How the aftermath of The Voice campaign sums up conservatism

During the campaign around The Voice, the No argument was minimalist, focusing not so much on a substantive, alternative vision, but on uncertainty. From the official “Vote No” pamphlet- here are extracts from the first two arguments they give for voting No:

“Australia’s Constitution is our most important legal document. Every word can be open to interpretation. Australia hasn’t changed its Constitution since 1977. This would be the biggest change to our democracy in Australia’s history. It is a leap into the unknown. This Voice has not been road tested. There is no comparable constitutional body like this anywhere in the world.”

“This is a big decision. However, the Government won’t reveal key details before the vote. We don’t know how it will help disadvantaged communities and close the gap. We don’t know how many members this Voice would have. We don’t know if they would be elected or chosen, or how this would occur. We don’t know how it would make representations or be held accountable.”

It’s fair to say this sort of thing was at least half of the Vote No argument.

Now No has won resoundingly, 60-40, a variety of figures, most prominently Tony Abbott, are running the argument that various symbolic recognitions of indigenous people, such as acknowledgments of country and the flying of the indigenous flag should be rolled back. No doubt, in the coming days, we will see this argument expanded to economic, legal, educational, and healthcare measures attempting to close the gap.

There's something repulsive and exploitative about running the argument:

"If you don't know, Vote No, it's all too confusing, and there are enough details, best just tick No."

And then immediately pivoting to "Ah, Australians have voted No, this is a clear mandate to (get rid of the indigenous flag/abolish acknowledgments of country /whatever the right-wing hobbyhorse of the day is)".

You can't argue people should vote No on the basis that it's too difficult to figure out what's going on, and then say that their No vote reveals something deep about what they believe when your whole campaign was built on the foundational premise that this particular proposal is the weird thing that’s just too difficult to think about.

But this is the grand trick of all conservatism. It’s an alliance of the merely nervous with the truly deranged led by those both deranged and vicious.