Curious parallels... How elites in Australia & the US always miss the big picture

David Flint I 23 November 2024 I Spectator Australia

It is not often that the rank-and-file in a nation-state come together and successfully decide on its future against the wishes of a powerful ruling class, including the greater part of the media.

The fact that a country as young as Australia is one of a handful of the world’s oldest continuing democracies demonstrates that few countries have long had the machinery to do this in an orderly and peaceful way, i.e., through elections and referendums with a reasonably broad franchise.

We have just seen an extraordinary example of the victory of the rank-and-file over a decadent ruling class, including much of the media, in the very heart of this Western imperium, the USA.

Led by Donald Trump, in my assessment the greatest American President since Ronald Reagan, the rank-and-file overruled an establishment that had far too readily succumbed to the long march of the new communists through the institutions.

In this, the elites were advancing increasingly deranged dogmas against the family, the rights of women in sports and safe places, the proper education of children and even their mutilation, the development of resources, the energy independence of the nation, the advancement of the armed forces and the military dominance of the USA.

Coincidentally, the day the results of the recent US election came out (significantly earlier than predicted), 6 November, was also the 25th anniversary of another major battle between the elites and the rank-and-file, this time in Australia.

This was a referendum to turn Australia from a crowned into a politicians’ republic, one designed to dangerously advance the power of the nation’s increasingly career politicians, that is, politicians lacking real-life experience outside the narrow confines of party politics.

This resulted in a landslide, a national No vote of 55 per cent.

All states were opposed, four supporting states being necessary, as well as an overall majority.

It is also relevant to note that in the 1999 referendum, the Yes Case was concentrated geographically, with the No case prevailing in 72 per cent of electorates.

Had this been an election, it would have been a landslide.

The victory revealed an establishment, including the media, which was completely out of touch with the majority.

The victory of the Australian rank-and-file was celebrated recently in ACM’s 25th National Conference in Sydney, available on ADH.TV, and in Melbourne.

In that referendum, I had the great honour of convening what one of our military-inclined colleagues named the No Case central command.

Operating daily by consensus, the command coordinated a network of directorates in the national and state capitals, linking with coordinators in every electorate, supported by about 60,000 foot soldiers across the nation.

They were part of a wider army of supporters who would have refrained from describing themselves as ‘passionate’ but whose beliefs were far stronger than those who so readily claim such a descriptor for some fashion du jour.

The power? of such an army of believers, qualitatively different from the other side, was proved greater than either large numbers of celebrities, the wealth of the ruling class, the mass media or two-thirds of the politicians.

This was completely missed by the media in Australia in 1999, as it was in America? in 2024.

As with the Harris case in America, the Yes case in Australia was poorly prepared in a myriad of ways.

For example, its first republican model, claimed to be similar to the status quo, was exposed by ACM as extraordinarily similar to the French Fifth Republic.

The republicans also claimed that the change could not affect our membership of the Commonwealth and participation in the Commonwealth Games.

Once again, ACM exposed this to be untrue, a conclusion supported in writing by the Commonwealth Secretary General.

The final model was then exposed as the only republic in the world or indeed, in history, where the president could be removed by the prime minister without notice, grounds or right of appeal, thus negating the reserve powers.

And because the Australian media had not learnt the lesson of the republic referendum, they relied almost totally on the biased American media and pollsters for news about the recent election.

The result was that the agency-sourced news on Donald Trump transmitted to Australians was almost invariably biased Democrat propaganda, and not factual news.

Similarly, in the 1999 referendum, the media ignored the power of the rank-and-file illustrated in the one demonstration in the monarchy-republic debate, peacefully filling Macquarie Street Sydney from Government to Parliament House.

Every attempt by republicans to invoke anything which in size could be called a demonstration failed embarrassingly.

As republican leader Malcolm Turnbull lamented in his diary: ‘Nobody’s interested.’

Meanwhile in the recent US example, there was a parallel.

The manifestations of powerful support for Trump were never remotely rivalled by Harris, even when assisted by paid pop stars and free concerts.

As in the Australian 1999 landslide, so in the US, something big was going on in the country.

The rank-and-file were rebelling against the establishment.

Yet the media refused to notice.

A? feature common to the republican referendum and the recent US election was a? participation by the media, not in reporting, but in powerfully promoting one side.

In Australia, the most prominent exception was Alan Jones on conservative talkback radio. He would often conclude discussions with undecided callers seeking his opinion, with the pertinent observation, ‘If? you don’t know, vote No’.

In America, a distinct minority, conservative talk-back radio, Foxtel and Newsmax would provide more balanced news and pro-Trump opinion.

Yet the Australian media, on the whole, recently chose to rely on the most highly questionable sources in the United States, sources which had a record of presenting biased and untruthful reports in the past about Donald Trump.

They unprofessionally ignored the fact that the new president has an agenda which on the precedent of his last term, and that of Ronald Reagan, is likely to succeed not only in making America great again but in advancing significantly the role of the West.

Aurhor: David Flint