Middleground

Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard took their carbon tax battle a great distance from the centre.

One went one way the other in the opposite direction and among the smoke and noise of battle they lost sight of and consciously abandoned any long term goals that might have resonated with the majority occupying the middle ground.

Can either recover, regroup and attempt to regain the support and votes of the majority in the middle? Probably not but they seem to think it's worth a shot.

The carbon/energy communication campaigns of both sides of politics were poorly executed.

They created a public perception of the image of both sides as untrustworthy. They ended with diminished reputations. And the majority of the public remain disillusioned and angry.

Tony Abbott's opposition campaign and Julia Gillard's advocacy campaign failed a number of simple tests of effectiveness not least of which was the sad level of information from both sides.

Both sides were so busy trying to score elementary points and both were so busy with mediated spinning they lost sight of long term public policy goals and objectives.

A knock-on effect of their battle was the abandoning of the middle ground.

A week or so back the Economist newspaper published a leader lamenting the loss of the middle in American politics.

Its front cover image was the space between the halves of a hamburger bun with the caption…the woeful gap in America's politics.

The same can be said for Australia. When Julia Gillard hurtled to the left to embrace the Greens, and Tony Abbott strode manfully to the right to show who was boss, the centre, to paraphrase Yeats, did not hold.

The carbon tax attempted to define clearly the right and left in Australian politics - opponents or advocates - and there was meant to be no middle ground.

All the available public spaces including Twitter asked citizens to take sides.

But what about all those in the middle who did not want to take sides? Did not want to align with one or the other?

The majority of those who occupy the middle ground in their everyday socioeconomic lives are now confused about where to go.

They were abandoned by the Liberal National coalition and by the Labor right.

They are now afraid to move too far to the left to embrace the new Labor Greens coalition with its radical notions. Their fear is not unfounded. Common sense tells them that.

They are afraid to embrace Tony Abbott's stark right-of-centre muscularity because not all of them are muscular and not all of them have the capacity to take it on the chin when things get tough. Socioeconomic things.

Neither the Labor Greens political public relations strategy on a clean energy future nor that of the Liberal National coalition on a carbon tax were well-thought through for the longer term.

Now the dust has settle Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard are doing one-eighties. In looking back to the destruction of the centre all they see is the great gaping maw that needs filling.

Ms Gillard sees structural change through the abandonment of anti-bauxite mining policy creating the right atmosphere for her to retake the centre.

Mr Abbott sees a continuation of a promise to abandon legislation on a range of issues as the trigger for the centre to creep towards the right, without knowing it's moving.

Both strategies are flawed and both continue to look to the short term without contemplating the future socioeconomic well-being of the country post-2013.

Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard would do well to think about four rhetorical practices that Leon Mayhew identified while he was watching a presidential campaign in the eighties.

Mayhew lamented the disintegrating structure of social life and blamed politics. He said there was no longer any public deliberation because of a lack of meaningful policy issues on the public agenda; too much one sided communication from politicians; evasive, strategic responses that spin rhetorical descriptions rather than supply straightforward answers; and appeals to individual self interest over the common good.

Bauxite mining wont cut it. Nether will blood oaths to repeal legislation.

The Economist says such a huge gap in the middle, in countries other than America, would see the creation of a third party to represent the alienated majority.

As in America and in Australia, however, there are institutional and financial barriers to starting a new political party.

So boys and girls, start thinking about meaningful policy issues, two-way communication, straightforward factual information and the common good. Then act for the long term.