No debate. Just rhetorical fortressing. That seems to be the mode of responding to the nuclear debate from those on the Left. The Leader of the Opposition has put up a challenge, and we are now in for a raft of ducking, weaving, and mudslinging.

Thankfully, we now have a ‘text’ through which to recognise the volleys of debate avoidance. Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott’s Cancelling of the American Mind has much useful information and analysis in it, but none so welcome as their descriptions of how so many of our leaders refuse to discuss issues, and instead go after the person. They outline general strategies that are used to avoid engagement, and also those that are typically of the ‘Left’ and ‘Right’.

They explain how the Right’s default fortressing tactics tend to reflect a growing distrust of authority, and how this distrust can then be used to dismiss a person and their arguments, and thus how they view the opposing side as enemies unworthy of being listened to.

But because it is the Right presenting the idea this time around, it is the strategies of the Left that will be most visible for the time being. The memes that recently surfaced are a fine example of debate-avoiding ‘rhetoric’. Below are some of the ‘dirty tricks’ that politicians use in constructing an obstacle course to reasoned debate, according to Lukianoff and Schlott. We can see them surfacing quickly in this latest avoidance of adult discussion. Here are a few from their list:

• Whataboutism – I don’t know if your household is like ours, but every time we hear the current government say, ‘Well, in the last government, they didn’t do…’ we groan! Sometimes out loud! That is ‘whataboutism’ – bringing up the other side’s alleged wrongdoing.
• Strawman – ‘Oh, it’s dangerous! Look at the three-eyed fish!’ Such nonsense is easily refuted, and that is why it is a strawman.
• Minimisation –‘But we are already on the right path – it is all under control.’ Really? Such rhetoric is claiming there is not really a problem – minimisation.
• Accusations of bad faith – here is another ‘groan point’ in our household: ‘He has nothing positive to say! He is always negative!’ Such insinuations of being disingenuous and self-focused is like a mirror talking to itself, coming from the Prime Minister and his team.
• That’s Offensive / Stupid / Fantasy – Oh, how those refrains have rung through the speakers of our TV screens this week! This emotive response is really saying, ‘We don’t want to engage with the topic.’ We can only guess at the reasons.
• Making stuff up –I loved the way the Energy Minister was bold and put pen to paper about who else was and was not interested in nuclear amongst the G20 countries. I loved it because I knew he would not get it right! And sure enough, Graham Lloyd pointed out how this Minister really does make stuff up. But the minister stuck to his narrative.
• Hypocrisy projection –this is happening right before my eyes! As I am typing this, a headline came in with Labour leaders crying about ‘nasty negativity’ in comments by the Opposition Leader. Really, really, truly?

At this point, my mind screams at me – weren’t we called all kinds of things by the government when we didn’t want constitutional division that fed the Indigenous grievance industry, in a so-called Voice to Parliament? Others have pointed it out, but these current patterns really do seem reminiscent of how the Lefties handled the last debate. But I worry as I write that sentence – what if someone from there actually reads this and starts to see the pattern? What if they changed tack and started to be reasonable? And then I wake up.

The hand-bombs above can be used by both sides of course, but Lukianoff and Schlott also point out particular hand grenades that the Left favour. For example, being labelled Conservative is reason enough to being flatly dismissed. That is what they did with Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. And they will try it with Ted O’Brien – I think he is holding up well so far. The Left strategy of dismissal because of race and sexuality hasn’t bubbled up yet, but I can see it coming: ‘What does this person know about the land? That’s what happens when they smash what the first peoples want!’ Or, ‘He is such a toxic man – who needs this policeman in charge of energy anyway!’

The label of being ‘phobic’ has already been tried: ‘He must really be a climate denier after all, because his so-called plan will stop our good plan for really helping the climate!’

Perhaps we should start a contest. We can all have scorecards and write down each time we hear one of these rhetorical devices being used to fortress against actual engagement with the topic of use of nuclear. I expect the score to be high. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (which is the daftest ministerial coupling ever invented, maybe), and now the Treasurer have ignored my request for technical information that is informing their opinions and assertions. The Prime Minister’s minders have been polite when saying, ‘We need to get advice on your questions…’ But that ends the conversation. Mr Bowen’s office has been stony silent. Dr Chalmers – maybe he needs more time…?

In the meantime, my scorecard is ready! What about yours?