Don't hate me 'cos I'm pessimistic
If someone were to ask me, I would have to say that I am, basically, more a pessimist than an optimist. Not that I never see things with a rosy complexion, just that I err on the side of not getting my hopes up.
Pessimism is a refuge. If I refuse to believe that good things will happen, I get to be surprised and delighted when they do, or if they (predictably) don't, my pre-prepared defence mechanisms are in place to soften the blow. It's not so hard to take if you kind of expected it all along.
Is that defeatist? Not particularly. It doesn't mean I'm not thrilled and overjoyed when something good does occur, just that I don't get crushed when something bad happens instead.
Take the football for example. For me it's Aussie Rules, for others it might be the soccer, rugby (!?), baseball, whatever. I was brought up on it, it's in my blood, I can't help it. When the Hawks lose, it hurts. Not in a feelingy-pathetic-woosbag sort of way, it actually physically hurts, like someone's twisting my guts in a knot. I don't like it. Not at all. But I simply don't have much choice in the matter.
So what do I do? I play it down. I never dare to hope we might actually win because the disappointment grows exponentially and I CERTAINLY never say it out loud. That way, if a victory unexpectedly comes along, I am over the moon, it's brilliant, magnified by years of poor performances. On the other hand, when (inevitably) another flogging slaps me in the face, I can turn to myself and say "you see? you expected nothing less".
Being a pessimist doesn't mean I have to wander the streets looking maudlin (though I am rather fond of that), in fact I am only really pessimistic when it comes to certain things. Things that matter. Things that hurt.
Like the football.
Or politics.
In a previous post Barista declared with some confidence that Howard will lose the upcoming election. While I hope with every fibre of my being that he's right, I can't help but think it's like uttering the name of the Scottish king in a theatre. It's tempting fate, it's asking for trouble.
And while I would love beyond pretty much anything to see Howard stripped of his robes (GOD I want to see that concession speech!), I actually don't believe it's going to happen.
Among the many varied and half-formed reasons in my head, I think one of the stronger points is the issue of voter fatigue. It occurs almost without fail during every election. Early on, when the idea of a new election is fresh and the pollies come out swinging, the general population allows itself the indulgence of actually thinking about the bigger picture for a couple of months. During this period, big issues like climate change, foreign policy, welfare, education and employment are taken up and embraced enthusiastically.
People think about, well, other people. They take a moment to let their imaginations run around the park and get some exercise. They can see a better world, a place where the ones with stuff, help the ones without stuff, a world in which Australia is seen as a leader of noble causes, a bastion of the ACTUAL 'fair go' (not John Howard's bizarre version). It's at these moments that Australians begin to consider reconciling with the Aborigines and using budget surpluses to *gasp* actually DO something literally constructive.
But all this takes effort.
John Howard has spent the last 10 years shoe-horning Australia into hiscomatose relaxed and comfortable mold. Ours is not to think on the possibilities, why expend the energy? You all work so hard in a purely noble way, you should put your feet up - don't trouble yourselves with these frivolities. BE RELAXED FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!
And so it is that the longer an election campaign drags on, the less energy voters have to, you know, give a toss.
The second reason I don't believe Howard will lose follows on from my first point and starts to kick in just as the energy described earlier begins to fade. Self interest.
Ultimately people areshellfish selfish. A staggering statement I realise and a trait that isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, under Howard's rule, the cult of the individual and immediate family to the exclusion of all others has become the dominant social force in Australia. Since the mid 90's we have been encouraged to get our selfish on. Bigger cars, bigger mortgages, give less to others, horde more for you, plasma screen TV's, McMansions, tennis courts. Build bigger fences to keep out the paedophiles, strengthen the borders to keep out the muslims. These are good and noble aims (apparently). Don't feel ashamed.
There is an ad on television at the moment for one of those new housing estates where the shiny be-babied couple smile wanly into the camera and declare that Delphin/Craigieburn/Caroline Springs/whatever-the-fuck is great because you're with people who "understand". In other words, don't let those latte-sipping inner-city elitists sneer at you for wanting a four-litre Pajero and a seven bedroom house with nine bathrooms and a "media room". It's OK, John Howard says so.
