A global trend shows altruism diminishing amongst voters, with many electing leaders based on what they can do for the individual, writes Stephen Koukoulas.
THE U.S. ELECTION result and the recent slide in support for the Albanese Government in Australia has opened a Pandora’s box of possible reasons why the electorate is voting the way it does. There are a lot of theories, many of which appear well-founded, that focus on the evolving interplay of economics, personal finances and circumstances, altruism and, dare I say, morality.
Some issues canvassed are more important than others while some may impact only a small percentage of the electorate. That said, some common threads are unfolding in what matters when it comes to voting.
At one level, voters appear to care much less about the overall standing of political and economic management or the underlying character of the candidates. They care more about their household costs, their wages and even the price of eggs in Tallahassee or Tamworth.
“What’s in it for me?” is a trend towards selfishness that is apparent.
This is reversing at least part of the altruistic voting patterns of decades gone by that saw a significant share of the electorate vote for what is “good and decent” and not just which party is offering more for me financially or feeding my biases.
Objectives like a national level of low unemployment, a decent welfare safety net for those left behind, taking in refugees and the policies to tackle global climate used to attract a bedrock of people. They were often gainfully employed, never at risk of needing a Jobseeker payment, never at risk of being a refugee and who were negatively impacted, financially, from policies that reduced the speed of global warming.
They voted for the good of society — low unemployment, fair personal benefit payments, sound management of the budget, fairer and more efficient taxes and measures to meet the net zero targets.
Fewer people, clearly, are doing this now.
Why Vice President Kamala Harris lost the U.S. Presidential Election was not the result of the economy, or at least the big-picture view of it.
Look at these fundamentals for the U.S. — unemployment is historically low, GDP has been persistently strong for several years, wages are rising and healthcare funded by the government sector has increased. At the same time, inflation is falling, interest rates are being cut, there is a frenetic stock market boom and rising dwelling prices are boosting household wealth.
Yet voters decided this was not good enough to vote for Harris.
This change in voting patterns suggests policies directed at the national good are less popular and appear to have been driven by a mix of the hangover from the measures taken during the COVID pandemic, which emboldened selfishness in many instances. Add to that the inflation surge that followed, issues to do with perceptions of freedom of speech, “wokeness” and bitterness about immigration that anger voters.
In Australia — what is happening?
Australia’s economic track record under the Albanese Government is not only good in absolute terms, it is materially superior to the mess that was created and left from a near decade of Coalition government.
Beating the inflation problem, delivering budget surpluses, cutting government debt, the material cost of living personal and household payments, stunning low unemployment and rising real wages are all highlights of the economic management of the Government.
But it appears voters don’t necessarily want the folk in the suburb next door or in another town or city to have a job if their personal finances are under cost of living and interest rate pressures. Why should I care about an unemployed builder in Western Australia if I am under financial stress in New South Wales?
It used to be that the level of unemployment was a sign of good economic management. So, too, budget surpluses and lower government debt.
Now it’s “How’s my bank account looking and can I still afford to pay someone to wash my dog, go to the gym and collect my franking credits?” let alone pay the rent and put food on the table for my family.
At the same time, voters, or enough of them, don’t want to address issues for minority groups, including LGTBI and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders if their rents are high and they can see the Government spending money on these groups.
Strangely, voters don’t care that much if their personal wealth has boomed to record highs under Labor, aided by their superannuation holdings rising as the Australian stock market hits record highs and steady house price gains. If they bothered to look at their superannuation balances and ask how they have accumulated such decent savings, they would clearly thank Labor and condemn the Coalition.
It was a similar issue in the U.S.
Other issues that are a waste of time and effort
It is odd that in 2024, government ministers are penning opinion articles for the established media. Voters don’t care about the Minister’s op-ed that was published in The Australian or The Daily Telegraph. They will never read it. No one will read it. Even the best op-ed will never change a single vote, so why do politicians trot out such a lame campaigning trope?
Instead of the op-ed, do a funky TikTok and other social media content with a one or two-minute clip or with an easy-to-understand fact on something that matters.
The Albanese Government has plenty of runs on the board on how it has started to fix the mess that it was left by the Coalition, together with a long list of policies that have helped fix the cost of living problem.
The lesson is keeping the campaign focused on those issues. Recognise that altruism among voters is diminishing and send messages accordingly.
Stephen Koukoulas is an IA columnist and one of Australia’s leading economic visionaries, past Chief Economist of Citibank and Senior Economic Advisor to the Prime Minister.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.
