over to the "you are a mistake" rhetoric.
One of the things I admire about Julia Gillard's speech is that she largely kept to the "you made a mistake" language and focused on her own experience of particular behaviors that were not congruent and were hypocritical, then put those in context of the business at hand. But I think she came very close to the other. Anyway, don't get me wrong. I loved it.
The problem, which watchers of Australian politics notice, is that this is a good example of Political Theater. Calling attention to this, in light of the Prime Minister's dubious (if not illegal) push to force fracking operations on First Nations ("Aboriginal" is a slur; there's nothing aberrant about them.) peoples there, make what good could be had significantly diluted by using it to cover serious issues that actually matter in material ways- such as one's drinking water being so corrupted that you can light it on fire.
ReplyDelete