I may not be my brother's keeper, but...

Please bear with me for the next few lines, especially if your political views differ from mine – god knows, I’ve made them clear – or even if you share my views but think I over do it a bit – or a lot. Just stay with me for a moment – please.

I’ve had no one take me up on the offer to dialogue about the apology. It’s possible that I have somehow contrived to be friends only with like minded people. I hope not. In fact I know that’s not true. It’s more likely that someone who thinks the apology wasn’t necessary also thinks that it’s none of my business what they think. And they’d be right. I’ll come back to that. I want to look first at another possibility: that someone, having understood the offer, rejected it because they don’t want to consider arguments for the apology. You know: I know what I think and I’m not changing my mind.

By now anyone who holds that position has stopped reading, so let me tell you, who may be curious to know what I have to say about it, what I think is wrong with that position. It’s easily illustrated. Just put the boot on the other foot, so to speak. Put those words in the mouth of a person in power. Shocking, eh? Does it sound like anyone you know? No. Because no one in power in a democracy could ever use those actual words. But actions speak. Can you think of anyone whose actions consistently signalled a refusal to “talk to the other side” – who talked at the other side instead? If you’re a coalition voter you’ve probably thinking Paul Keating. If you’re not you almost certainly have of someone else in mind. What if both points of view are right – or wrong? What if it’s not “either or” but “both and”?

Recall the 1996 election campaign and its aftermath. Pauline Hanson was speaking her mind. What she said embarrassed the Liberal party and they disendorsed her. Speaking about that period long after the event John Howard claimed that, in the years leading up to that election, people with views contrary to those of the “ruling elite” had been silenced. By the time he said this, he had systematically denigrated the world view of those he’d beaten at the ballot box and implemented policies that not only embodied his own world view, but flew in the face of scientific consensus in some cases. Along the way, people within his own party who had values that differed form his, either departed from politics or were, except on rare occasions, silent – possibly even silenced. What may or may not have been true in 1996 became increasingly so from then until 2007. Does it have to be like this? And how long can we survive as a country if we don’t start talking to one another? If we maintain a winner takes all mentality?

I remember vividly what it was like just before the 1996 election. If people who didn’t like “politically correct” views felt silenced, was it because they chose not to participate in the issues of the day? You know, I know what I think and I’m not changing my mind… And remember what it was like when the Howard government got control of both houses? I don’t care what you think. I’m going to do it my way. Coalition voters will argue that the country was in such a mess when the Howard government took over they had to repudiate the views of those they had replaced in order to put their own agenda into place. Others will say that when the Rudd government took over the country was an international pariah as a result of that agenda. If you’re a Labor supporter you might hope that things can be fixed up, but you need to be worried, because if you think what happened under the last government was bad, it’s nothing compared with what could happen next time the “conservatives” get power. If you’re a coalition voter you might be thinking the worst case scenario is already unfolding.

Both sides can stop the worst form happening. Here’s how. I care what you think and I want to talk with you about it. Now, about what other people think being none of my business….