The scientific evidence tells us that building new gas, oil and coal mines will cause catastrophic climate damage this century. Yet politicians describe a call for the end of new mines as extreme. Likewise with online gambling, junk food advertising or incarcerating children: the evidence of harm is clear, but the sensible centre is defined not by evidence but by politics. Media reports on such issues presuppose that there are two sides and a centre to every debate, but evidence shows there is not. The political right thrives in such fear-fuelled, fact-free arenas, where traditional media and subject matter experts struggle to fight fear with facts.

In this essay, economist and Executive Director of The Australia Institute Richard Denniss, explores the contradiction between centrism and evidence that sits at the heart of democratic debate in Australia. He shows that when both major parties oppose reform then the position of the sensible centre becomes indistinguishable from blind support for keeping things as they are.

The scientific evidence tells us that building new gas, oil and coal mines will cause catastrophic climate damage this century. Yet politicians describe a call for the end of new mines as extreme. Likewise with online gambling, junk food advertising or incarcerating children: the evidence of harm is clear, but the sensible centre is defined not by evidence but by politics. Media reports on such issues presuppose that there are two sides and a centre to every debate, but evidence shows there is not. The political right thrives in such fear-fuelled, fact-free arenas, where traditional media and subject matter experts struggle to fight fear with facts.

In this essay, economist and Executive Director of The Australia Institute Richard Denniss, explores the contradiction between centrism and evidence that sits at the heart of democratic debate in Australia. He shows that when both major parties oppose reform then the position of the sensible centre becomes indistinguishable from blind support for keeping things as they are.

The scientific evidence tells us that building new gas, oil and coal mines will cause catastrophic climate damage this century. Yet politicians describe a call for the end of new mines as extreme. Likewise with online gambling, junk food advertising or incarcerating children: the evidence of harm is clear, but the sensible centre is defined not by evidence but by politics. Media reports on such issues presuppose that there are two sides and a centre to every debate, but evidence shows there is not. The political right thrives in such fear-fuelled, fact-free arenas, where traditional media and subject matter experts struggle to fight fear with facts.

In this essay, economist and Executive Director of The Australia Institute Richard Denniss, explores the contradiction between centrism and evidence that sits at the heart of democratic debate in Australia. He shows that when both major parties oppose reform then the position of the sensible centre becomes indistinguishable from blind support for keeping things as they are.