With the referendum date now set, how can we better understand the history of the constitution in relation to our moral positions on the Voice?
The referendum is scheduled to be held on October 14. Of 44 referendums held since Federation, just eight were successful. Referendums have a high threshold for passing, compounded by a very human psychological tendency to stick to the status quo.
Eight years ago, almost a third of Australians were unaware we had a constitution. The last referendum was in 1999, so this will also be the first referendum for 6.4 million voters. The No campaign for that 1999 referendum capitalised on this unfamiliarity, with the slogan “If you don’t know, vote no”, which is also in the current referendum booklet.
History of constitutional change
One view of the Australian constitution is that it is a practical and legalistic instrument of government, and that because it lacks declarations or human rights, it is value-free. However, constitutions are created by humans with values — and ours was drafted by wealthy, white, settler men.
Hansard shows that those men exhibited strong commitments to empire, capitalism and white supremacy and the patriarchy, so it’s important to consider the era in which the constitution was drafted, and how it’s changed in relation to First Nations peoples.
Initially, the Commonwealth was precluded from passing laws with respect to First Nations peoples under s51 xxvi. This ensured the states could continue racially discriminatory practices. “Aboriginal natives” were also not to be counted in the census under s127.
It was not until 1967 that Australia amended the constitution through a referendum to remove these two discriminatory elements. This change represented the flexibility of the constitution to accommodate attitudinal change among the citizens to which it applies — and move with the times.
Compared with the Voice referendum, the 1967 Yes campaign was hugely successful, with 91% voting Yes nationally and a Yes majority in all states. However, there was no official No campaign to contend with.
Recent polling indicates support for the Voice referendum Yes vote has been steadily declining, with estimated support at approximately 45% nationally. So why was support for the 1967 referendum almost unanimous, but we are almost split down the middle in 2023?
How moral psychology influences political positions
Moral foundations theory proposes that we take moral positions based on five “pillars” of morality. These are harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity.
A simple way of understanding this is by considering the question: what makes something right or wrong? An answer such as “whether or not someone was hurt” stems from a harm/care foundation, whereas “whether or not someone did what they were told” stems from authority/respect.
The first two pillars are termed “individualising foundations”, reflecting our concern for individuals, and the latter three “binding foundations”, intended to keep social groups together. These foundations are known to shape our political beliefs. Research shows liberals tend to base their positions on the individualising foundations, whereas conservatives do so on both individualising and binding foundations.
Australians’ political preferences, shaped by these moral foundations, have been found to predict their organ donation intentions.
Moral psychology and the Voice
The reasoning behind the Voice is an attempt to right some of the wrongs of colonisation, and provide agency for First Nations peoples who have been historically disempowered. We can think about these two aims and their broader goals as very relevant to the individualising foundations, but less relevant — potentially challenging — the binding ones.
Put another way, while the Yes argument may resonate strongly with two of the moral foundations, those on the No or undecided side may consider them alongside three more.
Research shows our political preferences tend to align with our endorsement of the moral foundations. If we consider referendum polling by voting intention, we can see the Yes proportion share increases as parties become less conservative.
A referendum in the misinformation age
Something else that has changed since 1967 is the rise of misinformation, much of which may resonate more strongly with No voters as it appeals to the binding foundations.
Concerningly, repeated online exposure to one’s opposing political ideology has been found to reinforce conservative beliefs on social issues. This may be why the No campaign has been steadily gaining ground.
So for the Voice referendum to succeed, its supporters might need to consider arguments that can persuade those who rely on a broader set of moral pillars.
For instance, one way of interpreting a constitution is that it is a “living force”. This charges its inheritors with ensuring it can adapt to modern times, as opposed to maintaining the mindsets of men who were around when it was drafted.
Someone opposed to the Voice on the grounds that it challenges tradition may be persuaded by an argument that outlines why the tradition is to keep the constitution fundamental, yet sufficiently flexible, in order to live up to this charge.
One thing I have learned that using facts and ethics to appeal to No supporters is like bashing your head against a brick wall. I have spoken to several who acknowledge that the No case is essentially a misinformation and scare campaign but they let their conservative and political leanings over ride that. It’s quite disheartening.