I am not entirely against these places, though I feel the ghetto-mentality that seems to be fed by ads like this and the concept of 'gated communities' can only be a bad thing. But they do represent a great deal of what Howard has achieved. It's a regression to the 50's.
Selfishness has always been and will always be at the core of every election, but my point is that Australians have been told for a decade that not only is selfishness acceptable, but it is a noble trait, something to celebrate - not to suppress it, but to shout it from the rooftops.
And so here we are, six, seven, eight months out from a Federal election with polls running strongly in favour of K-Rudd. The optimists among us are starting to get their hopes up, starting to believe that the dessicated coconut might finally be tipped out of his bowl.
But here is my prediction.
As we have seen in the last couple of news polls, the Labor lead will begin to diminish, slowly at first and then with increasing speed until the two Parties are more or less neck and neck by the time the election arrives. Howard will move to counter the areas of most concern (see Hicks already), including an increasingly shrill scare campaign over the abolition of the IR reforms, a hollow, but extravagant gesture towards climate change and continued attacks on Rudd's character. He'll drive wedges like the pro he is, he'll continue his ridiculous line about economic management that the MSM have bought wholesale, he'll furrow his little brow and talk Prime Ministerially about responsibilities and working harder and taking nothing for granted.
And slowly but surely, the Australian population will get worn down. After this early flurry of earnestness reflected in the polls, they'll get tired of having to be angry and instead they'll retreat to the feathered bed of selfishness and curl up in front of their flat screen TVs and watch Dancing With the Stars. Kevin Rudd will come to be seen as the all-too-eager geek at the front of the class and will be ridiculed accordingly. And John Howard will scrape in with a significantly reduced, but still significant majority.
Le sigh.
This (I hate to break it to you kids) is how I believe 2007 will turn out. But as I mentioned earlier - I'm not known for looking on the bright side.
But don't despair. Remember '99. It CAN happen - just don't expect it or it will run the other way. We need to play hard-to-get. Give it nothing and perhaps, just maybe, a Howard defeat can be coaxed out of it's burrow whence it has cowered quivering for the last three elections.
Please don't take this as an admission of defeat (though I realise that's precisely how it reads). It's just...by writing it down...I think it will help.
Pessimism is a refuge. If I refuse to believe that good things will happen, I get to be surprised and delighted when they do, or if they (predictably) don't, my pre-prepared defence mechanisms are in place to soften the blow. It's not so hard to take if you kind of expected it all along.
Is that defeatist? Not particularly. It doesn't mean I'm not thrilled and overjoyed when something good does occur, just that I don't get crushed when something bad happens instead.
Take the football for example. For me it's Aussie Rules, for others it might be the soccer, rugby (!?), baseball, whatever. I was brought up on it, it's in my blood, I can't help it. When the Hawks lose, it hurts. Not in a feelingy-pathetic-woosbag sort of way, it actually physically hurts, like someone's twisting my guts in a knot. I don't like it. Not at all. But I simply don't have much choice in the matter.
So what do I do? I play it down. I never dare to hope we might actually win because the disappointment grows exponentially and I CERTAINLY never say it out loud. That way, if a victory unexpectedly comes along, I am over the moon, it's brilliant, magnified by years of poor performances. On the other hand, when (inevitably) another flogging slaps me in the face, I can turn to myself and say "you see? you expected nothing less".
Being a pessimist doesn't mean I have to wander the streets looking maudlin (though I am rather fond of that), in fact I am only really pessimistic when it comes to certain things. Things that matter. Things that hurt.
Like the football.
Or politics.
In a previous post Barista declared with some confidence that Howard will lose the upcoming election. While I hope with every fibre of my being that he's right, I can't help but think it's like uttering the name of the Scottish king in a theatre. It's tempting fate, it's asking for trouble.
And while I would love beyond pretty much anything to see Howard stripped of his robes (GOD I want to see that concession speech!), I actually don't believe it's going to happen.
Among the many varied and half-formed reasons in my head, I think one of the stronger points is the issue of voter fatigue. It occurs almost without fail during every election. Early on, when the idea of a new election is fresh and the pollies come out swinging, the general population allows itself the indulgence of actually thinking about the bigger picture for a couple of months. During this period, big issues like climate change, foreign policy, welfare, education and employment are taken up and embraced enthusiastically.
