I can't believe it's not John Howard!

An incumbent government who wants to stay in power indefinitely can implement a plan involving ignorance and circuses. Rigging the vote is possible only where adequate corruption and obfuscation systems are in place. Simpler is moulding the populace so that they willingly vote for your party straight off the bat. The process is fairly straight forward:

Be sure that as many people as possible have burdensome financial commitments, because a person with a mortgage favours stability in their government. They are extremely keen to keep their jobs. They are easily scared by suggestions of economic instability. They are politically more conservative. They are so busy paying their mortgage that they have less time to read, study and research. If you are in government for long enough, you can even minimise education outcomes to a level too low for people to learn much more about politics than they see in the political advertising/scare campaigns.

The market research of the opposition finds that what the populace want is what the incumbent government has moulded them to want. The Opposition manufactures a Leadership package - a leader and policy set that meets the needs of the market, the needs instilled specifically to keep a conservative government in power. I look at the policy set - that which is visible - and the differences are more dinner-party talking points than actually revolutionary. I look at Rudd, and he increasingly resembles a big tub of "I can't believe it's not John Howard!"

Okay - it's a simplistic and cynical point I'm making. I know it's more complex by far. But... he ideas I've expressed just might be part of the reason the Australian 'Left' are so 'right'.

Wildly Generalised:

Right:
Values conformity. Unified by virtue of not allowing individual opinion, free thinking etc. Made up of people who believe that they are right but comply with the party line because they must. Lacks creativity. Represents stability. Maintains status quo. Is irritatingly hubristic but dull.

Left:
Values difference. Accepts that people will have different ideas, is divided at times on some issues. Made up of people who believe that they are right, and want to constructively examine points of difference. Is creative. Represents hope of better things. Changes things. Scares the horses.

Unpredictable Consequences

Not too long ago, a person with quite some mind recommended what sounded like a hedonistic lifestyle to be ideal. He stated that seeking pleasure was a worthy and rewarding objective in and of itself. He had but one caveat - "as long as nobody gets hurt".

Well, for me, that is the kicker. I have had some humbling experience regarding the unforeseeable degree of harm caused by my actions. I don't believe that it is possible to ensure that "nobody gets hurt".

Given that, why bother worrying about the consequences of our actions? why not just get away with whatever we can and put the rest down to the vagaries of fate?

I've noticed that there is also a practical, self preserving side to sticking to your own harm minimising rule set. I don't believe that, even if you do the right and moral thing, it is possible to ensure that no harm will follow from your actions, but in doing what you believe to be right, if harm should follow, you are protected from guilt by reason.

If actions undertaken do cause harm, but on examination you can honestly say that you did the best you could given your knowledge at the time, there is a rational shield against the inevitable pain of guilt. The milling 'coulda, shoulda, woulda's can be muted or partially banished, allowing you to recover your sanity sooner and more fully.

If you move away from your concept of what is right or wrong - with the idea that those rules do not apply because of special circumstances - or if you make a conscious choice to do wrong, or not think adequately, and harm eventuates, you are exposed to the full and relentless blaze of the guilt and responsibility. No shield, no respite.

I am uncertain what tactic the person whose conversation prompted this post would use to cope if his actions caused inadvertent harm. Perhaps the fact that the harm could not be foreseen would be enough protection. Perhaps they don't feel that responsibility traces back around corners?