Debate and Switch

Conservative who appear on ABC-TV’s Q&A are routinely interrupted and later abused. But how else can we know for sure that we are right? By Nick Cater.

The offer of a part by the ABC as the Trump-loving, Boris-hugging, villainous Brexiteer was too enticing to resist.

To enter the Q&A studio is to be transported into a parallel world of contestable assumptions and ingrained prejudices from which reason has been banished and logic stood on its head.

“Xenophobia and racism are symptoms of populist movements,” began the opening question from an earnest chap whose grainy image was beamed into Ultimo by Skype. “The cause of populism is the enormous deterioration of the working class’s living conditions. So why do political leaders and pundits distract us by focusing on these symptoms, which only divide us? A recent example of this, was when President Trump made more racist slurs against four progressive US Congresswomen, saying that they were incapable of loving their country. Thank you.”

Where does one begin to answer a question built on such a premise? And what was the question anyway? Could one get away by simply responding “huh?” would Tony Jones demand elaboration?

Having been invited on Q&A, Nick Cater is given a relatively rare opportunity to speak.

​Alastair Campbell, who was called on to answer the question first, had less trouble than I finding common ground with the questioner, agreeing without hesitation that the defining features of populists like Trump, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage were racism, manipulation and a pathological inability to tell the truth.

“Hitler was doing that stuff,” Campbell declared. “And, you know, I’m not saying he (Trump) is going to go out and kill six million people. I’m saying the seeds of fascism are being sown.”

It is hard to know where to begin to counter this progressive delusion, particularly when it was seen as uncontroversial by most of my fellow panellists and my attempt to answer the question was interrupted more than a dozen times, largely by Campbell but also by Jones.​

Thanks to the ever-diligent Gerard Henderson, I can report that Campbell spoke for a full 18 minutes on the show, Geoff Gallop for 12, and Cater for eight and a half. 

Implicit in the show’s imbalance is the notion that the progressive view of the world is the correct one, the view held by intelligent thinking people everywhere, and that to disagree with any part of the creed is a clear sign of moral depravity.

It is likely Jones interrupts conservatives more frequently than progressives because he is genuinely puzzled as to why anyone could think about the world in a different way. Jonathan Haidt describes this as “moral dumfoundment” in his second book, The Righteous Mind. If incidents of it appear to be growing, it is probably because the two parallel worlds in which civic debate is conducted today are further apart. 

Jones also interrupts because he has sketched the narrative for this over-produced show in his head. This issue under discussion for him on this occasion was the presumed outrageousness of Trump’s tweets. The issue I wanted to discuss, the outrageousness of comparing Trump to Hitler and the absurdity of comparing the US of 2019 to the Germany of the 1930s, is taking the discussion in a direction that he has determined it should not go. The bias, in other words, is cognitive rather than political.

Like many conservatives I have grown tired of the show. But judging from the unsolicited emails I received, Jones still has a fiercely territorial audience that gets angry when those who dispute its narrow assumptions are given a platform on the show.

At 11.56pm on Monday, a bloke called Darren hit “send” on this email: “Did I mention that Nick is a dickhead? Oh, that's right, I did. Still, can't say it too many times!”

“Hi Darren,” I replied. “Thanks for taking the trouble to write. It would have been more helpful, however, if you could respond to the argument. The transcript should be up by now, so by all means have another go.”​

Darren seemed to have grown weary. “Oh, Nick. Quite honestly, what's the point? Your politics is one of exclusion and intolerance. Your conservative views are harsh, elitist and downright selfish.  I don't need to delve any further into you, the man to guess that you're a monarchist, a fiscal conservative and an anti-abortionist. If two or more of the following statements are true for you let's just call it a day, huh? I support Israel. I didn't and/or would never send my kids to a public school. Our public broadcaster enjoys too much influence and is overfunded. Australia was right to support the US in the second Gulf War. Medicare is too expensive and inefficient. The science is still unsettled on anthropomorphic climate change. I admired Reagan and believe the American people have made good choice in president Trump. Do you see what I mean? What's the point?”

Pointless as it seemed, I decided to have another go. “Your response demands further explanation Darren. You accuse me of 'exclusion and intolerance' and then pronounce that you will cut me off if I disagree with any more than one of the points of view you hold. On the face of it, that would seem to be both intolerant and exclusive. Before you exclude me altogether from the circle of people with whom you are prepared to correspond, please tell me why you think it's ok to fire off an email to someone you've never met and you clearly don't know calling him a 'dickhead' simply because he gave up his Monday night to state his honestly held opinions on Q&A for no remuneration save a warm beer and slice of cold pizza in the ABC Green Room. That's just pure bad manners in my book. Please persuade me otherwise.”

Darren’s response offered the first signs that he was human, rather than a bomb disposal robot programmed by progressives to allow them to safely engage with the likes of me. “You are right Nick. I was rude and unnecessarily offensive. I apologise. I am just so tired of seeing people with your views being wheeled out in the interests of ‘balance’. In my view this tug of war of extremes is so laborious and futile. I am no more besotted by the extreme left than I am revolted by your extreme ideas. I really do believe your views are selfish and serve power and influence. Your views perpetuate division, fear and mistrust. Now, honestly, how many of those statements were true for you?”

Darren’s right, of course. It is tiresome to deal with those who hold contrary and apparently fixed opinions in this increasingly angry world of civic debate.

It is why, despite my bravado, I was reluctant to go on Q&A, which generates reactions more extreme than those in any other forum.

But we must, of course, in the spirit of John Stewart Mill’s exhortation written at a time of similar intolerance.

Dismissing the arguments of others is a presumption of infallibility. Truth is enlivened when it collides with error.