Photo: Cathy Wilcox
When Australian voters ask their politicians to lower taxes, they’re not immediately asked to submit comprehensive spreadsheets outlining their alternative economic vision for the country.
When ordinary people ask their politicians to do something about the climate crisis, they’re not expected to provide a multi-volume proposal co-authored by David Suzuki and Naomi Klein that will definitively end pollution.
When citizens ask their politicians to create more jobs, they’re not dismissed and told to give their job to somebody else if they feel oh-so-bloody strong about it.
But when decent folks see stories about people in our offshore gulags setting themselves on fire in desperation and are so bold as to suggest that might be an indication of something being horrifically wrong, they can expect to be greeted with a familiar response: “Well what’s YOUR solution then, smarty-pants?”
“Hey all you mums and you young people and you teachers and you doctors and you nice grandmas speaking up for what you believe in – stop pointing out the sexual abuse of children and fascist gag laws and the illegality of the entire operation and please explain to us in detail how you plan to solve one of the most complex humanitarian crises of the 21st century! … Come on! not so easy now, is it?!”
This is blind “solutionism” and it is corroding our public discourse. In almost any other debate, we openly praise compassion and we call for greater democratic participation. But when it comes to refugees, if the point you’re making won’t help “stop the boats” or “smash the people smugglers’ business model”, then sit down and shut up, hippie.