The concept of a ‘fair go’ is almost the purpose of our democracy.

This matters, because half the world now lives under the nightmare purpose and vision of death to another tribe, religious fanaticism, looting the country of its assets, and rule by the rifle. These are ‘authoritarian’ and ‘hybrid’ regimes. It was never any different… That is why the ‘first world’ is overrun by illegal migration.

Australia is different. Even in the Australian 1850s constitutional debates, no one supported a theocracy or absolute King or Queen. ‘Rule by looters or the rifle’ was already replaced with rule by constitutional government.

Constitutional government was gradually modernised by practical people who worked hard in the precarious time of occasional famine, disease, and death in childbirth, with poor medical knowledge and little ‘safety net’.

Our system was the result of a long process, but the bad ideas of the world have come to our streets in demonstrations and even voting practices. Imported tribal hate has joined with the ‘vandalising statues party’.

Australians have no easy response to such toxic thinking.

Young people and newly arrived migrants are not taught enough about our method of government and its ideas to make judgments. Instead, they are positively taught not to be judgmental of other cultural traditions.

The only alternatives they may be taught are tribal traditions, and those as entirely beneficial.

But the Western tradition that founded Australia’s modern life largely wrote international humanitarian principles:

‘Every one of us is born free and equal in dignity and rights.’ (UN)

The world’s economy and prosperity originated in the British Industrial Revolution and Western science and technology.

A few do not wish to articulate these things for deeply held emotional reasons, or to avoid offending the nationalist pride of others in traditions that did not produce such positive outcomes for society.

The muddled thinking and heffalump traps fallen into do not end there…

Many claim that all religious traditions lead to the same path when it comes to building a society. The clear differences between the ‘first world’ and others also raise serious questions about where divergences happened, not similarities.

International charities, that do so much good work in war zones and areas struck by famine, step carefully away from direct political commentary based on Western values, which might lead to local hostility where they operate.

‘Industry policy’ should mean repairing our low economic complexity not propping up failures. Processing not just digging things up.

Our country lives in a fog of polite euphemism.

Casual disparagement of ordinary Australians and Australia by ‘human rights’ sources does not help anyone. It seems like illegal ‘bias’ to many.

Just about any policy issue involving a category of people government lists as allegedly ‘underprivileged’, none of whom are helped by withholding of truth as one house of cards collapses after another. More practical schemes for bringing along those left behind come from free debate.

An aggressive minority disdain Australia’s modest democratic symbols for those associated with terrible violence, which is shameful. Or they reject them while claiming ‘wrap-around services’.

The Western tradition is based on free and open evidence-based debate. The ‘Socratic method’ in which ideas are put, questioned, and evaluated.

Preserving social cohesion is a legitimate aim, but full criticism of everything is occasionally or regularly necessary. And government institutions and money should not be in the hands of those who do not share our values.

We are known, not necessarily fondly, as a nation of occasionally rude plain speakers.

Many others place far more cultural barriers to the truth on public debate. But perhaps this is eroding. You can ‘respect’ but still tell the truth, I would have thought.

Many performatively find the harsh language used in politics unattractive. But the language usually reflects harsh policy differences.

The most important harsh truth is that we are not currently repairing our low economic growth. We have government by drift.

The obvious solution is free markets, reducing the uncompetitive company tax rate, cutting government spending and regulation, cutting personal income tax to give scope for hard work. Increasing our economic complexity, so we process not just dig things up.

One way to achieve this is by the main parties of government agreeing, by compromise and negotiation. But this is not currently possible and free, even blunt speech is necessary.

Parliamentary committees do a lot of underrated work. Parliament is dominated by the ‘party line’ also known as the official political party position. Senate committees are the same, but their reports also quote and evaluate all the arguments put.

They are a refuge in the storm of flat contradiction and barren rhetorical flourishes.

All that has failed. We are drifting, doing very little.

We need to try an experiment.

The Liberal/National Parties Coalition need a direction in Opposition.

They could offer to support the government on the key free market changes that would help the economy.

This would energise the Opposition and public debate. Free markets are the foundation of the Opposition parties along with democracy, our modest symbols of nationhood, and family. This would be responsible and mature, a rough approximation of the truth rather than Much Ado About Nothing.

The grand bargain should be reasonably arguable regarding a few issues where some have very strong emotional investment. Proposals should be emotionally as well as intellectually balanced.

An offer of a grand bargain would put a progressive government between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea. Agree with the Coalition or reject something obviously needed.

We do not live in a Barbie world but a difficult one full of hatred and vicious military threats. We have had too many unsuccessful social experiments, from an idealistic and impractical educational curriculum to a poorly designed NDIS. Our own closed circle of bad policy. We need sensible change and need to build the economy.

The Opposition should offer the government a ‘grand bargain’.