I think it's important to remember how/why our most recent leaders (before Albo) were elected.

Abbott was only (just) elected because the voters got the shits with the Labor Party's Rudd-Gillard-Rudd circle jerk before - surprise, surprise - the Libs started also started doing their own Brutus-to-Caesar act.

That fuckwittery ended up giving us Morrison's first term (winning the multiple spill-wank that ultimately ousted Turnbull), whose actual elected second term was when he ran against Bill Shorten. Arguably, any train station meth-head could have beaten Shorten just by having - y'know - a policy. Man was invisible.

My point is, up until we got Rudd, most of our PMs played the long game, regardless of what it meant for their own careers. For example, Howard managed to get both sides to vote in favour of gun reform after Port Arthur, even though that meant some senators were committing political suicide by supporting it. That was in '96, at the very beginning of Howard's near-12 year stint in the top job. Proof that we all used to value long-term vision over short-term politics.

We haven't had a single leader (either in office or opposition) with the same long-term vision ever since. It's all about the next election, and the fastest way to win it is to appeal to the populist base. Which brings us to the current head-kicking potato the Libs have in charge.

I definitely agree regarding your fears on the majority's views on Trumpist bullshit. Something about wankers like Dutton speaking inside thoughts out loud is helping people feel they have license to do the same. I really do hope we're better than that here...