There's a fair bit of truth in the saying that 'everything is political'. Even political parties that promote small government still run massive departments responsible for huge programs managed by large numbers of public servants and affecting the lives of millions of people. Including people who don't get to vote.
At election time, most voters pick between one of two competing policy programs from the 'parties of government'. How do they pick? It's about priorities. Some voters imagine the economy to be more important than climate. Some look more to self-interest while others are more altruistic. Some are more influenced by ideology or religious belief or even prejudice.
It isn't just parties that try to influence voters. There are lobbies, thinktanks, sectional interests and activist networks. Each of these tries its level best to present its opinions on pet issues as being consistent with mainstream opinion based on heritage ('Judeo-Christian'), science, economics etc. In many cases, the same economic, moral, scientific etc. factors can be used to argue in favour of totally opposing positions.
Take refugee rights, for example. One could argue the case for reduced refugee intake on the basis that refugees often are a burden on the social security system. This position was used by senior Coalition figures such as Peter Dutton. Yet another conservative, US author and humourist P. J. O'Rourke, argues that refugees have every incentive to work hard and make terrific citizens.
The most successful and influential political movements are those flexible enough to co-opt the rhetorical and ideological tropes of their opponents. The ones which tend to fail are those which insist on rigid ideological purity. They may be well-resourced, have plenty of volunteers and ambitious programs. But all this may count for little if they cannot sell their ideas to enough people to swing the electorate.
The experiences of GetUp in the recent federal election is a case in point. GetUp is an amazing progressive activist movement. In an email to members following the election, GetUp head Paul Oosting wrote: '9433 volunteers made an incredible 712,039 calls and knocked on 36,315 doors. And our work together was funded by 37,335 everyday people — nearly one third of them donating to GetUp for the very first time.' Furthermore, GetUp raised $4 million.
I attended two GetUp campaign launches — one in Melbourne and the other in Perth. In both launches, the audience members were largely in their 50s and 60s while the speakers were young enough to be their kids or grandkids. The organisation clearly is able to attract people of all ages. The Liberal Party branch meetings I've attended have mainly attracted people in their 60s and older.
"For an issues-based activist group seeking to promote mainstream values in a federal election, this messaging is inappropriate and risks offending many potential supporters."
GetUp launches are energetic affairs. But their strategy was based on a somewhat flawed assumption that the only way to improve the quality of policy on issues like climate and refugees was to go after the 'hard-Right'.
So who were these hard-Right MPs? There are plenty to choose from, and are not limited to one major party. But the list GetUp produced did not consist of anyone from One Nation, Australian Conservatives or the National Party. Much climate and broader environmental policy in the Coalition is heavily influenced by National Party MPs.
Only Liberal MPs were targeted by GetUp. Anyone attending the Perth launch would imagine that the Liberal Party in general was being targeted. When signing in at the Perth launch, attendees were handed a sticker which said: 'Let's avoid a car crash ... DON'T VOTE LIBERAL.'
Such stickers might be appropriate for an ALP campaign. But for an issues-based activist group seeking to promote mainstream values in a federal election, this messaging is inappropriate and risks offending many potential supporters.
Millions of people feel inclined to vote Liberal despite hating racism, despite supporting action on climate change and despite voting for Same Sex Marriage. Such people would likely include GetUp donors and volunteers. These people may vote for their local 'hard-right' MP in the Lower House but may preference in accordance with their values when voting in both Houses. Their hard-right MP may suit them in other local issues they support.
And should an independent candidate come along who has a less nasty policy mix than the hard-right sitting member, who knows what could happen? There is no way Tony Abbott could have lost his seat of Warringah had a whole bunch of Liberal voters heeded the message of his opponent on climate change.
Instead of spending its considerable resources targeting of specific 'hard-right' MPs in their often safe seats, GetUp could have continued promoting the broader issues.
The GetUp experience is a lesson to issues based activist groups. They need to find a way to be involved in policy and politics while being seen to avoid partisanship. Had GetUp spent less energy on partisan politicking and more time fine-tuning its message, it may well have gotten more bang for its buck.
Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney based lawyer and blogger.
Main image: Former Labor leader Bill Shorten with members of GetUp! during the 2016 election campaign.