MAGA-inspired outrage machine has a new target in this election
'Never make predictions, especially about the future,' New York Yankees manager Casey Stengel famously said. In the sport of politics we are in peak prediction mode this week – and Saturday night will reveal what surprises are in store.
I've been part of many elections where the polls have got it spectacularly wrong – most shockingly in Labor's 2019 loss and most painfully in Donald Trump's 2016 win.
Both were a result of the fact that while we obsess about the number of people who report a certain opinion at a given moment in time, we pay much less attention to the strength of that opinion. Large and unpredicted swings between polls and actual results are usually a reflection of the 'softness' of the opinions held by those being polled – the likeliness they will change their mind. Too often we report public opinion as if it is chiselled in stone.
We experienced this collectively as a nation in 2023. The prime minister, encouraged by polls that showed up to 75 per cent support for an Indigenous Voice to parliament, ploughed ahead with a referendum to enshrine it even after Peter Dutton's denial of bipartisanship.
As we found out, in the face of a barrage of unprecedented disinformation and a sophisticated MAGA-inspired outrage machine, that support turned out to be very soft. Over the course of the campaign it evaporated – on polling day the Yes vote garnered less than 40 per cent.
Similarly, we have in recent years taken the same levels of support for renewable energy as if they are chiselled in stone. More than 70 per cent of Australians support the transition to renewables, and more ambitious climate targets. Most pundits take broad social licence for a transition to clean energy – a fancy way of saying the community is on board – as a fait accompli.
Loading
But renewable energy is right now facing a barrage of unprecedented disinformation and a sophisticated MAGA-inspired outrage machine, akin to what we saw during the Voice. Its very purpose is to undermine the social licence under which renewable energy projects operate. Having lost the argument on the existence of climate change, as the world proceeded to burn before our eyes, opponents quickly pivoted instead to undermining support for renewables.
While the Voice had to withstand a torrent of misinformation-based attacks on social media, from 'say NO to save Australia Day' to 'farmers will need a permit to put up a fence', renewables face the same.
Social media is ripe with anti-renewables outrage. Hysteria over offshore wind farms killing whales (they don't). Hysteria over solar fields ruining pristine farmland (they don't). Hysteria over vehicle fuel-emissions standards banning utes (they don't) or ruining the weekend (they don't).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
4 minutes ago
- ABC News
Albanese should forget Trump's tariff war and prepare for a tax assault
If there was anything remarkable about the explosive split between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, it was that it took five months since the presidential inauguration. First, the uncomfortable scenes in the Oval Office as Musk stood behind the president while son X mocked Trump on camera, an unsubtle hint that Musk saw himself as the presidential puppeteer. Then followed the increasingly unhinged behaviour of the world's richest man, chainsaw held aloft, and his ultimate failure to deliver on the promised savings of his Department of Government Efficiency rampage. And then there was the brutal backlash from consumers for his Tesla cars, all of which pointed to an inevitable demise in the relationship. The sensational personal attacks last week, culminating in Musk highlighting the president's former relationship with the disgraced Jeffrey Epstein, attracted most of the headlines. But the damage to the Trump administration and America's reputation runs far deeper. While a temporary ceasefire in hostilities between the pair has held for several days, Musk's stinging criticisms of Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, a sweeping budget measure that will slash taxes and blow out America's already-strained financial position, has focused attention on the Administration's economic ineptitude. Trump's much-vaunted trade and tariff policy has degenerated into an uncertain and confusing mess that has backfired politically and economically. Rather than shoring up the US economy, its chaotic implementation has only served to slow global growth and, disturbingly, cast doubts about America's role as the centre of international finance. To compensate, the administration has launched a new weapon in its war against the Western alliance. This time, Australia is likely to be a major casualty. They sat there in hallowed territory at the Inauguration right behind the podium, unelected either by the people or the Senate, but in the same exalted territory as Trump's hand-picked cabinet. The four giants of the tech world, modern-day Horsemen of the Apocalypse, the unconventional presence of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Sandar