In defence of kitchen cabinet and democracy

Since the knifing of Abbott, a wave of vindication has swept over our media elite so much so that they remain dogmatically assured that they have won every policy war.

Such is their confidence that they have now gone after one of their own, Annabel Crabb for having former Immigration Minister and current Treasurer on her program and (shock horror) allowing him to justify his policy positions.

Admittedly, Crabbe's 'Kitchen Cabinet' is not a serious exposition in the vein of Leigh Sales' 7.30 Report.

Yet by having our politicians on her show, we are getting insight into their background, what makes them tick and what they are striving for in public life.

One would think that that should be viewed by both sides as an invaluable service.

Evidently not.

Amy McQuire of New Matilda writes 'It's akin to spending a life gorging on sweets and then finding out later you have diabetes. This insidious spread of propaganda, soft interviews with hard-line politicians who wield enormous power over the lives of the most vulnerable, is sold as a fun, light-hearted look into the lives of the people we elect.'

Likewise, Ben Popjie of the Age says 'It was easy to be nauseated by last week's KC episode, wherein Annabel had a spiffing old time cooking with Scott Morrison, trading amiable banter while carefully avoiding the topic of irredeemable evil.'

Let's put aside the Immigration debate for a moment. It's been won and lost on separate occasions. If 'Kitchen Cabinet' is to be on the ABC and the ABC is to be government funded then their is a public duty for it to be provide balance.

This means allowing politicians of all persuasions to come on the show and present their arguments in addition to giving us perspective on who they are as people. But no, according to our intelligentsia Scott Morrison is 'irredeemably evil'. No defence, dismiss the jury, case closed.

What this does is fundamentally undermine our liberal democracy. Our politicians are not conclusively good or evil and their trial is at the hands of the electorate.

Gone too are the days of Chifley and Menzies, or more recently, Keating and Howard, where both sides were interested in each man, his motivations and the justification for his actions.

Now, a toxic smugness has swept over the Left.

In the age of social media, inconsequential opinions can be confused with important ones. When everyone you went to uni with and maybe a minor celebrity or two, post about how the government's refugee policies are wrong, people can be deluded into thinking that the argument is over.

In reality, the government's refugee policies were overwhelmingly endorsed at an election and continue to remain popular, in spite of the loss of support for much of their original program.

In fact, Scott Morrison probably speaks more for the average Australian, than many of our other politicians. He has argued that the government has a spending problem not a revenue problem, in light of fresh calls for an increase in the GST, which is in line with the mandate the public granted the government in 2013.

That isn't to say that he doesn't deserve to be made accountable, just like current Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, for some of the dubious practices that happened in offshore detention centres under their tenure.

However to say that isn't worthy of a thirty minute profile, which all politicians who are either up and comers or interesting personalities are treated with, due to his practices as Immigration Minister, is to deprive the public of getting to know the man behind the policies.

The utopian vision that the personality is removed from the debate, in favour of strict discussion on policy might be appealing to many. However it is very difficult to see where the policy begins and the personality ends.

Indeed when Bob Hawke took over the Labor leadership in 1983, he presided over some definitive reforms, not all of which would have been implemented had his predecessor Bill Hayden become Prime Minister.

By taking a constructivist view and looking at the government, the policy climate, the individuals responsible- including their background, values and objectives- we gain a holistic picture into what the government is doing and where it intends to take us.

It isn't Annabel Crabb that's dumbing down the debate. It's the critics who believe that our politicians and their policy positions are irrefutably good or evil and given no opportunity to show us who they are away from the partisan spin and shouting.