When major political change occurs is it because the arguments supporting the change triumph over the opposing position or is it because opposition simply acquiesces and walks away?  

It would be easy to argue that right will eventually triumph over wrong (or evil or ignorance or whatever label one attaches to one’s political opposition) but I will attempt to make the case that in a political environment the step to major change often lies with the opposition finding it expedient to either step aside or claim the final victory for themselves.   

President Obama was elected with a promise to reform the medical insurance industry.  Aided by a small and rare window of political dominance, the Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with no bipartisan support.  Republicans, as much out of political expediency as ideology, used Obamacare as an effective rallying point for the next eight years. Real change to the US health system did not occur in 2009 because the Democrat couldn’t get the votes, it was because the Republicans did not see it in their best interests to surrender.  

While change needs strong and vocal support to gain credibility and acceptance, it is often actually realised under the leadership of those who have traditionally and often ideologically opposed it.  Take industrial relations reform under Bob Hawke or gun reform under a Howard government or more recently gay marriage being legalised under a Turnbull administration. In contrast, the Greens and Labor could not deliver on an emission trading scheme because in the end they knew their true believers would keep the faith despite the failure to deliver.

There are two groups that a political party can ignore – diehard opponents and rusted on supporters.  Wasting limited political capital on voters in either category is bad politics. Hard won, incremental legislative action needs to be carefully calibrated to win new voters or lock in those that are wavering.

Advocates are find it tempting to exist in a supportive echo chamber, talking to politicians and others who are already converted.  The further down this path one goes the warmer the handshakes and perversely the less likely real changes becomes. The US coal industry became a de facto branch of the Republican party and got nothing in return.  Democrats (aside from Joe Manchin) are sworn enemies and the rollback of a few EPA rules is easily dismissed as they will be reimposed soon enough. Critically, no meaningful financial support for CCS test plants was forthcoming despite the fact that this could have provided the industry with a future in a decarbonised world.

The next ALP government will mean more renewables but without bipartisan support an Obamacare scenario will likely create the political gridlock that politicians love.  The political epicentre is intoxicating and draws well meaning citizens away from their principles into the fiction that only one party can deliver victory. Politicians and advocates want different things – elected officials want to stay elected but effective advocates position themselves so they can get something useful no matter who is in government.  Thus far the climate advocacy industry has been partisan and hence less than effective.