SOURCE :- THE AGE NEWS
There is a counterfactual fantasy, not much indulged but not dismissed entirely, in which Prime Minister Anthony Albanese went to his second election in the brief “vibe shift” between Donald Trump’s triumphant return to the US presidency in 2024 and his clumsy tariff whammy in 2025. Perhaps, if the Australian election had taken place before “Liberation Day” the outcome would have been different for Peter Dutton. More likely, it would not.
Germans rally in Berlin calling for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) to be banned. Credit: Getty Images
In any case, such imaginings are of no use to the Coalition. It’s as helpful to them as the reverse counterfactual is to the Social Democrats I spoke to in Germany this week.
Germany held its election in February. The incumbent government was led by a chancellor from the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the German analogue of the Labor Party. Perhaps if the election had come after Trump’s global tariff day, the SPD might also have retained power. But as the German election was set for February, only 20 per cent of German voters chose the SPD. The Social Democrats now have a lower primary vote than the Alternative for Germany (AfD), an economically conservative-turned-far-right party that has made immigration control its primary platform.
If the Albanese government cared to take the German experience as a cautionary tale – a possible but avoidable future – it could reflect that what occurred there is just part of a pattern rolling through the Western world. These trends come to Australia late and slowly. But they do seem to come eventually.
US Vice President J.D. Vance described what was about to happen to Germany at the Munich Security Conference in February. He warned that European governments must listen to and respect their citizens, even when the message is not agreeable to the official and intellectual classes. And in this context he urged the conference to bear in mind that “when political leaders represent an important constituency, it is incumbent upon us to at least participate in dialogue with them”.
US Vice President J.D. Vance chastised Europe’s leaders in February that free speech was “in retreat” across the Continent.Credit: AP
The problem is one of free speech. The precise amount of it which should be permissible, the dose which inoculates against social strife and what constitutes an overdose which would poison the social waters.
Germany has taken the homeopathic approach to free speech, hoping that a minuscule amount, heavily diluted, will cure what ails the nation.
Vance’s words generated indignation among European leaders and officials. But it spoke from the soul of many voters. Days later, the German public delivered a historic high primary vote for the AfD. The gulf between what is said and what is thought was dramatically exposed by democracy.
Which would, you might think, put an end to the homeopathic approach to free speech, there at least. Not for the first time, that quackery was thoroughly debunked.
Which is why I was surprised to meet a satirist in Munich who specialises in giving voice to the public mood, but declined to speak about the disconnect with politicians on the public record.
Usually a publicity-hungry breed, this comedian declined to be interviewed as “the danger of being quoted in the media inaccurately or just out of context is too high”. Risking mischief-by-media and then, inevitably, social media was too high a price for a performer who reflects what working-class people are thinking on stage for a living.
Instead of seeming strange to me, I totally got where he was coming from.
As a columnist, encountering disagreement is pretty comfortably within the job description. That’s fine and, I think, very healthy. But recently, I’ve noticed more deliberate misrepresentation, designed to provoke outrage rather than argument.
During the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum, expressing any concerns about the proposed constitutional mechanism was construed as in bad faith (“divisive”) and was a serious risk to the livelihood of doubters.
Then, just a couple of weeks ago, I wrote that some women would like to have access to childcare choices which go beyond centre-based care. For that, I was accused by a self-identified “passionate and prominent advocate for children, parents, families and women” of “mother-shaming”. Sharp language, deployed on professional platform LinkedIn, more likely to whip up antipathy than spark thoughtful debate. Presumably the advocate for families didn’t like my suggestion of more flexible childcare arrangements.
And there are other signs that language policing is once again on the rise. It was recently brought to my attention that saying someone “identifies as” an attribute is no longer acceptable by a handful of activists. This descriptor – originally chosen by people who have an experience of themselves, their sexuality, or their gender which differs from heterosexual and biological sex-gender aligned – now apparently triggers complaints. No less offensive phrasing has been proposed, to my knowledge. Which raises the question of what we can think or say when a concept is cancelled.
It’s nothing new for techniques like these to be used by groups trying to control public conversation. But in pondering the consequences in Germany, it seems to me that we should recognise this kind of slippery censorship is itself the problem.
The other extreme is a direct consequence. For instance, the bigotry and homophobia which has spewed out on X since Elon Musk bought it is a failure of prior inoculation by measured debate, conducted freely. It’s no less shocking. In the end, the racism of MAGA purists against all migrants – including the highly skilled and productively employed – even appalled Musk.
The less we can have important and not-so-important social discussions, the more the sentiment underlying them festers and swells in the silence. It turns out that free speech is especially toxic in homeopathic doses.
Western medicine doesn’t buy into homeopathy, for good reason. But it has found success vaccinating against disease with controlled exposure. We can do the same with ideas. Suppress them, and the fever will only break out elsewhere – hotter, louder, and harder to treat.
Parnell Palme McGuinness is managing director at campaigns firm Agenda C. She has done work for the Liberal Party and the German Greens.
