Election year full of challenges - for us!

This election year is loaded with challenges.



Lincoln at
Gettysburg.

Simply enduring it will be the first as our senses will be endlessly assaulted by those eager to convince us they have the answer; second, will be the challenge of separating fact from fiction; third, are the protagonists truly altruistic or is it simply the rude pursuit of power?; and, fourth and within all that, do they really have any idea of what it is they are talking about?

Most politicians, from those of Local Government through to the dizzy heights of the federal stage, descend from their respective platforms loaded with personal baggage that clouds perspectives and their appeal to the populist view cloaks individual agendas

Having encountered politicians of all stripes, it seems they are “trained” in giving convincing and wordy answers that appear to relate to the question, but in reality, mostly have nothing to do with it.

Most electors accord our politicians the respect their position warrants and it seems that in response those same politicians should respect those who may or may not vote for them.

It appears, interestingly, that they do, but therein lies the strange disconnect between reality and democracy, or what President Abraham Lincoln described at Gettysburg in 1863 midway through the American civil war as the government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The rhetoric of that articulate president lives with many today, but few have the intellectual or leadership capacities to live up to that ideal.

Some people argue at length that the idea of government is contrary to the process that is to the broad betterment of the people, suggesting that government, loaded down by its bureaucratic processes, frustrate and frequently deny the ambitions of many.

That, it seems, is an extreme anarchical or libertarian view; doctrines that depend on the altruism of all, a personality trait missing from most, even many of our present political players.

Acknowledging the differences and intrigues of human nature it appears we do need a government, but not one many would argue that has a controlling impact over our daily affairs.

All that seems fine until something, whether man-made or natural, gets out of step and then there is an instant cry for help –“Why weren’t we told?” “Who’s responsible?” “When does the clean-up start?” “Who’s in charge?” “Where’s the discipline?”

All these matters, at their heart, are about community and altruism, and, no matter how loose, some form of administration, government by another name, is needed.

A recent meeting in Shepparton discussed the effectiveness of our present three layers of government - local, state and federal - and there appeared consensus about abolition of the states, leaving a Federal Government backed by regional bodies.

 

Understanding how much is enough and imagining the solution

Robert and Edward
 Skidlesky's book.

Considerations about what is and what isn’t the good life are as common as opinions: everyone has one.

However growth ideologues have, in contemporary times, hijacked and distorted the human sense of what is worthy and marketed their contorted interpretation of the good life.

The modern rich, developed world is populated by people who equate the good life with accumulation of all it produces, along with the imagined enjoyment of the pleasures that stash of “stuff” brings.

Others have quite a different view and so liken the good life to one of privation and for some the higher life, or good life, only arrives after an ascetic life.

The debate about what is the good life and how you access it is as old as man, but rather than closing in on the answer, it is becoming more remote.

Many equate the good life and happiness with growth and wealth, but extensive and world-wide research point to weaknesses in that argument illustrating that once fundamental needs are answered, the good life and happiness rests on other immeasurable “goods”.

Writing in their 2012 book “How much is enough?: Money andthe Good Life” Robert and Edward Skidlesky said: “The basic goods are qualities, not quantities, objects of discernment, not measurement”.

Those “goods”, according to the Skileskys are health, security, respect, personality, harmony with nature, friendship and leisure.

Personality is about one being able to frame and execute a plan of life that reflects their tastes, temperament and conception of the good, while leisure must be accompanied by the term “purposeful”.

Interestingly, most men live much longer than they ever did, but that cannot be attributed to growth and nor can growth claim those other basic “goods” mentioned earlier.

The United Kingdom has doubled its per capita income since 1974, but residents have not tightened their grip on those basic goods, and in some respects they now have fewer of them.

“We have chased after superfluities and neglected necessities,” the Skidleskys wrote.

The good not mentioned by the Skidleskys is “imagination”, probably the most powerful, and underused, attribute of the human repertoire.

People of all stripes are obedient to the growth mandate and through a lack of imagination seem unable to conceive of a world in which they could easily and regularly access those basic goods through the abandonment ego boosting consumption.

That consumption, clearly indicated by a host of respected reports, has the world on a perilous path and so until we can imagine the good life without the need to exploit finite resources we will stumble blindly toward the abyss.

The good life waits, but our inability to forego present delights and embrace that new actuality is what darkens its dawn.

Sign leaves me wondering

The rather large electronic sign maintained on the burnt out shell of the Shepparton Hotel by Greater Shepparton’s Cr Milvan Muto leaves me wondering.

Messages on the high profile sign, it beams over Shepparton’s busiest intersection, are frequently less than complimentary of some people and certain institutions, but that, in itself, is not what ignites my wonder.
Many are celebratory about the behaviour of Cr Muto arguing his demeanour as being essential to the democracy and honesty of the council, of which he is a part, while providing a much needed voice, it’s argued, for the excluded, suppressed and unheard ratepayers of the city.

Shepparton's Cr Milvan
 Muto



That may or may not be the case, depending on your stance, but that is not really the point for what is truly interesting is the admirable tolerance of all in what might be termed the “Muto-affair”.

Most of us have not been privy to intimate details of what has been happening between the council and one of its brethren, but the details to which we have been privileged, point to a conversation within a breath of violence.

Contemporary understandings of violence are mostly about blood and bruises, but verbal violence can be equally damaging with the first line of defence being tolerance, but frequently the impact is on our emotions and sometimes that can be equally hurtful as torn skin or a broken bone.
I look at the sign and wonder about the tolerance that allows it to continue broadcasting to anyone, who cares to look at the often less than complimentary messages.
Freedom of speech, decency, civility, respect and a “fair go” are all values worth protecting, but I do wonder when the right to one’s opinion crosses a difficult to define line to become abuse.
The recognition and enactment of those values breeds tolerance and it falls to each of us, as best we can, to consider life from the position of the other and yet, at the same time, engage with and apply those things that make for a broadly happier, safer and stronger community.
Considering that, I wonder, does tolerance morph to become broader acceptance of an evil? Does our tolerance, something endorsed by most recognised religions, actually reinforce and therefore fortify the very thing that was both disruptive and surreptitiously destructive to the broader wellbeing?
The diplomacy inherent in democracy is to be lauded, but it takes special wisdom from an alert and adroit thinker to understand when the subtly of mediation is exhausted and further progress rests with an almost dictatorial-like decision.
Cr Muto is at first blush a pleasant fellow who appears to have the wellbeing of the city at heart, but he seems socially ill-equipped for the broad-ranging demands of a city councillor, the evidence of which is displayed most days on his sign.