In 2016, the Oxford English Dictionary's word of the year was "post-truth." It was a term that had entered common parlance during the then Candidate Trump's election campaign, as he scrambled and squirmed his way through the inconvenience of objective fact to craft a make-believe blue-collar wonderland of misinformation, warped data, and on an audacious number of occasions, out and out lies. It may have only been a year since post-truth was crowned the most important new addition to the English language, but even in that short amount of time, its meaning has undergone a radical evolution. Whereas once it was an unequivocally negative term used to challenge the disturbing prevalence in the political arena of fantasy dressed up as fact, it has now been appropriated - often invoked by its more colloquial version, "Fake News" - by the very peddlers of falsehoods it was supposed to discourage. A word that was once intended to keep our leaders and their mouthpieces honest has become the perfect smoke-screen for whatever sleazy political pandering offers the most profitable outcome.
And this isn't the only recent instance of words and their meanings being mangled for political purposes. Indeed, it's become one of the preferred weapons of choice adopted by right-wing politics as it has reasserted itself in the mainstream consciousness. The notion of "free speech" is perhaps the most dangerously distorted ideal to undergo this right-wing makeover. Enshrined in the democratic bedrock of our Western societies, etched at the top of our constitutions, it is the purest expression of democratic liberty, one that is supposed to protect minorities from being silenced by the status quo.
In the past, such idealism was dismissed by the right as political correctness gone mad. Message boards like 4chan, or Twitter trolls like Milo Yiannopolous, would actively provoke "snowflake" lefties by defying the tolerance encouraged by free speech. Via the most offensive language and imagery possible, transgressive slurs, dripping in the eye-watering misogyny of white, male privilege, were used by the new far-right movement to goad its opposition, pushing its politics to the greatest extremity possible while brazenly displaying a complete and impenetrable immunity to common human empathy.
But this old battle cry is now singing to a different tune. As far-right mentalities, including that of extreme fascists, have been coaxed out of the shadows by political figures who have all but encouraged such thinking, the left has been accused of waging war on free speech for protesting ideologies built on discrimination. We are witnessing the advent of a new weapon in the right-wing arsenal, and it's one that has proven surprisingly powerful: mimicking the left.
The easily defined yin and yang of the political left and right has become far less discernible as the principles of political correctness have been leeched by right-wing ideology. This has been an especially effective tactic in Australia's SSM debate, as allegedly anxious mothers appearing in No campaign ads have pleaded with Australia to 'think of the children', while anti-equality pundits proclaim in long, loud tones that they are being silenced, their democratic rights trampled by those who dare to criticise them. Free speech has been reinvented as freedom of persecution; bigots brand their challengers bigotted; it is somehow democratic to debate fundamental human rights.
If 2016 was indeed the year of post-truth, 2017 has surely seen the birth of post-hypocrisy.
In its own rank, insidious way, this new approach by the right is a stroke of political genius; political correctness, long viewed as left-wing kryptonite, has become, in itself, politically incorrect. But how can such an obvious oxymoron pass muster? Like some cheap Cruise Ship magic show, a flashy production of right-wing indignation hopes to wow its audience with feigned compassion, while just behind the razzle-dazzle sits the same steaming pile of prejudice. Winding up a deafening Wurlitzer of pearl-clutching outrage, these flourishes of melodrama are akin to the uncanny valley of sincerity; intolerance aping (although not succeeding) at genuine, apparently compassionate concern. It's a dangerous illusion.
But hatred isn't innate. No one is born discriminating against people of different genders, races or sexualities. It could, however, be argued that the human condition is hardwired with a sense of basic right and wrong. KKK Klansmen don't wear hoods as a fashion statement - anonymity is the only protection for expressing views that many thinking, feeling people would find repulsive, and that perhaps they too, for all their rage and violence, understand on some level to be morally unacceptable. But as the right has explored the strange new territory of political correctness, it has become increasingly talented at reflecting values intended to protect minorities in a funhouse mirror, distorting them into an ugly parody.
The moral compass hasn't just been broken; it's been smashed to bits, thrown in a crucible of right-wing fearmongering, and smelted into a swastika. The greatest question this raises, is how can beliefs that actively encourage discrimination be challenged when we can no longer brand them as morally wrong? How can we expose the subterfuge of campaigns that muddy simple issues, like whether two consenting adults should be allowed to marry regardless of gender, with phony concerns about family and political freedoms? One inevitable outcome of this conundrum is a greater polarisation and escalation of political activism. As neo-Nazi's have taken to the streets, Antifa protestors have clashed with them, and these altercations have been used to smear the left as militant. As anti-equality sentiments have been called out by pro-SSM supporters online, these exchanges have proven to be a goldmine for the No campaign, who have placed this heated discourse at the centre of their latest television ad.
The stark truth is that within the tit for tat world of political point scoring, compassion and sincerity are no longer viable vehicles for the left. Our political process is now more vulnerable to emotional manipulation than perhaps it ever has been. But one last line of defence remains, one that has proven to be an insurmountable stronghold for inclusivity, equality, and dignity: intelligence. The advent of the post-truth age has, albeit not comprehensively, encouraged a greater level of scrutiny of what our politicians say. So, it is up to the electorate to make sharply reasoned accountability and credibility a more important yardstick than melodramatic political theatre. Because if we can no longer campaign with our hearts, we'll have to return to being smart.
