The Chaser Report - EXTRA: All About AUKUS | David Smith

Episode Date: September 17, 2021

From out of nowhere, the US, UK, and – surprisingly – Australia announced a new security alignment that would, among other things, bring nuclear submarines to the Royal Australian Navy. Why this sudden, secret announcement, and who is it good for, us or the US? We asked Associate Professor David Smith of the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney – and couldn't resist examining the latest goings on in Trumpworld as well. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Chaser Report, news a few days after it happens. Hello and welcome to a special weekend edition of The Chaser Report for Saturday the 18th and Sunday the 19th of September 2021. My name is Dom Knight and today it's all about Orcus. Not a word that I ever thought I'd need to use, but Orcus is the new alignment between the US, the UK and Australia. Four matters of defence. It was announced this week from out of nowhere and we're going to figure out what it means. Associate Professor David Smith of the US Study Senate at the University of Sydney

is going to join us to talk us through Orcus what this means for our relationship with the US in particular and how on earth we're going to take on the task of containing China in the southern hemisphere. We're also going to take a look at some of the latest goings on in the Trump alternative universe. That's in a moment on the Chaser Report. Thank you for your patience.

Your call is important. take being on hold anymore. Fizz is 100% online, so you can make the switch in minutes. Mobile plans start at $15 a month. Certain conditions apply. Details at fizz.ca. What's better than a well-marbled ribby sizzling on the barbecue? A well-marbled ribby sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door. A well-marbled ribeye you ordered without even leaving the kitty pool. Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered. Download the Instacart app and enjoy zero dollar delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions and terms apply.

Instacart. Groceries that over-deliver. Australia has a new defense posture submarine plan. We still don't really know what it is, but it's called Orcus. We figured we'd get David Smith from the US Study Center at the University of Sydney to come on and tell us all about our latest acronym. Hey, Dave. How's it going? Were you surprised by this? Yes, I was. This was very effectively kept secret. Like I've got to say, my respect for the Australian government's ability to keep secrets has increased as a result of this. Whether that's good from a democratic perspective is a different question.

But certainly this has taken pretty much everybody by surprise. Well, one of the good things when you're a government that's consistently involved in cover-ups is that you get really good at keeping secrets. It's a core strength. Yeah, and they kept it from the French and from the Kiwis, it seems as well. And we never got to say about whether we wanted to go nuclear either. So there you go. Yes, the French reaction of heartbreak has really been something to behold.

Yeah, so this has really been a surprise. There have been a lot of people in Australia who have been advocating for increased technology sharing with the US but I think that even they were surprised by the extent to which this has suddenly happened and the spin has been that Morrison did this basically on his own didn't he he went out 18 months ago and said we need some submarines and it's been you know being talked about behind closed doors for 18 months and I suppose that means that means that Morrison went, we've got to align ourselves more with Trump. Because Trump was in the White House back 18 months ago.

So is that what it was going? I like he was going, oh, this guy looks like the stable person. Yeah, the broader context of this is that, so I mean, when Morrison took power three years ago, he said, Australia doesn't have to choose between the US and China. Now, since then, Australia's relationship with China has deteriorated massively for a number of reasons, some of which are related to the trade war with China that Trump began. And then there have been other things like Australia's, you know, firm line on we need to investigate the causes of the pandemic, Australia taking a fairly firm line on Hong Kong and things like that. but it is all connected to the Australian relationship to the US, which during the Trump period,

that China saw that as that was deepening. So, yeah, despite the fact that three years ago, Morrison said we don't have to choose between the US and China, since then we have continually chosen the US. And that is, this is a continuation of that. Now, the Australian position on this is always that it doesn't really matter who's actually in the White House. the US is our ally, and that's a relationship that is much deeper than who is in charge

at any given time. And on a practical level, the alliance is carried out on a day-to-day basis by essentially permanent public servants by people in the State Department and people in D-Fact. But, yeah, when Morrison was first seeking out this deal, yes, Trump was in the White House at the time. I think it's also worth mentioning. and I mean, I don't know what this looks like to people outside of Australia, but Australia has had this problem with submarines for years and years and years. It's something that keeps cropping up.

