Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
Dr Benjamin Thomas Jones says the tribal “footy fan” approach of one-eyed political supporters of one party or another damage our democracy.
Karl Marx famously claimed that religion was the opiate of the people, however many insightful sociologists have noted that things are different in Australia. For the Australian masses, it is not religion but sport that truly reflects the sigh of oppressed creatures, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions and the font of illusory happiness. Sport provides us with a sense of identity. It plays to our instinctive tribalism and gives us colours, songs, chants, ritual, rules, history, heroes and, most importantly of all, war. We march into battle every week and live vicariously through our players as they fight the opposing tribe. We willingly surrender our objectivity as we mercilessly harangue the referee. Every clear foul our side commits is outrageous hubris. Every dubious decision that goes our way is belated justice. These are the rites and rituals of Australian sport but what a crippling impact on democracy when this mentality is applied to politics.
Footy fan politics emerge when policy and debate give way to instinct and emotion. It is the domain of the unique species carelessly described as ‘rusted on’ voters, but this tired moniker does not do the group justice. Political footy fans are not quiet or passive but are committed supporters. They are the loud-mouthed, flag waving, chant singing, fight picking fanatics who feel every tackle, celebrate every goal, and wrestle daily with the agonising decision of whether to wear their home or away jersey. Every time the other team heckle loudly in the House of Representative, the political footy fan jumps out of his seat, “Send him off Mr Speaker! He’s been doing it all day!” Whenever the home team is shining in question time with stinging retorts and pithy quips, the political footy fan rejoices, “Oh yeah, baby, that’s what I call a question without notice!”
The greatest occasion of all for political footy fans is, of course, a federal election. Like an Olympics or a World Cup, it is the ultimate stage. After years of training, it all comes down to one final game. Beer in hand, the political footy fan is glued to the screen. We’re off to a good start! Oh no, they’re coming back. We’re doing well up the top of the park. Look at our forwards in Bowman! Our backs need to tighten up. Who is defending in Eden-Monaro? It’s wide open? As the clock counts down it is either despair or joy as the result becomes clear. Defeated but defiant, one side retreats with words of consolation. Victorious and jubilant, fans of the winning team party into the night.
It can be argued whether the footy fan mentality is a good thing when applied to sport. On the one hand, the passion and enthusiasm does create a wonderful atmosphere and a sports team can unite strangers and communities. On the other hand, there is a certain irrationality about the whole thing and it often leads to needless aggression, violence and hooliganism. When applied to politics, however, it is simply painful. Have you ever tried to have an intelligent, rational discussion with a political footy fan? You casually muse, “Well, I do think they are performing well on environmental issues but they are struggling to create a genuine alternative with economic policy.” You realise immediately you are dealing with a fan as the heated retort is angrily submitted, “What!?! Are you serious? No real alternative? Mate our mob are in another league. The other guys are hopeless on every issue. Our environment spokesman is our MVP but the whole team is strong. We’ll smash ’em at the next election, you wait.”
The terminal problem with political footy fans is that political parties are inherently reactionary. Politicians must be reminded daily that they serve us, we do not serve them. They must feel compelled to prove their worth, to argue their case and to set out costed, considered policies. As soon as an electorate declares itself blue or red, politicians have clearance to ignore it. That electorate becomes the home ground, full of supporters, and the focus turns to winning away fans. The national interest gets lost without swing seats and swing voters. Political footy fans encourage parties to aim for 51% victories. Take the home crowd for granted and focus all your energy on strategically chosen swing seats.
The other reason political footy fans hurt democracy is because they lack, well, reason. They refuse to accept criticism of their own team and hold an inherent mistrust of other supporters. Terms like ‘right-wing nut job’ and ‘tree-hugging lefty’ are used to immediately discredit opposing views before they have a chance to be heard or tested. Debate, discussion, open mindedness and the ability to be swayed by a superior argument are all hallmarks of free thinking people. These are the kind of people who make democracy great. Political footy fans are the opposite. Devoid of reason, they trade their political power for petty tribalism. They give up their democratic right to petition the government in exchange for illusory happiness.
