Hope and despair don't belong together. Two recent occasions when Australians have had the chance to express their view on a political issue should fill us all with great hope.
The postal vote on same-sex marriage was a resounding "yes".
It showed that people would decide for themselves rather than being prompted by what their local member thought. Plenty of seats clearly voted "yes" despite the fact that their local member was advocating a "no".
Tony Abbott's seat chief among them. There's a symbiotic dance between members and their electorates on many issues.
There'll be differences of opinion within any electorate so a member simply can't vote the way everybody would like. But when there's a strong, consistent opinion within any electorate, its members should know that and take it into account.
That vote showed how Australians, given the chance, will happily make a political decision. We can think for ourselves. It confirms we should be brought into the conversation more often, not just served two opposing options.
Then came the referendum on the Voice. Labor ran a very simple emotional campaign.
On the face of it, it simply said we should do the right thing and give First Australians what they had asked for. It was a reverse negative.
If you don't vote for this you're anti-First Australians. Common sense prevailed.
Voters seeing almost constant disunity among Indigenous Australians saw that another body wouldn't resolve that. They saw they were being sold a pup and said shove it.
They said, "no, thanks" to a constitution that gives one group of Australians a particular advantage.
And "no, thanks" to a body having been designed and promoted by one clique within Indigenous Australia, and a clique that has always seen itself as more important than others. As it turns out Australians showed yet again they will think for themselves. Thinking about how we want Australia shaped into the future is a good thing.
But then we hit the wall of despair. How many times have you heard someone say "Dutton just doesn't look the part".
Admittedly, you might hear this from those who regard themselves as well-informed or educated.
These are the sort of people who have no idea that the University of Life isn't a joke. They take themselves very seriously. There's always a risk when you do that, that you'll forget to keep your common sense in your knapsack and end up looking stupid.
If looks were that important, Roosevelt and Churchill wouldn't have got a look in.
Outside politics, neither Lech Walesa nor Solzhenitsyn would get an easy run. A substantial element of the Australian population has been sucked in by the media stereotype.
Sure Dutton isn't going to give Daniel Craig a run for his money to win a movie role. So what? He's not running in that race. Nicole Kidman is a great and clearly very attractive actress, but that doesn't qualify her to be PM.
We've had prime ministers who have worn, even flaunted, their affection for Zegna or Brioni suits and Hermes ties. It might have revealed a certain vanity, but it didn't make them better, or worse, prime ministers.
Donald Trump seems to pick suits that aren't quite on the money and maybe chooses his barber the same way. He knows only too well that those who Hillary labelled "the deplorables" don't think about owning Zegna or Brioni. They remain where politics ought to be focused. The issues.
The other criticism I hear of Dutton is "He's just a copper". Having once been minister for the federal police this one frankly gets right under my skin.
Seriously, who stands between your kids and a drug dealer or a punch-up artist in a street brawl. Who hunts down violent attackers, murderers and fraudsters? Yes, a copper.
Do people say, "he's a market gardener"? Do they think being a lawyer, sharebroker, accountant or merchant banker is a more honourable profession?
Coppers come in all shapes and sizes. Did anyone at the Bondi Junction Westfield care that Amy Scott wasn't a beefy copper but a slight blonde with happy eyes and a great smile? The question in any job is: can you do the job?
As a matter of mere historical interest, John Curtin left school at 13 and Ben Chifley, prime minister following the end of WWII was a train driver before entering politics. The question isn't what job you had.
How did a large section of the Australian population become so out of touch or distracted from real political issues to the point where what someone looks like and the fact they were once a copper is even vaguely relevant?
The cult of personality has a lot to answer for. Equally, the degeneration of our political debate into one side or the other and little, if any, discussion in between discourages all of us from actually thinking.
Lazy politics encourages some to vote for what looks good but may not be substantively up to the mark. You might call it veneer politics, mere symbolism.
Worst of all is the identity politics that so beleaguers the Western world. In that sphere, a policy statement is designed to tell the world who you want them to think you are; what you care about.
The efficacy of the proposal doesn't get discussed. It's not about getting something done. It's about telling everyone about you. All of these affectations discourage plain old-fashioned thinking. It is, of course, much harder to thrash out differences, to actually consider policy options and chat about them in a civil fashion than it is to slip into all the lazy options on offer.
Dutton's decision to advocate for nuclear power was a bold, sensible move. It differentiates him and his party because Labor is opposed, despite their ultimate hero, Bob Hawke, seeing it as the future. Dutton has said to electorate, "There's more options for you to think about and choose from than the endless debate about renewables".
READ MORE VANSTONE:
That's a good message. It's also sensible. Today's costings will not be tomorrow's. The super wealthy can see where this is going and are already investigating and investing in mini-reactors that can be produced in numbers rather than one-offs. That will be a game changer and prices will tumble. Dutton is way ahead on the energy game. To some, sadly that seems less important than appearances.
Paul Keating was a great politician but a terrible parliamentarian. For him, politics was all. He coined a phrase that aptly describes the shallow political debate today. He understood the need to "flick the switch to vaudeville." Sadly, this leads to politics as entertainment, not policy.
At the polling booth, when we choose our next government, we will no doubt be considering who will be our next prime minister. As each of us picks up the pencil to mark our ballot, do you really think the key question is "What does this person look like?".
- Amanda Vanstone is a former senator for South Australia, a former Howard government minister, and a former ambassador to Italy. She writes fortnightly for ACM.