Pichai was a statement of power and the power of money. While all the focus of Trump's first 100 days in office has been on trade and tariffs, another T word has quietly loomed large in the background. Tax. Each of the four will benefit hugely from the Big Beautiful Bill, that will slash taxes for the wealthy. But with the failure so far to deliver a coherent policy on trade, the Trump administration is about to shift weaponry in its bid to exact revenge or retaliation on nations it deems treat the US unfairly. High up on that list is Australia. Forget steel, aluminium, beef or even pharmaceuticals. The big beef from American businesses has been the trail-blazing role Australia has taken when it comes to forcing multinationals to pay tax. In the past, it was the big resource groups like Chevron. In more recent times, Australian attention has swung to tech companies like Amazon, Meta — the owner of Facebook and Instagram — and Google. In 2018, Amazon pulled in more than $1 billion in Australian sales but paid less than $20 million in tax. The following year it forked out $100 million to the Australian Tax Office but booked almost $4.8 billion in advertising revenue through its Singapore subsidiary. It's not just Australia's aggressive attitude to tax enforcement either. Australian governments have gone on the front foot demanding the tech giants pay for the journalism they plaster across their search engines and websites, an agreement Mark Zuckerberg recently junked. And don't forget the groundbreaking legislation to protect children under 16 from the excesses of social media, a development the rest of the world is eyeing intently. The tech bros, otherwise known as the broligarchs, aren't impressed. And while Trump may have fallen out of love with Elon, he's mindful of just how much influence the other three carry. It's taken a few days to surface, but buried in Trump's Big Beautiful Bill is a new line of attack on what he deems to be unfriendly nations. Section 899 of the Bill deals with "retaliatory taxation". Companies and investors from "discriminatory foreign countries" buying or investing in the US could be slugged with escalating increases in US federal income tax and withholding tax. The tax penalty will rise by up to 5 per cent a year to a maximum of 20 percentage points above existing treaty rates. That has put Australian super funds and big corporations into a mild state of panic. That's not surprising given our super funds have about $400 billion invested in the US. For the past five years, Wall Street has been the biggest driver of global investment returns as the big tech companies share prices have surged. That's attracted an outsized portion of our superannuation funds. The prospect of increased taxes will thwart those returns into the future. That's a mighty big stick that Trump will hold when dealing with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese when they meet on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Kananaskis in Canada next week. Musk described the BBB as an "abomination" that will blow a hole in America's weakened budget position. The US Congressional Budget Office estimates the tax cuts, which will overwhelmingly favour the wealthy, will add $US551 billion to the nation's interest bill over the next decade, increasing the cumulative impact on the deficit to $US3 trillion. The interest bill on America's huge $US36 trillion debt already is the nation's second-biggest expense. It outstrips America's massive defence spending and is bested only by social security payments. Musk certainly hasn't helped. As the head of DOGE, he promised to slash $US2 trillion from government spending which would have helped offset the revenue shortfall from the tax cuts. So far, the department claims to have saved $US160 billion but independent investigations indicate much of that claim is undocumented and unverified. Other analysis indicates government spending is now more than 6 per cent higher than this time last year during the Biden administration. Tariffs were also expected to boost revenues and shore up the budget. There is no clear indication of how much they will raise, given negotiations are ongoing. But they also would have reduced profits and curbed demand, slowing growth and pushing up unemployment. In short, rather than reduce the US budget deficit, America's position is set to deteriorate with expanded deficits and increased debt. That has money markets on edge. The US dollar continues to weaken, and market interest rates are again pushing higher, making it more expensive for the US government to borrow. It needs to refinance $US7 trillion in existing debt this year alone and will need to raise new debt to cover its growing deficits. The latest moves, using Section 899 to hit foreigners investing in the US, will only make the task more difficult as foreigners, who invest huge amounts in US government bonds, look elsewhere. Wall Street stock traders have brushed off the concerns, citing the TACO trade. (Trump Always Chickens Out). Money markets have a different philosophy. Sell America.