Like, oh, no, we've messed up the submarine issue again. So we currently have six submarines that are known as Collins class submarines that were commissioned by the Hawke government in the 80s. So they're getting on a little bit, and I think it's believed that their capabilities aren't what's really required now. Well, weren't they really noisy as well? They weren't very good at sneak attacks

because if you turned on the engines. Yeah, I looked this up. The propulsion system was stuffed. The periscope didn't work. Yes, they were very noisy, so you couldn't possibly sneak up. There were several other fundamental things wrong with them. It was basically, and of course they went massively over budget.

So a total disaster. Sounds like it shares certain problems with my washing machine. Yes, there you go. Is it a collard? class? No, no, no, no, no. Come on. The washing machines have better built than an Australian submarine.

And Dave, I was quite shocked to read that what this actually means is that we have absolutely no concrete plans at all for submarines and that therefore we won't get any for at least 25 years, which I don't imagine China's quaking in their boots right now, are they? Yeah, so it does have to be emphasised. It's going to be a long time before one of these submarines actually appears. And so the previous deal that we had with France, it was also going to be a long time before one of those appeared because Australia had these specifications that meant that that was a submarine that had never actually been built before. And so with any military technology that's never been built before, it's going to be over time, over budget. So all of those problems were taking place.

I did see one analysis by John Blacksland at Australian National University who said that the advantage of this for Australia is that it is actually a known quantity that we are buying into here. So these nuclear submarines have the advantage of already existing. I mean, not ours, but the type of nuclear submarine that's going to be built, it already exists. And we know that it works. but yes we don't know at this point exactly how long it's going to take the other big question is about well Australia doesn't have any nuclear capacity okay Australia is committed to nuclear non-proliferation and apart from the research reactor at Lucas Heights Australia is also committed to not using nuclear power so in other

words we don't have the capacity to produce the fuel or the reactors for these submarine. So we would be completely dependent on the US and maybe the UK as well for the reactors and the fuel. That's why it's a forever relationship because we're forever dependent. But don't they, they don't need fuel. I thought the whole idea was that they come completely sealed and then that's it. Yeah, yeah. They need fuel initially. They don't need to be really. Yeah, right. Yeah. Yeah. So they just last for 25 years or whatever. It's extraordinary. Yeah, yeah. So Australia would be completely dependent on US or UK technology. Because you'd want to get them serviced, wouldn't you, something with a nuclear reactor in it?

I think it'd be good to take it back for a bit of a once over every 12 months. I'm sure Australia would have to develop some sort of capability around maintaining these, but it's certainly capabilities that we don't have yet. Is it the sort of thing where we can do a deal where, you know how when you buy a Toyota, they have fixed price servicing so $2995 every 12 months at maximum. Is that the sort of deal that America will do? Good question. And this raises the other big question, which we don't know about, which is the cost.

So at a press conference this morning, Lloyd Austin, who was the Secretary of Defense, was asked, does the US expect anything in return for sharing this technology with Australia? And he said, no, we don't expect anything in return. Now, I think that's an abridged version of the answer, which actually says, no, we are getting a lot of money in return for these submarines because that's generally the way that weapons procurement works. You pay for them. We pay money, they give us weapons.

And the cost at this point is not clear. We do know the costs of backing out of the deal with the French. That's $2.4 billion and planning. And Simon Birmingham this morning confirmed that it was going to be more than $90 billion. Naturally. Well, they're nuclear. It will be more than $90 billion, potentially also with fewer submarines than what we were going to get from the French. We'll just get one really good one.

12 from the French and I think at least eight from the US. And at the moment we've got six. So, Dave, in terms of what the US wants from us, I mean, reading between the lines, isn't what the US wants from us to handle China in the Southern Hemisphere? fear? I mean, doesn't this place huge pressure on Australia's defense posture, but also exposes to an even worse relationship with China for decades to come? Yeah. So, you know, there's a lot of questions about exactly what Australia is getting out of this, but I think it is very clear what the US is getting out of this.