People think about, well, other people. They take a moment to let their imaginations run around the park and get some exercise. They can see a better world, a place where the ones with stuff, help the ones without stuff, a world in which Australia is seen as a leader of noble causes, a bastion of the ACTUAL 'fair go' (not John Howard's bizarre version). It's at these moments that Australians begin to consider reconciling with the Aborigines and using budget surpluses to *gasp* actually DO something literally constructive.
But all this takes effort.
John Howard has spent the last 10 years shoe-horning Australia into his
And so it is that the longer an election campaign drags on, the less energy voters have to, you know, give a toss.
The second reason I don't believe Howard will lose follows on from my first point and starts to kick in just as the energy described earlier begins to fade. Self interest.
Ultimately people are
There is an ad on television at the moment for one of those new housing estates where the shiny be-babied couple smile wanly into the camera and declare that Delphin/Craigieburn/Caroline Springs/whatever-the-fuck is great because you're with people who "understand". In other words, don't let those latte-sipping inner-city elitists sneer at you for wanting a four-litre Pajero and a seven bedroom house with nine bathrooms and a "media room". It's OK, John Howard says so.
I am not entirely against these places, though I feel the ghetto-mentality that seems to be fed by ads like this and the concept of 'gated communities' can only be a bad thing. But they do represent a great deal of what Howard has achieved. It's a regression to the 50's.
Selfishness has always been and will always be at the core of every election, but my point is that Australians have been told for a decade that not only is selfishness acceptable, but it is a noble trait, something to celebrate - not to suppress it, but to shout it from the rooftops.
And so here we are, six, seven, eight months out from a Federal election with polls running strongly in favour of K-Rudd. The optimists among us are starting to get their hopes up, starting to believe that the dessicated coconut might finally be tipped out of his bowl.
But here is my prediction.
As we have seen in the last couple of news polls, the Labor lead will begin to diminish, slowly at first and then with increasing speed until the two Parties are more or less neck and neck by the time the election arrives. Howard will move to counter the areas of most concern (see Hicks already), including an increasingly shrill scare campaign over the abolition of the IR reforms, a hollow, but extravagant gesture towards climate change and continued attacks on Rudd's character. He'll drive wedges like the pro he is, he'll continue his ridiculous line about economic management that the MSM have bought wholesale, he'll furrow his little brow and talk Prime Ministerially about responsibilities and working harder and taking nothing for granted.
And slowly but surely, the Australian population will get worn down. After this early flurry of earnestness reflected in the polls, they'll get tired of having to be angry and instead they'll retreat to the feathered bed of selfishness and curl up in front of their flat screen TVs and watch Dancing With the Stars. Kevin Rudd will come to be seen as the all-too-eager geek at the front of the class and will be ridiculed accordingly. And John Howard will scrape in with a significantly reduced, but still significant majority.
Le sigh.
This (I hate to break it to you kids) is how I believe 2007 will turn out. But as I mentioned earlier - I'm not known for looking on the bright side.
But don't despair. Remember '99. It CAN happen - just don't expect it or it will run the other way. We need to play hard-to-get. Give it nothing and perhaps, just maybe, a Howard defeat can be coaxed out of it's burrow whence it has cowered quivering for the last three elections.
Please don't take this as an admission of defeat (though I realise that's precisely how it reads). It's just...by writing it down...I think it will help.
It is to my great chagrin that I read your post. I believed I was the only one who thought this may occur.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the reason this usually happens is because of a lack of policy from Labor. At least Beasley suffered from this. But for a few slogans there was no substance to any of his campaigns, and Latham just lost the plot completely.
Rudd pointed out a while back that early polls often put Labor ahead, but then comes Costello's budget and they spend like crazy on shiny new policies aimed at Caroline Springs residing residents and they claw their way back.
In 2001 he would have lost if not for Tampa and the Liberals' assimilation of Hansonite policies, thereby incorporating her vote whilst all the people lurking in the shadows who thought she was right, but not wanting to sound like a racist by voting for her were suddenly given a carte blanche "be a racist- Howard says it's ok".
This country sickens me. But Rudd has ideas, he is switched on and hasn't let Howard get to him (yet). Yes, the libs are clawing their way back and yes, I think they'll win, but they're going to be taken to task for once.
Let's just hope there's an interest rate rise just before the election...