It’s not an alien invasion, it’s just politics

AMERICA may be the land of cities where you can buy a sixpack after 10pm but, when it comes to selecting leaders, Australia has it all over the Yanks.

AMERICA may be the land of cities where you can buy a sixpack after 10pm but, when it comes to selecting national leaders, Australia has it all over the Yanks. Sure, we suffer the odd ­faceless man or two. And yes, we do seem to change our head of government like responsible homeowners swap  out the batteries in their smoke detectors.

But we also console ourselves that at least the process doesn’t take 18 months (well, except for that whole Kevin-Julia thing) and that the petrol involved in a few extra drives to Yarralumla costs a pittance compared to what’s shaping up to be a cool billion dollars involved in the gold-plated travelling circus that is this year’s American presidential campaign. And what a circus it is.

Last week Hillary Clinton suggested to a local newspaper that Earth may very well have been visited by space aliens. At first glance this would appear a political stroke of genius, making Donald Trump’s fears about Mexican immigration seem like small potatoes compared to the threat of interstellar attack — at least until they start building death rays and tractor beams in ­Ciudad Juarez. Her comments would also make 2016 the most alien-centric presidential race since Kang and Kodos ran against each other on The Simpsons (I voted Kodos, for what it’s worth).

Of course it is just as likely that Clinton was just having a laugh. Which means potential Democrat voters will be left to decide which is more likely: That Clinton ­already has an “Area 51” bumper sticker in her handbag ready to slap on the presidential limo, or that she was just demonstrating the sort of genuine, spontaneous, non-robotic banter for which she is so famous.

Either way the prospect of Hillary Clinton, whose record of achievement … hang on, it must be around here somewhere … is, shall we say, on the modest side actually becoming leader of the free world would only seem bizarre if it weren’t eclipsed by the prospect Donald Trump might win that same office.

Artwork: John Tiedemann

(Yes, it could happen. One of the quirky features of the presidential preselection process is an event called the Iowa Caucus, which happens on February 1 and requires voters who want to participate to drive through snow and ice and spend the evening huddled in school halls and church basements selecting “delegates”. If Trump can get his supporters, who tend to be otherwise pretty disengaged politically, to turn up to an event that requires that level of commitment he’s on path to the nomination. If he fails, look for a fight between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who represent outsider and establishment wings of the party ­respectively.)

Trump draws his support from large numbers of Americans, among them many Democrats, who see their country’s power, prestige and institutions having been run down.

Coming in for blame is a media and political class that is content to “lead from behind” (to borrow President Obama’s words) and let others do the heavy lifting abroad while at the same letting universities and ­indeed much of the culture become dominated by political correctness and the shrill tantrums of the ­aggrieved identity politics set.

Incidents such as Obama’s failure to promptly label the recent San Bernardino shootings as a terrorist attack (instead he used it to push his domestic policy agendas) are part of a broader pattern which help ­explain why Trump can say outrageous things and still win votes.

And how this stuff plays out matters, even 15,000km away from Washington. On the one hand ­established players like China and Russia have been ­allowed to test limits with little consequence. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state during much of this, and it is hard to be ­optimistic she would do a better job at world ­affairs as president.

Trump’s bumptiousness brings with it its own problems, as does his lack of experience on the world stage. The promise to “make America great again” is also a threat to countries who have risen while America weakened. A Trump presidency would be a challenge to Australian policymakers who walk a delicate line ­between Washington and Beijing.

James Morrow.

Meanwhile, Cruz (likely to pick up the outsider mantle should Trump stumble) and Rubio (the preferred, but young and inexperienced, candidate of Republican insiders) have only begun to give hints of what their approach to the rest of the world might look like, though both have a desire to press China on human rights and restore American leadership in Asia. At this rate, a visit from aliens is almost starting to look good. But there might be some sheepish looks when they ­demand, “take me to your leader”.

ONE MAN’S MEAT IS ANOTHER MAN’S VEGANUARY

NEWS from the UK suggests that some 20,000 Britons have signed on to a month-long festival called “Veganuary”. Which, sorry gents, is not as fun as it sounds: it’s actually about going vegan, avoiding all animal products, for an entire month. Voluntarily.

Yes, that includes bacon. But while people should have the choice to eat what they want, movements like Veganuary — a more dour version of “Meat-Free Monday” and a close cousin to various other pun-driven self-denial movements like FebFast and OcSober — feel just a bit too culty for comfort.

Forget the naivete of ordering a salad and thinking that no animals were harmed in the course of putting it on your plate (what do you think carrot farmers do with their rabbit friends? Invite them over for tea?). And put aside the Soylent Green misery of having to make spag bol with some ingredient the Veganuary website refers to as “vegan mince”, a sort of weird concoction of packed proteins and flavours and starches that surely violate all the modern diktats about avoiding processed food. Because more and more evidence is coming in to suggest that going veggo or vegan is hardly the boon for the planet or people that the movement’s adherents claim.

Scientists who study the issue have noted that an end to cattle farming would not mean an end to environmental impact, that much of the atmospheric impact of cows comes from grain-feeding, and that were everyone to give up steak, land previously used for raising beef would either wind up going over to feral pests or high-protein crops such as legumes, all with their own impacts.

And this wouldn’t cut it for the many people who have tried to cut out meat but found it impossible for their systems: there just is no substitute for fattier cuts of meat which can be three times as energy-rich as the cereals and grains that might replace them. An unhealthy pallor cannot really be masked with a virtuous glow.

Even the threat of cow emissions are not what they once seemed. Last month CSIRO released results of a study suggesting that Australia’s cattle methane emissions are in fact 24 per cent lower than previously believed.

In short, if you are worried about the planet, about animals, or about yourself, reformed farming practices rather than wholesale dietary revolutions are the way to go.

Still, eat what you like but for my money meat is meant to be chewed, not eschewed.