And that is increasing Australia's military capabilities in the South China Sea in a way that makes it more useful to the US in the advent of a military conflict between the US and China. And even though Australia has previously kind of walked this line between the US and China, so I remember back in 2000s, Alexander Downer let slip that if there was a war over the straits of Taiwan, Australia wouldn't be involved, which had been Australia's de facto policy for years, but the policy was also that you don't talk about the policy. It's very hard to see now Australia actually staying out of that conflict. I think even though the US has said that there's no reciprocal agreement that the US

doesn't require anything in return from Australia for sharing not just this technology but other technologies as well, I think it is fairly clear that this certainly increases Australia's commitment to the United States. So the US actually wouldn't be sharing this technology with us if they didn't expect Australia to get involved in a potential military conflict. Now, certainly the argument that will be made by the US and by Australia and by supporters of this submarine program is that what submarines really are is a deterrent, especially these submarines because they can stay underwater indefinitely. they don't have to surface, which is one of the things that allows submarines to be detected. They're a lot quieter than our current washing machine model.

And so that all of this makes it a much more effective deterrent because of the fact that they can't be detected. So because these submarines could be around, this really disrupts planning, it disrupts Chinese logistics in the event of a war. You know, in the phrase it's often used, it will make China think twice about. engaging in aggressive action which could start a war. But certainly, I think, by buying into this, Australia has accepted a new level of commitment to a potential conflict between China and the US on the American side. And so this is why Paul Keating has said that this actually really undermines Australian sovereignty because it ties us so tightly to the US, not just in terms of the potential commitment that we now have to the U.S. militarily, but also in terms of the

dependence of Australia on the U.S. in the nuclear supply chain. So, and to take a sort of broad view of this, Barack Obama complained that U.S. allies didn't do enough. Donald Trump sort of really accelerated this, constantly berated allies, but not doing enough, managed to extract commitments from some allies like South Korea and some NATO countries to increase the amount that they spent. And Australia never seemed to be part of those conversations. Neither Obama nor Trump seem to be irritated by Australia. But it's interesting that Biden here has managed to actually get a much bigger commitment out of Australia, you know, a much bigger sort of burden-sharing commitment out of Australia.

then either Obama or Trump got out of other allies. So I think it's very clear what the U.S. is getting out of this. It's what a lot of U.S. strategic analysts believed that the U.S. needed, but that Trump would never deliver, which was really this increased use of alliances in order to counteract China. Trump always kind of wanted to do it alone. the approach from Obama and from others in the Democratic Party was always, no, no, we need allies to do this.

And this very much reflects sort of that use of allies in the region. Thank you for your patience. Your call is important. Can't take being on hold anymore? Fizz is 100% online so you can make the switch in minutes. Mobile plans start at $15 a month. Certain conditions apply. Fizz.ca. What's better than a well-marbled ribby sizzling on the barbecue? A well-marbled ribby

sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door. A well-marbled ribby you ordered without even leaving the kitty pool. Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered. Download the Instacart app and enjoy zero-dollar delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart. Groceries that over-deliver. Is the term vassal state, is that what we should start, instead of Commonwealth of Australia, should we start clinging out of the vassal state of the USA? Or regional branch office, perhaps.

Or satellite. Deputy Sheriff, we could bring back Deputy Sheriff. No, we're not, because we're never deputy. We're always several tiers down. Because it's not just the submarines, is it? We've also got the Joint Strike Fighters, which are entirely a US platform, aren't they? Yeah, so this is the thing. F-35, which I believe that they are now able to take off.

Do they fly? I don't think they fly, yes. Amazing. They're the Collins class of the sky. Yeah, so the F-35 joint strike fighter, for those not aware, is it's a fighter jet, which the program to build it will cost over a trillion dollars. I'm not sure what it's cost so far, but it will cost over a trillion dollars, even by the standards of building military aircraft,