The Australian media is perhaps partly to blame for the rise of political footy fans. Shameless sensationalism and the twenty-four hour news cycle encourage the public to be Team Julia or Team Tony rather than independent critical thinkers. The cult of personality and party has encroached on the space once occupied by astute, non-aligned political observers. Perhaps the time has come to actively celebrate the swinging voter. Perhaps it is time to reject brand loyalty and to reclaim our position as the political masters, coolly reserving judgement, waiting for the best performers.
Are you a political footy fan? Have you only ever voted for one party? Here are a few quick exercises to keep your vote fresh and your mind open. First, why don’t you find one member of the opposing team (or a minor team) who you respect? See if you can do it. There must be someone outside your tribe doing a decent job. Secondly, find one policy by the other team that you agree with. Lastly, have a long think about what the other team could do to win your vote. Allow yourself to be seduced. Don’t think in terms of party and team. Consider what is important to you as a voter and determine that whoever performs best on issues that matter will win your support. If you can do all three, then congratulations — you are not a political footy fan.
With a few notable exceptions, we are currently watching perhaps the most timid, reactionary generation of politicians to ever serve this country. In a democracy, you truly get the government you deserve and it is time to demand better. The onus, however, is not on the politicians but on the electorate. We are the ones who need to lift our game. We will see big visions and policies that truly serve the national interest only when we demand them. Real leadership will come when our politicians look to the public and see they are not political footy fans but the referee.
(Read more by Benjamin Thomas Jones on his blog Thematic Musings.)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
11 Comments
Not so sure about the footy fan analogy. I think this is the first time since the 1930s that we’ve seen propaganda techniques used with such devastating power and that’s what has been so damaging. Some of what you’re referring to is an attempt to try and counteract the impact of that factor.
Rod Cameron, and his ANOP through it’s research, was instrumental in helping Labor in 19 winning major campaigns. He claimed “the people who determine elections in this country are the least interested and least informed about politics. You’re talking about people who vote on whims….If voting wasn’t compulsory, I’d say no more than 55% of Australians would vote, perhaps 60% to be charitable”.
Some time ago, he presented an example of a so-called swinging voter who was asked what would decide which party she would vote for and she replied “I just take the third card [party how-to-vote-ticket] at the gate, having prayed to the Lord the night before”. Rod Cameron’s said, “Now, that was a genuine reply from somebody we polled….it wasn’t supposed to be flippant; it was genuine. So the only reason there are lowest common denominator campaigns, and there are, is because they’re pitched at these sort of people, and it’s these people who determine election outcomes”.
The above on Rod Cameron can be found in Alan Ramsey’s article titled Death of a Salesman, April 2, 1988.
I don’t think that the sales pitch by politicians is directed to “political footy fans” because their vote is guaranteed. It’s the swinging voter they want to spellbind.
Higgs boson, I agree.
The problem is those that occupy the middle ground, who have little or no interest in politics (until something affects them directly). I was discussing this issue with a friend this morning who said that many people don’t watch the news or read papers, so they don’t know whats going on.
But as I pointed out, you don’t have to watch the news or read papers, as the small soundbites that are put to air throughout the day on the TV and radio, advertising what is coming up on their news programs act in a similar way to subliminal suggestion or implants where people hear “toxic tax” or “Gillard lies”, and that is what they believe.
The sad thing is that the swinging voter almost always votes for the party they think will give them personally the most financial gain. That’s why John Howard’s costly bribes of middle class welfare were so successful. It’s pretty depressing to think that it’s often the most selfish & ignorant who decide elections. But that’s also why the outrageous propaganda we’re seeing flooding the media has been so effective.
To me “political footy fan” is a succinct definition of a large proportion of voters but THE PARTICLE sums the situation up nicely in his last sentence where he/she points out political parties need to direct their energies to the swinging voters.
I am curious PARTICLE you were posting before “higgs boson” became well publicized. How come?
Since Julia Gillard won the support of the independents to form government, Abbott’s sole aim has been to stop the government running its full term. He’s not interested in facts, or policy, or debate – all he wants is an early election and his every utterance is crafted to this end.
@Len Liddelow,
I am not a physicist, far from it, but about 18 months ago I was on a physics/universe reading kick that led me from one book to another and I came across the name “Higgs boson”.
Details of the particle can be read in Lisa Randall’s book “Knocking on Heaven’s Door”, if one is interested in physics and the universe.
The name appealed to me and I decided to use.