ABC News
14 minutes ago
- ABC News
Last time a president sent in the National Guard, it was to protect protesters
Clad in tactical gear and backed by armoured vehicles, the National Guard this week marched into Los Angeles on the orders of President Donald Trump. The 2,000 National Guard officers were there to "address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester", according to the White House. The deployment marked a new stage of ongoing protests against an immigration crackdown which saw immigration officers raid workplaces in the city's downtown area. "I told them, nobody is going to spit on our police officers, nobody is going to spit on our military," Mr Trump told media. It was the first time a president had called in National Guard troops without a state governor's permission since 1965. At that time, president Lyndon B. Johnson stepped in, in an effort to protect civil rights protesters as they marched in Selma, Alabama. Violence against activists — including an attack by state police — in the days leading up to the march had been watched by millions. Standing before media at his Texas ranch, the president declared: "I have called selected elements of the Alabama National Guard into Federal Service." By the time Johnson called in the National Guard, tensions had been rising for almost two weeks. Civil rights organisations had converged for a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, calling for federal protection of voting rights. Americans, along with the rest of the world, had already been stunned by footage of state and county police firing tear gas and marching over the top of demonstrators. Sheyann Webb-Christburg was just eight years old when she joined the procession on March 7, 1965. She had left a note to her parents — saying she was sorry for sneaking out but that she had to march "for our freedom". Angry white residents of Selma abused the estimated 600 marchers, spat at them, and attacked them in an effort to halt their progress. At a bridge along the route, a wall of state police attempted to block their way. "The dogs began to push their way into the crowds as if we weren't human beings," an adult Sheyann, now in her 60s, told MSNBC in 2023. As the youngest participant in the march, she labelled the events "traumatic" and "devastating". "I remember running home … and the late [activist] Hosea Williams picked me up. "And I said to him in my childish voice, 'Put me down, because you are not running fast enough.'" Ultimately 17 marchers were hospitalised and dozens more were treated for injuries. The violence had unfolded in front of TV cameras and news media, blasted into the homes of millions of Americans. Tensions continued to rise. More marches were organised. By this time the president had spoken out publicly against attacks on demonstrators, and repeatedly attempted to convince Alabama's governor Geroge Wallace to offer them some protection. His attempts were unsuccessful. On March 20, 1965, Johnson sent a telegram to governor Wallace, stating "maintaining law and order" was a state and local responsibility. "On the basis of your public statements and your discussions with me, I thought that you felt strongly about this," he said. "I was surprised, therefore, when … you requested federal assistance in the performance of such fundamental state duties." Because of governor Wallace believing the state was "unable" to keep the peace, the president was calling in the Alabama National Guard. "These forces should be adequate to assure the rights of American citizens … to walk peaceably and safely without injury or loss of life from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama," he said. The National Guard is a section of the military with a unit in each state, which usually answers to the relevant state governor. One day after Johnson's federalising the National Guard, the march from Selma to Montgomery officially began. Under an official order by a judge, only 300 people were allowed to march while the procession was on the four-lane highway. More than 3,000 National Guard troops accompanied demonstrators along the route. By the time it reached the State Capitol Building in Montgomery on March 25, the march had grown to include 25,000 people. There, on the building's front steps, Martin Luther King Jr delivered what would come to be known as his "How Long, Not Long" address. Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard did not, as it did in 1965, de-escalate the situation. The street demonstrations had been sparked by ICE agents arresting more than 100 immigrants across Los Angeles. As of Sunday night local time, about 300 National Guard members were already on the ground of the 2,000 deployed by the president. Hundreds more US Army Marines were on stand-by. As troops created a perimeter around the Metropolitan Detention Centre, protesters gathered to demand entry. They were met with military-style vehicles and riot shields. In 1965, the state governor could not be convinced to protect protesters. This time around, California Governor Gavin Newsom said the president did not even raise the topic with him beforehand. He has formally requested Mr Trump withdraw the order — warning they run the risk of further "inflaming tensions". "Indeed, the decision to deploy the National Guard, without appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation," his office wrote to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner … is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation[.]' He has since announced he will file a lawsuit against the Trump administration for deploying troops without his permission. "There's a protocol, there's a process," Mr Newsom said, labelling the move "unconstitutional".
