I first heard the term ‘the left’ as an HSC student studying Don’s Party, a 1971 play by David Williamson.
It is a largely plotless script about a group of middle-class Aussies who came together to celebrate Labor’s 1969 election victory. The play is iconic for its ‘Australian-ness’, crass-ness and humorous dissection of our character at the time.
But at my all-girls school, it all flew over our heads. My brilliant English teacher spent most of her time explaining what happens on election night, social changes we had not heard of, and unravelling the mysteries of political factions and events beyond our experience.
On the 1969 election itself, we were told it was complicated.
‘All you need to know is that Labor didn’t actually win.’ Okay.
What about ‘the left’? This was the good news. ‘Don’s Party is not one of the texts we are preparing for the exam’. There was audible relief and after a few more struggling lessons we got back to Shakespeare and Jane Austin.
My impression was that ‘the left’ is difficult, and we are not supposed to comprehend or worry about it.
This was fine for most of my life on the conservative side of politics, until I found myself being labelled a ‘left-winger’, because of my views on social issues and the environment.
As the first ever female Young Liberal State President, I drew gasps from the Liberal Women’s Council by telling them I was a ‘feminist’.
When asked about burning my bras, I reassured them ‘I am not that sort of feminist’ – only to be asked what other sort is there?
The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have ignited more recent debate about the political left.
A recent opinion piece by Thomas Friedman in The New York Times refers to ‘a titanic geopolitical struggle between two opposing networks of nations and non-state actors’.
He typifies an American world view, where there are either good guys or bad guys, according to their values and interests.
Friedman writes: ‘On one side is the Resistance Network, dedicated to preserving closed, autocratic systems where the past buries the future’.
‘On the other side is the Inclusion Network, trying to forge more open, connected, pluralising systems, where the future buries the past.’
Resistance Network
According to Friedman’s article, members of the Resistance Network (political left) include Vladimir Putin, who tried to drag his country and satellite states back to the Cold War era; and the Iran/Hamas/Hezbollah axis, which is trying to stop Saudi Arabia from being friends with Israel, which may lead to a stabilised Middle East and expanded economic prosperity.
Inclusion Network
Friedman describes the Inclusion Network as led by the US, which includes its allies who are loosely termed ‘the West’.
Their task is to stand up to bullies, protect the values of freedom and diversity, and promote free markets as the means to global prosperity.
Here in Australia, the Inclusion versus Resistance stereotype has done immense harm to complex issues, such as improving outcomes for Aboriginal Australians. Proposing to abolish Australia Day, for example, distracts from the actual problems. It confuses and divides.
And when it comes to ‘resistance’ and the left, I know for sure in Australia, the fight to save native forests and endangered species falls neatly into that cause.
So this is how I came to be judged a ‘left winger’ and somehow got lumped in as a champion of multiple causes. There’s many of these I disagree with, and some I have not even heard of.
Dumbing down
To characterise anyone who wants to save native forests as a Stalinist member of the ‘resistance’ is factually incorrect. It is an act of political bastardry to isolate and discredit the conservation movement.
It is incredibly unhelpful to the practical need to conserve our natural heritage.
It is the same in reverse.
To characterise everyone who wants to retain Australia Day on January 26 as genocidal and a racist is incorrect and unacceptable.
This stereotyping and labelling is increasingly the language of modern politics, and quite frankly it dumbs down the debate and puts most citizens off wanting to engage at all on the issues.
This idea of ‘identity politics’ blinkers public policy in alarming ways. Teal voters who care about the environment are labelled ‘latte sipping’ and ‘inner city’ – as a rallying cry to regional electorates.
The left’s description of all National Party MPs as ‘knuckle-dragging Neanderthals’ is equally guaranteed to fan anger and emotion on issues better served by focus on considered facts.
How has any of this inane sledging assisted service delivery and infrastructure to our own Northern Rivers communities?
The answer is that it has hindered and not helped good decisions.
Every protagonist in politics has an agenda. Do not let them distract you from appreciating nearly every issue has its merits, and every citizen has a potential contribution to make.
It is called being a ‘civil society’, where we are glued together by mutual respect between strangers who refrain from assumptions and focus instead on facts.
♦ Catherine Cusack is a former NSW Liberal MLC.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
