Why, Scotty from Marketing, why?

For those who don't know, "Scotty from Marketing" is the latest disparaging term used for our (Australia's) current Prime Minister, He's been the epitome of neoliberalism, as one would expect, but, what was not expected, is that he has also failed to show leadership with our current bushfire crisis. There has been considerable excoriation of his actions, but no proper consideration as to why he has behaving this way.

It is possible he feels overwhelmed - after all, there is some doubt about whether he was a genuine contender to replace Malcolm Turnbull, or whether he was a sacrificial lamb no-one was too worried about, figuring a genuine leader could be elected after losing in 2019 (which didn't happen) and have enough years to develop as a leader. Having been re-elected, part of which showed his political cunning, it is possible that, not having properly prepared for such a role, he was overwhelmed by the crisis.

It is also possible that his ideological fixation on financial numbers, a trait that seems to be characteristic of current (neo)liberals, has blinded him to the need to focus on giving human beings help in a form that they can immediately appreciate, access, and use.

It is the second possibility that I want to briefly consider further.

I've touched on this sort of thing before - see here (particularly "virtue signalling") and here (and especially note that order, for many police, "feels good"), and describe it as being about "wanting to feel good". See also https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2019/12/post-no-1463-cross-posting-why-scotty.html.

Everyone wants to feel good, and there a wide range of things that contribute to that - food, good health, relationships, sex, love, security. Abraham Maslow famously set out a hierarchy of needs which covers such things, and Franklin D. Roosevelt described four freedoms (two freedoms from negative matters, and two positive freedoms) that also outline a set of ways to feel good.

Where this becomes significant is in considering how to change someone who, for whatever reasons (parental approval, intellectual satisfaction, personal flaws limiting comprehension as to why good numbers would not satisfy them, etc), has become fixated on neoliberalism and economic numbers, rather than what the numbers are supposed to be about, which is meeting people's needs and enabling their happiness.

Sure, there are times when sacrifice is necessary (wars to maintain freedom, for one), but using that to justify austerity outside of recessions, depressions and (genuinely justified - which excludes the invasion of Iraq in 2003) wars on the mistaken belief that a set of good numbers will bring others the same pleasure one has is a flaw - personal and/or organisational, depending on who or what is exhibiting it.

How can that flaw be changed?

How can one turn a neoliberal into a liberal?

Politically speaking, what is more important is ensuring voters truly understand the choices they are faced with, but my life is not limited to politics: I also have a strong, genuinely and deeply held religious belief system which is based on compassion, and that causes me to want to heal neoliberals - which may also have the - side but not minor - benefit of knowing how to ensure neoliberals do not create more mini-me neoliberals, or how to change those that are spawned.

Going back about three or four decades (and for a year or so more recently), I spent some time in spiritualism, exploring it all those decades ago and more recently as an outlet for some of my alternative life practices (sadly ended by discrimination and in-fighting), and one of the points they emphasised that stuck with me, although I considered a simplification that didn't always apply, was an admonition to not take someone's belief away unless you have first given them something new to hold to. I've paraphrased that somewhat, and there is sometimes a necessity to challenge a belief in order to make room for a healthier belief system (or worldview, to give it its proper name).

When interacting directly with neoliberals - such as our current Prime Minister - I suspect what may be required is to remind them what the basis for their belief in good numbers means - which is the wellbeing of people in our society (they may be making the mistake of thinking if the institutions and organisations have "good" financial numbers, it means society and thus individuals are OK - which is exactly the same mistake the UN made at its foundation, when it thought minority rights didn't need to be considered if individual rights were OK: that means some education on how societies function, and the wide range of what is "good" for people may involve - including that ensuring human rights over bigotry is better for society). If someone can get through to them that the short term harm of what-neoliberals-consider-good-numbers far outweighs any possible benefit of the numbers, then it opens a door that we might be able to use to start exploring how to get them to come to grips with the immediate and existential climate crisis.

And outside of the spiritual sphere, I will continue to actively advocate for people-based, progressive policies which aim to promote the creation and survival of a healthy society.