Partisan infection is spreading to Australia - The Centre for Independent Studies

There are lessons for Australia in the extraordinary scenes surrounding the confirmation hearing of US President Donald Trump’s proposed Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. There is no question that this situation says much about how not to handle sexual-assault allegations – whether you think they are true or false.

However, it is also important to ask how the United States’ system got to the point where, seemingly, the basic tenets of natural justice (innocence until proven guilty, the right to know the substance of allegations against you, etc) can be set aside depending on what political party you support.

The peculiarities of the US judicial-confirmation system aside, these hearings have further exposed the core of deep and bitter partisanship that has infected almost every aspect of US public life, from the media to the law.

When people think, believe – and say – the worst about everybody on the other side, we all sacrifice much more than mere civility. Regardless of who is winning the fight at any point in time, the end result is a diminution of trust in all public institutions.

It is fortunate that Australia is not as polarised as the US. But there are many signs of the partisan infection that has riven the US body politic spreading to Australia.

We saw yet another warning this week about the poor behaviour in question time – this instance from Julie Bishop – where opposing politicians carry on like football hooligans in the front bar on a Friday night. It’s almost like a badge of honour to be removed from Parliament for heckling the other side.

Of course, this is not just limited to question time. Politicians routinely exaggerate the negative consequences of policy proposals, cherry-pick evidence or even just take the least-charitable version of one another’s remarks.

How often do you hear a genuinely respectful, informed policy disagreement between politicians on different sides of the fence? Rarely. How many times a day do they verbally attack each other’s character and motives? Almost every day. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

It’s not even particularly worse now than it has been in the past, but it has become more prominent because of the rise of the 24-hour news cycle and the ubiquity of social media. The last decade has seen a massive increase in the quantity of political communication, and this has meant a significant reduction in its quality.

The digital revolution removed the gatekeepers from public debate. And it’s not only engaged voters who now see it unfiltered – Facebook and Twitter bring it into the lives of many ordinary Australians every day.

For participants in public debate, it’s occasionally very ugly and almost always personal. Most people in the advocacy/thinktank space are happy to engage in a forthright exchange of views on policy. However, little can be discussed intelligentlywhen someone’s response is: “Your organisation admires Hitler and I look forward to the day you are chased down the street.”

Ironically, this ugliness is at least bipartisan. A left-wing friend of mine also found herself unable to shake the effects of the haters. Eventually, it takes a toll on everyone.

The contest of ideas isn’t meant to be an actual battle, and entering public debate shouldn’t be a blood sport.

Perhaps it is this ugliness that is driving the peculiar reaction on university campuses around the world, especially the rise of the “safe space” culture and the increasing resort to “no platforming” controversial speakers.

Yet this movement has it exactly backwards. Instead of rightfully policing the extremes of conduct by some engaging in debate, they want to police the content of the ideas that cause division.

It is here that genuine leadership can make a difference. Universities should look at adopting intellectual freedom charters, thereby making a firm statement that they are places for the robust, but polite, exchange of competing views. It is not conservatives but those who do not abide by that simple ethos who should not be welcomed on campus.

Politicians, too, should shun the excesses of question time culture and cultivate a reputation for civil debate. In fact, it would be a good way to get noticed – as they would be among the few doing it.

If we don’t, the result that could eventuate is being shown clearly in the US, where the Democrats are playing politics with sexual-assault claims and the Republicans are under investigation for colluding in Russian attacks on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

That kind of hyper-partisanship isn’t welcome here.

Simon Cowan is research director at the Centre for Independent Studies.