We still have the Libs in power federally, of course, but at least it’ll hopefully be slightly less embarrassing to be Australian now.
2 Likes
My father is always baffled at how in the US democrats are blue and Repulicans are red, while in the rest of the English speaking world the right wing party is blue and the left wing party is red. I reminded him recently that it was the republicans that ended slavery. Now I think most republicans are still against slavery (though clearly some are not).
3 Likes
Nah, if it worked that way via being upside down, why would Europe call their versions of those assholes Neoliberals instead of Neoconservatives?
Maybe I meant that North Amerca was upside down.
2 Likes
Well, it certainly is back asswards.
3 Likes
The Red/Blue business in the US was probably done by the press corps - the companies may be owned by conservatives, but reporters and writers tend to be liberals, and we all remember the Red Scares (at least indirectly) and the Republican tendency to call everybody left of Attila the Hun “Communist”, so getting the Democrats shown in Blue and the Republicans to have to wear Red was an excellent propaganda move by the Good Guys*.
(Me? I’m totally unbiased about this :-), as you can see. I’m a Libertarian, and I think the Republican Party is a danger to civilization, not that the Democrats have been any great shakes either, but for the most part, a Bad US Liberal wants to spend your money for you, while a Bad Right-winger wants to shoot you for being politically incorrect and also spend your money on wars against people like you and prisons to put people like you in.) And Abbot’s pretty much been an idiot, on his nicer days.
5 Likes
I don’t remember the red state/blue state thing from my childhood, and sure enough, it doesn’t appear to have solidified until the 2000 election, prior to which colors varied by year and by source. I’m not entirely clear on why; Wikipedia thinks that the contested Bush/Gore election led to constant visibility and discussion of the electoral map for a longer-than-normal period, and everyone just got accustomed to the most popular scheme at the time.
3 Likes
East Pole is up. West Pole is down.
2 Likes
In Australia, that would be Gina Reinhart, who is far more powerful and scary-corporate than that doof who made his tiny pile of money selling tabloids.
3 Likes
Where does that leave Widdershins?
2 Likes
I just had a small walk at lunchtime.
Out the back of a warehouse, a couple of guys were having their lunch and one yelled at a passing van “Abbott’s OUT mate!”. The van did a quick couple of toots in acknowledgement.
Alot of happy lefties out there right now.
4 Likes
That’s it. Liberal trade laws essentially.
I am very happy that the Religious Wars going on in US politics are not part of our game.
2 Likes
Gina bought Fairfax, but Fairfax has been ruthlessly going after Abbott, to the point that even I think “Geez, your making mountains out of mole hills here”.
The red/blue thing on the election map was a thing by 1984, at the latest. It’s an odd point of pride for Minnesota to have been the only state in blue on that incredibly red map.
3 Likes
Gina didn’t buy Fairfax. She bought shares into Fairfax (a 14.99% stake, which did make her the largest single shareholder at the time), and demanded a seat on the board. The board said sure: “sign this charter regarding editorial independence”. She didn’t, so they didn’t give her a seat and then a few months later she sold her shares.
I’ve no idea if she has any other media holdings, but clearly she was buying into Fairfax because she wanted to control the “other media”. Rupert’s rags have long been in minings pockets.
3 Likes
My understanding is that, while most networks preferred the red/blue color pair (good contrast and colorblind-friendly), there wasn’t a fixed party association. Many networks would switch every election, or (I think) based on some scheme involving which party was incumbent. So there certainly were plenty of maps where blue was Democrat and red was Republican, but it wasn’t established as a broad standard until 2000.
1 Like
Looks like we were watching ABC or CBS that night…
1 Like
Neoliberals are still attached to the twentieth-century idea that War Is Bad. Neoliberals pay lip service to Peace. When neoliberals like the Clintons bomb Iraq, they market that as Peace. Peace And Prosperity!™
Neoconservatives are not interested in Peace. In the neocon world War Is Normal and violence is a righteous tool with which to transform the world. The G.W. Bush administration gleefully declared War On Everything.
The current argument about the nuke deal with Iran is a classic example. Neoliberals want a deal so they can do business in Iran. Neocons do not want deals, they want American boots on the ground and the Supreme Leader hanging from a lamppost.
1 Like
Nothing wrong with doing business.
If everyone’s making a bit of money, then it’s bad for business to be killing each other, yeah? Same deal with Cuba.
It just puzzles me the opposition this is getting. Don’t they want the killing each other to stop? Why not use your second favourite tool… money… to do it?
Fair enough, it’s all a matter of perspective after all. but then Europe would be upside-down too, wouldn’t it?
