So, the results of the pompously named Aussie SSM (same-sex marriage survey) are out. This was the question: "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?".
These were the answers:
For the record: although I was and remain apathetic about the whole exercise, I answered yes. (I also recommended that a same-sex divorce provision be added, but I don't think anybody actually paid attention to it).
Where does this "overwhelming" victory of progressive Australia leaves us? Well, two bills will go to Parliament for discussion and eventually to vote. In other words, the SSM left us exactly where we were last August: panem et circenses.
On the plus side: Smooth FM Sydney finally changed its programming. Apparently to celebrate. Yay! Victory.
Speaking of progressivism, Dani Rodrik writes:
"Many elites are puzzled about why poor or working-class people would vote for someone like Trump. After all, the professed economic policies of Hillary Clinton would in all likelihood have proved more favorable to them. To explain the apparent paradox, they cite these voters' ignorance, irrationality, or racism.
"But there is another explanation, one that is fully consistent with rationality and self-interest. When mainstream politicians lose their credibility, it is natural for voters to discount the promises they make. Voters are more likely to be attracted to candidates who have anti-establishment credentials and can safely be expected to depart from prevailing policies."Whatever its virtues, I think that other explanation Rodrik proposes may have a serious defect: I doubt his explanation feels so good to those elites, particularly given that they supported Hillary Clinton. Sanctimony must feel fucking good. To give it up may be too high a price to pay.
On top, to acknowledge Rodrik's explanation has another price: to change their politics.