Congress thought that this one was costing too much and was taking too much time and had too many problems with it because it did take ages for these things to become operational. And in order to keep this program going, because this required an enormous amount of funding from Congress to, I think it was to Lockheed Martin, On the basis that the US offers military contracts, which are completely risk-free to the company that's producing it,

in order to keep this contract going, the condition was that the US would have to be able to export it and to actually make money from it. And the system that they set up was it was almost like this kind of membership system where countries could buy in at different tiers, where the more money you got, the more access you got to it. And I think Australia, along with South Korea, we were the first to put our hands up for, I don't know,

whatever the equivalent of gold tier membership is. It sounds like Trump University, to be honest. It was the fact that Australia bought into it so quickly was actually presented as evidence of the viability of this program in Congress. So one of the reasons the F-35 actually exists at all is because Australia was so willing to buy into it. so early on. So yeah, this is not entirely unprecedented,

although this is, you know, this has been really sort of trumpeted as this is the first time that the US has shared nuclear submarine technology since 1958 when it first shared it with Britain. And since then Britain is the only country that's had access to it. South Korea actually wanted access to it

not that long ago, but the US said no. I think that might have been partly because of the nuclear context of the Korean peninsula, which the US didn't want to aggravate any further. South Korea has in the past also sought a nuclear weapon, whereas I think Australia was seen as a good nuclear citizen. We haven't sought nuclear weapons since the 1950s. So, you know, we can be trusted with nuclear submarines. I've always thought of Australia as being very anti-nuclear as a general population.

I remember when the French did their last test in the Pacific, I think it was about 1991, and Hawke came out very strongly against France for testing their nuclear bombs in the Pacific. And that was after the Rainbow Warrior, too, of course. Yeah, and they'd bomb the Rainbow Warrior. And by that stage, it was sort of like 90% in the polls saying, no, we sort of need a nuclear-free Pacific. And this is a total reversal of that position. It's one of those things where, like, New Zealand already came out on Thursday and immediately said, no, these nuclear subs will be definitely banned from visiting New Zealand.

So we can't even go and visit our closest neighbour. Unless we invade, to be fair. But a lot of the country, there are tons of countries neighbouring Australia in the Pacific where they either have nuclear-free policies or they, They just simply can't host a nuclear submarine. They're not big enough. This feels like it's not even something purpose-built for Australia. Like, you know, people always say, oh, this is our national interest.

But this, it seems to be, I can see America's national interest in it. I can't see how going nuclear is in any way in Australia's interest. And Charles, Charles, you don't understand. Next year, there's going to be an election. And we just had Morrison in the same Zoom as Biden and Johnson, where, you know, we got talked about. Isn't that what this is all about that? Is that what it's all about? It's all the way with LBJ, is it?

So this does raise big questions about Australia's anti-nuclear stance. And it's been emphasised that these submarines won't carry nuclear weapons, that they only carry conventional weapons. Although I think some people are going to argue that a nuclear-powered submarine is a nuclear weapon. So I think that this is what the Greens are arguing, in Parliament. Interestingly, opposition leader Anthony Albanese, who in the past has been a very strong anti-nuclear advocate, has said, oh yeah, nuclear submarines, this is the way that we need to go. Let's talk about something else. So they're not going to get any opposition

in the lead up to the election from the Labour Party on this. Well, presumably it can cancel them at any point in the next 10 years before anyone starts to build anything. Well, yeah, I mean, this is the other thing. And I think given they've said, you know, the next 18 months are just purely going to be about planning. Like, we'll learn about the cost of this in sometime in the next 18 months. So effectively, nothing has actually been set in concrete. Yeah. So in some ways, this is actually just an announcement that they've fucked up a procurement exercise with France. And it's got nothing to do with America. They just go, oh, we're on the market again.

It's a plan to have a plan. It's a classic Morrison. You announce that you're going to have a plan to maybe work out, maybe something that you might do. So it's a Pfizer vaccine of a submarine. There's a lot of interesting aspects to this. I mean, the other thing is Britain making its strategic return to the Asia-Pacific region.