It’s more that the “ethics” of conservatives stem from a broader range of moral foundations than that for liberals – and this may make some “no” arguments more effective.
Kim
Yes, everything is reduced to their culture war. As someone said, if the Greens denied climate change, the conservatives would passionately believe in it, just to oppose whatever the Greens and progressives stand for. And hasn’t the raison d’etre of the modern Liberal Party (since Menzies established it) been to keep the ALP out of government? Some national vision.
None of which disguises the fact that the debate has empowered both politicians and racists on the NO side to make totally false claims or claims irrelevant to the actual referendum question. Without truth in advertising legislation being extended to political advertising there are NO consequences for false claims and downright lies. Is this who we are?
Apparently yes. As has been the case for more than two centuries and looks to be continuing into the future.
Australia has finally reached its end goal: becoming part of the US in every aspect of its vainglorious, racist nastiness.
Yes GG Australia definitely embraces an underlying racism problem and it is moments like this it is allowed out. Particularly with the demise of the Anglo World as the coloured races now dominate the World in numbers and a newly found economic power. The white west are loosing control and don’t like it.
In Aus we are just sitting on the coattails of the US terrified as it begins to implode.
We have extinguished our star that shone bright, that gave us an option of entering the new developing World but we have chosen to follow a gun slinging nation with a leader that can’t find his way off stage.
is this who we are? Yes, it probably is.
The only good thing that’s likely to come out this referendum is it will show us *exactly* who we are. Hopefully individual booth counts will be publicly available, like they are in elections – which will allow us to produce a fine grained map of racism in Australia.
Note how a selective constitutional “originalism” infects the US Right, most notably now its Supreme Court.
A coincidence with the tactics of the NO case?
Probably not. Look at the journey the Liberal Party has taken ideologically and geographically, importing US fossil fueled Kochonomics (IPA) and Tanton nativism for a proxy white Oz (ALP figures compromised too), with RW MSM cartel running protection, now Victoria from being the Liberal ‘jewel in the crown’ to moving to the QLD LNP, with dollops of conservative Christianity; it’s not even original replicating US and lesser extent the UK, but the end game?
On SCOTUS appointments, absolutely influenced by Federalist Society, Council for National Policy, Evangelical & anti-abortion Christians and GOP (inc. Freedom Caucus); quelle surprise, all Koch (Donors) Network.
A very interesting article, many of us probably never think about those moral pillars…
They are certainly very beneficial to the NO campaigners, and to those lacking morality but excelling in mendacity – essentially the same people.
For the moral pillars to apply you have to be considered part of the group they apply to. Racist and other prejudiced conceptions do not include populations defined as “other” as deserving of moral consideration, or at least full consideration (see Australia circa 1901 to 1967? 74? 2017?)
While the No campaign is mostly not overtly racist, more cynical party political, it dog whistles a lot. Moreover, it hinges around the proposition, not that an out group be brought in by the change, but rather that the change (unfairly) elevates an out group above the in group. This framing is apparently resonating with the socially and economically status anxious people in the population. They both reject the idea they have any privilege and simultaneously fear anything that might threaten their status. The dominant emotion being produced in them toward the Yes case being a belligerent petulance. These people are always with us, just tune into 2GB or 3AW where the hosts play them like a recorder (I would have said piano but that is a complex instrument). What is concerning is just how many there are of them? We shall see.
Oh, the belligerent petulance of the white grievance puppets; the grotesque hypocrisy is set to eclipse that of 2ionist occupiers any day now.
It’s like each item on the list of cognitive biases is associated with a piano key (a recorder doesn’t have nearly enough holes). Come to think of it though, a recorder is more apt, given the sort of repetitive, transparent hamfistedness which actually gets traction. They’re not even trying, and they kick all the goals. Vast swathes of the populace, begging to be manipulated by any old schmuck.
It’s also how the ‘great replacement’, via ageing hollowed out media, politicians and influencers returned to proxy white Oz social and political narratives dog whistling refugees, immigration, population growth, diversity and more educated younger generations; time is running out…..