The Age
29 minutes ago
- The Age
Top gong for Morrison devalues all King's Birthday honours
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@ Please include your home address and telephone number below your letter. No attachments. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published. KING'S HONOURS The King's Birthday honour awards are rendered meaningless by Scott Morrison's inclusion, a decision that insults Australians (' Politicians, scientists and costume designer feature in King's awards ', 8/6). His legacy, marred by robo-debt's heartless assault on vulnerable citizens, leaving families shattered, alone disqualifies him. But it doesn't end there. His sluggish COVID response, driven by others, not conviction; his callous 'I don't hold a hose' remark during the bushfires; and his dismissive stance on gender issues reveal a so-called leader who tarnished Australia's values. Awarding Morrison cheapens these honours. It's a stinging betrayal of robo-debt victims and all who suffered under his policies. Honours should celebrate integrity and selflessness. This decision exposes a system divorced from public sentiment. Australians deserve better: honours that inspire pride, not ones that reopen wounds and glorify failure. Sue Barrett, Caulfield South Brightening lives The name of the honours may have changed from Queen to King but the same old selection criteria still exists with many receiving honours for doing their jobs. The reasons set out for Scott Morrison's award includes: 'leadership of the national COVID-19 response' and 'leadership of Australia's contribution to AUKUS', both up for debate as to whether there was any leadership shown and whether many decisions were the right ones. Let's be realistic, the award was for being prime minister. However, it was great to see awards for people such as those on the front page of The Age who have done extraordinary things for many years, outside their jobs, to 'brighten lives from beyond the spotlight'. Phil Mackenzie, Eaglemont His duty to lead Scott Morrison was awarded the Companion of the Order of Australia but it was his duty as prime minister to take a leadership role in the COVID crisis, as with any crisis the country may experience. As for AUKUS, its worth is yet to be proven and indeed it may be very destructive in the future, both financially and its capabilities to keep us safe. By awarding him the highest honour only diminishes the whole system of awards, especially to those who are truly worthy. Judith Morrison, Nunawading Doubts about his achievements It would have been better if the award to Scott Morrison had read only 'For service to the people and parliament of Australia as prime minister'. His leadership of the COVID response was successful only because the states pushed him and his approach on the vaccines puzzled many. His leadership on AUKUS omits the breaking of the contract with France and the loss of international good behaviour it generated as well as doubts about the AUKUS deal itself. Robo-debt, his alienation of China and the dislike he received from people affected by the fires and floods don't rate a mention. He claimed the 2019 election result was a miracle but not that the 2022 election result was too. Adrian Tabor, Point Lonsdale Doing his job The award for Scott Morrison brings into question the very nature of the awards process. This is meant to be a criterion-based assessment process. The criteria includes that the 'outstanding achievement' should be 'above what might be expected through paid employment' – the former PM does not meet this criteria. Warren Prior, Williamstown Short memories I have vivid memories of both Daniel Andrews' and Gladys Berejiklian's relentless battle to cajole Morrison into action at the time. Morrison was also seen to be needlessly slow in co-ordinating the country's vaccine roll-out. Andrews has been repeatedly vilified for his and his team's exemplary actions in Victoria, which had some of the lowest fatality rates globally. I honestly wonder how far and how deep some people's memories run. Robert Boelen, Waratah Bay