That's a good point. You know, for the first time since the 50s, essentially. India will love that. Yeah, and Boris Thompson, talking about projecting British power into the Indo-Pacific. Yeah, just like they projected into Europe. Dave, can I ask about China? Because this is the subtext of all this. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

We're heading into far more tensions with China, certainly from Australia's perspective. The US is clearly concerned about it as well. There's a utopia sketch that's been doing the rounds about how we need to secure Australia's trade routes. and yet most of our traders with China. So we're securing our trade with China from China is the joke that Rob Citch delivers in that clip. How realistic is all this worry about China who seem to be very clear

at wanting to preserve themselves and have their own self-interest, but don't seem to be a coloniser. Are they trying to be an influencer in the region? What is our interest here really? So there's a few different schools of thought on this. And, yeah, I mean, the immediate context is, yeah, it's going to be 10 years at a minimum before a submarine gets into the water, whereas Australia's tensions with China are currently very high now, and that's doing damage to Australia's economy now in sectors ranging from agriculture to universities.

And there is one argument that says that China has already ramped up the trade war so far, but actually there's not a lot else that they can do in the meantime. so it doesn't matter so much because China's already played its hand. I'm not sure that that's true. I think that there are still other things that China can do. But yeah, in terms of why it is so important for Australia to deter China, I mean, I think that China's activities are primarily directed at parts of the region that it considers to be its own.

So it doesn't want Taiwan making any further more. moves towards independence. It believes that the South China Sea is its rightful domain, that it has the right to build bases and other structures in the South China Sea. It is increasingly asserting its dominance in Hong Kong. On the other side of the country, there are increasing crackdowns in Xinjiang and places like that. Now, from all of these things, it's not immediately clear and why it's in Australia's national interests to have to deter China. Certainly, yeah, securing trade routes,

securing freedom of navigation, has for a long time being seen as an important strategic aim for Australia. But, yeah, if you were to consider actual, you know, the possibility of actual military conflict, how many Australians would be that happy about Australia going to war to secure the independence of Taiwan.

You know, how many Australians would actually be happy about Australia going to war over disputed islands in the South China Sea? But David, David, David, David, David, it wouldn't be fought on that basis. It would be fought on the basis of freedom. We'd be fighting for freedom. Yeah, yeah, of course.

One of the problematic things about this is that this often isn't talked about in very concrete terms. It's talked about in abstract terms. China being increasingly assertive, increasingly aggressive. For some people, it's always Munich in 1938. And there does seem to be a lack of recognition of the fact that, yes, China is being very assertive. Yes, China is subjecting peoples who are within what it considers to be its rightful domain to treatment that is, in many cases, terrible and that we would prefer not to see. But if it comes to something as serious as military conflict, I think we're going to need to take a very long, hard look

about what Australian interests are actually at stake here. Like, yes, we may well want to see Taiwan remain independent and democratic. but, you know, what are we actually prepared to sacrifice for that? Do we actually want to join in a military conflict with the world's two largest powers for the sake of the political status of Taiwan? So I think that, yes, certainly China is more aggressive, more assertive in the region. It's throwing its weight around. But in terms of can Australia actually live with that, can Australia live with China

accomplishing its strategic goals. That's something that we would need to think about very carefully before committing to a military conflict. One of the risks of this deal that we've just done with the US is that we've essentially pre-committed to a military conflict. Yeah, which is bizarre if we haven't even got the sub to show for it, though I suppose they can't expect us to send submarines into the conflict if they don't exist yet.

Don't they have any remanded ones they could give us? Just ones that are a little bit dinged up. That'd be all right, wouldn't it? Thank you for your patience. Your call is important. Can't take being on hold anymore? FIS is 100% online, so you can make the switch in minutes. Mobile plans start at $15 a month.

Certain conditions apply. Details at Fizz.C. What's better than a well-marbled ribby sizzling on the barbecue? A well-marbled ribby sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door. A well-marbled ribai you ordered without even leaving the kiddie pool.

Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered. Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over deliver. You can sort of understand from America's position, they've always said, oh, we like to have our business in the whole of the world. Like, we project our power everywhere. But I don't understand why, as a middle power, it's in Australia's interest in any way to be part of that equation.

Like, it's one of those things where it goes back to what Scott Morrison said at the beginning of his prime ministership. We don't need to choose. Why? Like, it doesn't, yeah. And I mean, you know, certainly you can make the argument that China and Australia are just completely at odds over values. and that some of this conflict is taking place over the fact that, you know, Australia stands against China's increasing domination of Hong Kong,

that Australia doesn't like the treatment of Uyghur Muslims, that Australia has condemned China for its lack of transparency over the origins of the coronavirus. So, in other words, sort of issues of deep principle. But the idea that you can solve, of issues of deep principle within their sort of sphere through military conflict is absurd. Like, China has 1.3 billion people. We've got like 30 people.

