The intention of both speeches was the same – to put pressure on elected officials and the voting public by a show of popular support – except I think there was more of an undercurrent of violence in Whitlam's speech than Trump's.
Of course no one was directly injured immediately after Whitlam's speech, but 21 years later in 1996 some participants in a trade union-led demonstration invaded parliament house and ransacked the parliamentary gift store before being stopped, but only after smashing windows and injuring police.
So Australia has precedents. Is it possible these behaviours could transfer here, like so much other American fashion?
Possibly not. We don't have a history and culture as violent as the US. The country was formed in a war of independence followed less than a hundred years later by a civil war. Until after the civil war the economics of large parts of the country were underpinned by slavery, a system where an often minority population holds a majority population down by force. And while much of the country was rested from the indigenous population through settlement, there were also a series of Indian Wars that didn't end until the early 20th Century.
The use of force is not historically, in the US, a monopoly of the state in the same way it is here, with their original army a militia, and protection and punishment on the frontier often a matter of improvisation so that even today the vigilante, whether the Magnificent Seven, or Batman, are heroic figures.
America does violence more expansively and reflexively than we do.
And the states had seen a summer of demonstrations by Antifa and BLM activists which destroyed homes, businesses, property and lives, and in which Democratic politicians were either complicit or captive. For example, the Mayor of DC had BLM painted on avenues; in Oregon activists were allowed the run of the inner city, and moves made to defund the police, and Kamala Harris and staff made donations to bail funds.
There are also factors specific to this incident which we are unlikely to see here. The US electoral system is shambolic, and ours, with some small wrinkles, a model of transparency and probity. There are certainly no issues with counting the votes. It is done by hand by independent government employees under close observation by political party scrutineers.
The US electoral system is run by the states, but also by the political parties and until the 2020 election it was widely accepted that there was widespread corruption. Now it has magically vanished.
LBJ was thought to have won his first Senate election by fraud and there was probably fraud in the election of JFK, although it was never proven in a court of law.
What I find stunning is the vehemence with which the Democrats, mainstream media, and Big Tech deny and censor any claims that there was any evidence of vote tampering in this election.
In fact, there is voluminous documentation including affidavits, statistical analysis and even some video evidence appended to various law suits lodged by Trump, NGOs and in one case 18 states led by Texas.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
45 posts so far.