Political Mud-slinging

How easy it is for a politician to sling mud! A simple choice of phrasing and all the blame is shifted -- nothing obvious, nothing culpable, nothing that cannot be glossed over. Just an implicit shifting of guilt away from a fellow politician. "He was Minister for Small Business and he couldn't run a small business. Now he's Minister for Police and he's broken the law." That's the quote at the start of a report in The West Australian, Friday 10 March, page 10.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

It's a multi-page attack on the current state police minister. The West is printing a report based on non-payment of legally required superannuation. One of the stories begins with that rather neat quote from an ex-employee. The West has taken up the cudgel against the minister; let them continue. They also mention, in passing, the supportive response by the minister's boss, the Premier of Western Australia. This may seem only a minor issue, the response by the Premier. But it raises some important issues...

Who does the Premier support?

The Premier is the head of our government. The government represents the people of our state. A government minister has -- according to The West -- acted against the interests of several people of the state. Does the Premier leap in, look for solutions, ensure that members of the public are not being cheated? Of course not! The Premier defends his own. And "his own" are the people who are part of the Premier's power base. Electors? Who cares!

The subtleties of mud

Look at the words that the Premier uses to defend his minister: "Mr Carpenter said that he retained faith in his Police Minister despite the evidence of various workers..." (The West, 10 March, page 11). The key word is "faith". The Premier associates "faith" with his minister. A good, positive association. Now look at the Premier's reference to the employees, as quoted in the same newspaper article: "I'm not saying that young woman is lying." In the one sentence: "young woman" and "lying". Referring to the "young woman" is just a minor put-down... everyone knows that a young woman must be, well, young... someone who does not really understand what's going on, what's important in this tough old world. Most importantly: "I'm not saying that young woman is lying." Anyone remember Antony's line in Julius Caesar? "For Brutus is an honourable man." This is irony, it is intended to mean the opposite of what it actually says. Is the Premier attempting irony? Or is he simply ensuring that his listeners will forever associate the word "lying" with "that young woman"? In either case, it is clear mud-slinging by the Premier.

More thought, less mud

If the Premier actually wanted to be fair, he should be more careful with his words. How about this: "I have faith in my minister. I believe that he is telling the truth as honestly as he can recall it. I believe that the ex-employees are also telling the truth as honestly as they can recall it. There are diffences of opinion but -- more importantly -- there appears to be a situation in which employees have been underpaid. I hope that all parties will work together to correct that unfortunate situation." What do you think of that? I've tried to accept the situation while still adding a positive spin: the situation will be corrected. I've tried to not allocate blame: if it has already happened then a quick and positive response may gloss over the issue. Immediate allocation of blame will simply draw more fire, upset all involved players and drag out the issue. Sure, support your own minister. But please, try not to do it at the expense of others.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com