Yeah, that's right. And I mean, certainly, like, you know, China has thrown its weight around towards us. But I think that we do need to delink the sort of Chinese-Australian conflict over things like trade. So China throwing its weight around in that sphere. with, you know, China throwing its weight around in the South China Sea and Taiwan. These are separate issues. And we're partnering with, there's the quad thing, isn't it? So there's us in Japan and India and the US.

And you'd think that would actually be enough to make China think twice. Yeah, I mean, but I view these as separate issues rather than seeing it all just as a continuum of aggression which has to be met in a particular way. yeah so i mean the concept of the quad is something that's been around for the last decade this actually arose in fact the whole use of the language around the indo-pacific really arose out of efforts by japan and india to cooperate with each other to uh to counter china and seeing that as this sort of avenue of cooperation that could uh that could check china that was then kind of picked up uh by the abama administration and then

really picked up by the Trump administration, the language of the Indo-Pacific rather than the Asia Pacific, as it had been traditionally referred to. But I mean, the quad is still kind of an untested idea, I would say. Can I just change gears, Dave, because we have you on with us and ask about what Donald Trump's been up to, because I'm always fascinated. He's definitely back in the mix again and it was wonderful how he chose to spend 9-11 by commentating a boxing match in Florida. What's happening in that quadrant of the US? Are they bubbling back up? Is it a real threat? Well, I mean, I saw some survey data the other day saying that the number of Republicans who think the election was stolen has increased since January 6th. It's now, so I think it was

79% of Republicans don't believe that Joe Biden legitimately won the election. So I think in some ways, regardless of Trump's personal popularity and personal influence, some things that he set in motion have taken on a life of their own. So one is the idea of the stolen election. The other is opposition to any measure designed to counter the pandemic, whether that's masks, whether that's vaccines, lockdowns, anything like that. So there was this bizarre spectacle a few weeks ago

of Trump speaking to a rally in Alabama and telling people that they should get the vaccine. Now, you know, vaccine development was one of the few things that the Trump administration actually got right last year. And Trump would certainly like to claim credit for the vaccines, but he has been very quiet on the vaccination issue, not getting vaccinated publicly himself,

although he has been vaccinated. Part of that is because he knows, actually, that one of the things that's fueling his supporters is skepticism and conspiracy theories about vaccines and fury at the idea that vaccines might be made mandatory. So when he told his own supporters

that they should get the vaccine, not that they had to get the vaccine, but they should get the vaccine, he actually got booed at one of his own rallies, which is something I've never, ever seen before. And as far as I'm aware, he hasn't mentioned it since. So some of the, you know, the stolen election thing, the anti-vaccine, anti-mask thing, these have now taken on a life of their own that don't necessarily depend on Trump himself.

Yeah, Trump himself has continued to be very vocal even without the medium of Twitter. So we don't see statements so often, but they do crop up from time to time. He's been issuing these various fantastical scenarios. Mario's about what would have happened in Afghanistan if he had been president, that the withdrawal would not have been a disaster in the same way. And there are report, there are sort of increasing reports that he seems to be leaning towards running the next election, although, you know, for him, the correct business strategy is to keep it uncertain for as long as he can, to keep on hinting at it, but not actually to commit to it.

And he keeps popping up on Newsmax, doesn't he? Yes, yeah. Which is a sort of, what is it? So Newsmax is, it's a media outlet that's been around for a while, but that really came to increase prominence under Trump as one of the right-wing outlets, along with One American News Network, that positioned itself to the right of Fox. And because Fox still has to adhere to some really basic standards around

reporting, you know, as unhinged as its opinion side is, its reporting still has to have some sort of basic relationship with facts. Oh, but calling Arizona was an act of treason, of treason. So one American news network and newsmax are unconstrained by that. Isn't that an obscure network for him to be on? Does that mean that he's sort of talking to himself? Well, it was once obscure, but now it's picked up tens of millions of viewers who have defected from Fox.

