The polarisation of our society is worsening and worrying. In a vicious cycle of self-perpetuation, the more polarised we become the more public debate descends into a serious of warring tribes hurling insults rather than contesting ideas.
Left versus Right, feminists versus men, climate deniers versus alarmists, ABC versus News Corp, Labor versus Liberal, Trump supporters versus Trump denouncers — pick your side, throw your barbs. This week we have seen this divide highlighted in a non-consequential episode and a deadly serious one.
The insignificant example was the appearance of Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson on the ABC’s Q&A. He was billed by the national broadcaster as “controversial” while other panellists, including the deliberately provocative and aggressive “Marxist Catholic” Van Badham, attracted no such descriptor.
The framing of Peterson in such a way is illuminating given his popularity hinges on relaying old-fashioned advice about personal responsibility and self-reliance bolstered by data-driven evidence and clinical experience. If you see Peterson as controversial it would seem to place you in a fairly radical place.
This antagonistic approach to Peterson, amplified by social media insults, was reflected in the entirety of the program. There was a sense of resentment that the Q&A bubble was being invaded by someone prepared to talk about common sense and proven societal realities in defiance of political and social fashions.
And in such a situation abuse becomes the norm but Peterson is quick and strong enough to point it out. One audience member finished her question with this: “You talk all this much about individual responsibility, most of us are never going to be able to afford to have all of these assets to have responsibility over, so what is your advice beyond banal comments, like, ‘clean your room’?”
It was refreshing to see Peterson call this out. “Well, you know, it’s actually rather difficult to answer a question that ends with, “Your comments are banal” politely,” he resisted. “So, you know, I would consider that more of an opinionated personal and political statement than actually a question. So, why don’t you try reformulating that so that there’s an actual question there?”
The deadly earnest example of this divide is being played out over Cardinal George Pell’s conviction. As a social conservative he has been targeted and even vilified for years. As the church leader in charge of dealing with the internal and public fall out from disgraceful behaviour by Catholic clergy and terrible cover-ups by church hierarchy, he became a lightning rod for the aggrieved and anyone wanting to attack the church.
The case over which he was convicted in December arose after much of this publicity and the airing of other public allegations against Pell. The offence for which Pell will be sentenced is heinous and it goes without saying that he deserves no sympathy from anyone if this episode occurred. With an appeal underway we await the final judicial outcome.
But if you doubt the polarisation at play here and the willingness to hurl abuse at perceived opponents, you only have to look at an astonishing social media post by prominent journalist George Megalogenis. Megalogenis was a long-time reporter on this newspaper, has been a regular on the ABC and has published a number of books.
He aligns with the so-called progressive side of most debates and made made clear that he believed the conviction of Pell should be used to smear others on the conservative side.
“There will be a number of Australian politicians and journalists who will be forced to confront the choices they made over many years to side with George Pell against his accusers. Careers will inevitably be compromised or even destroyed by the association,” Megalogenis tweeted. “It might not seem fair to those elites on the wrong end of the reckoning, especially those who see their faith attacked as part of the payback. The innocent, and those who atone for making the wrong call, have my sympathy. And I’m mindful that this case will be appealed. But if you side with power in Australia, and use the privileges that come with that access to hound ordinary citizens who dare to question it, then you should expect public ridicule when the verdict comes in as guilty.”
There you have it. Even from someone publicly devoted to reasoned debated, it is as partisan and vindictive as that.
This mindset explains why many journalists were quick to recirculate video clips of Tony Abbott speaking about his dealings with Pell — the Cardinal’s conviction is an irresistible chance to abuse his ideological fellow travellers.
Trade union rape charges, Labor child abuse convictions, historical sex assault claims against those on the Left — none of those associations matter, apparently. Yet clearly the aim of many here is not only to condemn Pell but all those who have associated with him. It is ugly to watch.
Bollards no barrier to Left vitriol
The Christchurch massacre has brought out the worst in public commentary and toxic debate.
She’s right … why’s that wrong?
Gladys Berejiklian is on the cusp of making gender-based history. So why has there hardly been a reference to this on the ABC?