Just witnessed another example on the ABC when Abbott called a press conference in what looked like the boardroom of one of his LNP mates companies, where he made the same old worn out and spurious claims regarding the “Toxic tax” followed by Questions.
None of the MSM hacks bothered to ask relevant questions relating to his sloganeering, and when the subject of his statements on IR yesterday, came up he first trotted out the slogan that they want to return to “The sensible center”, followed by the outrageous claim that what the workers of Aus will find is that he is “The best friend of the workers”, which he repeated and then referred to his tenure as IR minister to try to justify this ridiculous claim.
Not one of the Journos took the opportunity for the free hit on workchoices, and he promptly walked.
The man has absolutely no conception of principles, ethics or the truth, and calling him morally bankrupt is being too kind, and the MSM hacks are not far behind.
It must be costing a fortune to provide news crews and reporters to follow Abbott around like lap dogs.
No wonder they keep pushing the same old worn out lines, as their investment in him must be massive.
Julie you are so right, a better analogy to the lieberals tactics are straight out of the nazi ss book of controlling the people through lying propaganda. What is scarier is that Adolf did it without!! the mass media we have today.
If anyone asks murdoch he will tell you straight to your face “no I have no sway with politics” I just control the minds of most of the voters, what murdoch calls the sheep.
He has been recorded saying that he has the RIGHT!! to unseat any legitimate government at will, that does not follow his right wing creed & beliefs thru propaganda in the mass media. What more our politicians let him get away with it. He is not even an Aussie now, he never was. Australia was always to small for his ego & ambition of global control anyway.
I don’t think just voting for one party makes you a mindless partisan or less interested in democracy than a swinging voter. After all if the tide goes out too far, such as recent state elections, that might be bad for democratic accountability.
To not be a mindless partisan I think you need to recognise that if your party does end up in power too long inevitable corruption and complacency will set in. So even if you don’t personally vote against it, it is not necessarily a bad thing for it to lose some elections. And really the glorious dawns of 1997 in Britain, 2007 in Australia and 2008 in America all turned out to be rather damp squibs.
These are valuable questions though
First, why don’t you find one member of the opposing team (or a minor team) who you respect?
Secondly, find one policy by the other team that you agree with.
1. Malcolm Turnball always comes across as cogent. I always found Nick Michin reasonable and intelligent. The few times I have heard Arthur Sinoidinis I have been impressed – even if not impressed as to be bothered to learn how to spell his name. Pru Goward – despite Peter Wicks recent suggestion her indifference to Uluru suggests a complacency to child abuse – impresses. Mal Washer – although perhaps that is only due to the unusual circumstances in which he made the front pages. I haven’t heard enough to the new comers Josh Frydenberg, Kelly O’Dwyer or Ken Wyatt to form a judgement, but I think I may have heard a sensible sound bite. Sometimes Christopher Pyne amuses, intentionally and unintentionally. I don’t really dislike Tony Abbott nearly as much as I did John Howard and somehow The Smirk never got under my skin as much as I would have liked. Alarmingly, post retirement even Amanda Vanstone sometimes sounds human. I completely approve of Sophie Mirabella leaving Simon Sheikh to gasp like a fish, although in everything else she conjures up images of fingernails and blackboards.
Policies.
I think any way of delivering broadband improvements has to be better than Labor’s. Asylum seeker policy has become an expensive fiasco under Labor. It might be easier to answer this question if we actually knew some of the Coalition’s policies. I can list a number of Labor policies I am less than impressed with, but it is difficult to say if the Coalition’s approach would be better. It would be fair to say I have very little confidence in any policies they announce now, because they have dug themselves into a fiscal hole but promising to repeal everything.
The final question – what would cause you to switch teams – is not something I see as important. Although my own involvement is non-existent, in theory I would rather try and improve my team than switch.
Ahh, the Australian Political/footy fan, yes, he is merely the sum total of the ‘laity’ political democratic landscape anywhere. I could close my eyes and be in New Zealand, Samoa, anywhere and agree with the passion people have in their politics with its geo-political tribal allegience and clannishness is as passionate as in their competitiveness in sport. That being said, this Australian version of the political or sporting bellicose creature, is something that ‘we’, the localised ordinary Australian bloke, when we forced or when we choose to, we become aware of ourselves and sometimes become emotively visceral about, but, likened to a post-facto crime scene forensic autopsy, we decide, we now need the coroners report, please?