Yeah. So it would appear to be obscure, but actually in the world of his supporters, it's not obscure at all. So Republicans don't believe the election results. And what we've seen in terms of science, I guess, is all the climate skepticism has taken on new fruiting and so people no longer believe scientists,

they no longer believe election officials or that it's possible for a Republican to lose. is this going to just keep descending down a slippery slope into large swathes of the American population and the Australian, for that matter, simply not believing any facts anymore. Is this what the future looks like? Yes, yeah, yeah. And I think that we are definitely headed in that direction. There's been a massive loss of trust in all kinds of institutions.

I don't know how easily that can be restored. I would like to point out that I think it was about 10 years ago now, a little more than 10 years ago that insane clown posse recorded the song which would actually become as almost like the anthem of this movement

which is their song, Miracles. I don't know if you remember the song Miracles, but it was all about these things that they just didn't understand. For example, they marvel over the fact

that their children look like them. Like, whoa, how the fuck does that happen? It contained the immortal line fucking magnets how do they work that's right the line that sums it all up is i don't want to talk to a scientist you're all lying and making me pissed uh yeah they prefer to think about it in terms of of miracles and yeah don't want to talk to a scientist you're all lying and making me pissed that's the moment that we're in now so thank you iCP uh for predicting that a long time ago

I will say in ICP's defense, it was worried about that a lot of jugglers would be Trump supporters. But actually, ICP and the jugglies broke pretty hard against Trump. Just as a footnote, if you're not across the juggles, this is the devoted insane clown posse supporters. They have events. They spray soda all over themselves. Fago, so it's a whole weird subculture that we should talk about another time. Yes, we are increasingly in the idiocracy. we it's just that movie is proving more appreciate than ever uh yes yeah and i mean this is uh for a lot

of media outlets like newsmax this is essentially a business model but it builds on a business model that's been around for a long time ever since the abolition of the fairness doctrine in american media by ronald regan in the 80s so this was the doctrine that said on an issue of public interest you have to present both sides ever since so when that was abolished it was really talked back radio that first realized the potential of now we can just operate in these kinds of fact-free zones and build these bubbles of consumers who we can just constantly tell them what they want to hear and tell them not to trust anybody else. And one of the debilitating effects that this had, first through talkback radio, then

through Fox News, now through outlets that are even more extreme, is that a lot of the of the consumers of these outlets are people who are already pretty socially isolated and just become more and more socially isolated. So it's in the business interests of this. And you can think of online outlets as well to just keep people glued to the radio, glued to the TV, glued to the screen by just appealing to the kind of worst emotions and by telling them, they can't trust anybody else, even their own family members. Charles, that's our business model, isn't it, for the chaser? Yeah, yeah, that's what we want.

There you go. Yeah, so it's really about alienating people from everybody else, which then sort of deepens their dependence on these outlets that are just filling them with garbage. Well, that's a cheery thought as we head into our weekend, David. Yeah, definitely, but we're going to have nuclear subs at some point in the future. So we can sail away. to a better place, if one exists. And we've attached ourselves to the country that gave birth to Trump and Newsmax.

And doesn't believe in science or facts. Excellent choice, Prime Minister. Good stuff. What was his name again? All right. Associate Professor David Smith is of the US Study Centre at Sydney. Any, thanks so much again, Dave. My pleasure.

If you enjoyed this deep dive episode of The Chaser Report, there are quite a few in your timeline from recent weeks. John Saffron talked to us about how the cigarette company, Philip Morris, is trying to reinvent itself as a health company. We chatted to the Australian of the year, Grace Tame about the conversation we need to have in terms of sexual assault and grooming, and what an earth we can do about them. In terms of foreign policy, we talked to David Kilcullen about the mess in Afghanistan and also for US buffs, as I mentioned during the episode, Nick Bryant,

formerly at the BBC, talked to us about how Reaganism inexorably led to Trumpism. They're all great to listen to. They're all in your timeline, check them out. In the meantime, our Goose from Road Microphones, we're part of the Acast Creator Network, and thanks for listening. Regular shows resume on Monday.