I know proximity plays a big part in the relevance of news, as does it being current and fresh, and I also know, ahead of time, that this post is none of those things. The whole Republican Party brouhaha happening in the USA right now is such old news, it's aaaaaaall the way over there and virtually every politics story is about as fresh as a week old trout to the largely unwashed and uneducated masses out there, but I was musing on the topic a little while ago, and I had to ask myself a difficult question; why is it that I'm incredibly up to date with what's happening in the US yet I just don't give a shit about what's happening at home, politically? Of course, with a bit of thought and a decent application of logic, it becomes screamingly obvious as to why the news of the US grabs my attention while local news doesn't.
Big reason number one: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I'm not being flippant here, that show is an excellent source of news. It's not particularly in depth, but it usually provides a nice leaping off point from which to further explore the issues and does so in such a way as to keep the viewer hooked. Probably info-tainment at its best, or at least what it should be. I'm unsure why this doesn't exist in Australia, considering the success of shows like The Gruen Transfer (which is a must watch for everyone, ever) but at a guess, I'd say it's a combination of having no particularly funny or entertaining politically minded comedians in Australia and the inherent lack of theatre in Australian politics, at least compared to the US. The Chaser guys don't really count here, because they're more pranksters than honest political commentators, but beggars can't really be choosers. It also leads me to my next point.
Big reason number two: American politics, particularly where the Republican Party is involved, are batshit insane. Barely a week passes without something hilarious, maddening or just plain interesting happening. I mean, let's think back, we most recently had the dog and pony show of yet another debate wherein all but Mitt Romney made arses of themselves, before that we had the Rick Perry "...and the third thing..." piece of majestic idiocy, before that the Herman Cain sexual harrassment thing, Perry's past being under the microscope and the unfortunate Bush comparisons, Michele Bachmann being the front runner was scary for a while, Sarah Palin's inexplicable presence, and the whole Rick Santorum is a by product of anal sex thing (google "Santorum". Go on, I dare ya). Plus the ever present ridiculousness of Newt Gingrich and the pure, visceral sleaze that emanated from Mitt Romney and you have the high political theatre at its finest, and that's just the Republicans! The Democrats, gawd bless 'em, generally a bit more mellow but watching Obama flail for approval and milk the last of his "great white/black hope" card is also good for a titter.
To make the point further, consider the lineup for the Republican party candidates:
Ron Paul: Delightful old codger who's views are remarkably progressive for a Republican, and yet he wants to return to the gold standard, which makes no sense. Also, he looks like he's about to die at any time.
Rick Perry: Bush on steroids, a god-fearing Texan idiot of the highest calibre.
Herman Cain: Flat tax promoting pizza mogul who sexually harassed a number of women.
Mitt Romney: A sleazy mormon who'd sooner sell out his holy book than do anything to offend his constituents.
John Huntsman: A mellow and pleasant chap who used to work for Obama, and as such has no hope of ever winning this, so watching him slowly die is amazing fun.
Newt Gingrich: Angry old man who hates the gays.
Michele Bachmann: Tea Party god-botherer who really hates the gays.
Rick Santorum: The gays got revenge on him.
That was all off the top of my head. Meanwhile, apart from our two party leaders and the occasional MP who goes off the rails, I couldn't give you that huge a description of anyone. I try to keep abreast of what's going on here politically, but it's just not the same.
Big reason number three: We have to vote for a number of parties, large and small. My participation in the political system is compulsory, enforced and offers me a large array of parties to choose from, some one which address some of my concerns, some of which don't. I can tailor my vote in such a way to express my incredibly specific views, or just make a simple one that kinda fits a glove of some of the bigger parties. This changes the way the politicians advertise to you here, they aim for the middle and keep everything moderate. American politics doesn't have that, you have non-compulsory, two party voting. You don't have to be a part of it and if you are, you have reps or dems. That's it. It completely changes the way the parties run themselves and how they advertise, the main point of which being that Australian political advertising and posturing is very middle of the road, centrist, flavour of the month crap. It's incredibly disengaging, and while I remain early twenties and studying, no party will ever advertise to me, I represent waaaay too small a demographic. The result is that anyone with even a marginal education is more turned off by political salesmanship than turned on by it.
Those three reasons pretty much summarise why I, and so many other Australians, are more on top of American politics than Australian, and until they get addressed in one way or another, I think it's gonna remain a theme for some time. Luckily, it's entertaining as all hell, so I'm not too worried.
No comments:
Post a Comment