(Warning: Mind, it's 2,000 words and therefore gets quite boring, scroll down to the final few paragraphs for the real point of it all)
I had wanted to write a political profile about the Liberals a long time ago, however, due to my lack-of-being-able-to-follow-through on most of these entries, my many previous half-finished drafts have been sighed at and abandoned. Now, however, because I’ve become a member of the party, and recently spent far too much time revamping this site, I feel the time has come I actually get off my ass to finish it off. The way I see it, I wrote about Alan Carpenter; I can’t let anyone think I’m a swing voter. This entry focuses on the Liberal PMs and how each has interpreted the party ideals to generate very different leadership qualities. Don't see it as me trying to push people to vote Liberal (unless you want to see it that way), I honestly wrote it to outline where the party came from, and how it has transformed into the party it is today.
The Australian Liberal Party was officially formed in 1944 from the amalgamation the United Australia Party among others under Robert Menzies. Prior to its conception, the only lasting party with significant influence had been the Australian Labor Party. Despite however much Menzies despised it, due to the timing of its emergence and its opposing ideologies, the Liberals were labeled the “Anti-Labor” party, only winning government when Labor had become “unelectable” (this theory, of course, was overthrown when Menzies became the longest serving PM in Australian history). After a few uncertain years, the party gained the majority and formed government in 1949, further consolidating their power in 1954 with the formation of a firmer and more distinctive set of ideologies.
However, the point of this entry is not a history lesson, or to point out the ideas and beliefs of the Liberals, but to examine its ideological transformations. The mid 20th century saw support for the Liberals for a number of reasons. Menzies’ Liberal ideology focused heavily on the three points of “Race, Crown and Nation”. Race, being the supremacy of the white Australian man (examined later); Crown being his loyalty to the British Empire (thoroughly opposing the idea of Republicanism) and Nation essentially meaning Nationalism. These are all conservative views, however what sets him apart and gives his party the Liberal name is his focus on individuality.
The Liberals were drenched in ideological ambiguity by supporting the individual above all else, allowing them to connect to more classes, on more issues; Labor has restrictive membership and following by aiming their policies at the lower working classes and offering heavy support for unions (something which really hasn’t changed). Aside from the fact that communist ally-turned-enemy Russia had placed this grand-scale taboo on left-wing socialist parties, the Liberal Party’s messaged reached out to everyone, regardless of social status. An example of this would be the utter rejection from the nation of Labor’s referendum on price and rent control in 1948, almost delivering the 1949 election into Menzies’ hands. The problem with Labor is they near-ignored the increasingly large middle-class, whereas the Liberals, who believed whole-heartedly in political and economic freedom, appealed directly to the middle and upper classes which was beginning to comprise the majority of the Australian populous.
The Australian Liberal Party was officially formed in 1944 from the amalgamation the United Australia Party among others under Robert Menzies. Prior to its conception, the only lasting party with significant influence had been the Australian Labor Party. Despite however much Menzies despised it, due to the timing of its emergence and its opposing ideologies, the Liberals were labeled the “Anti-Labor” party, only winning government when Labor had become “unelectable” (this theory, of course, was overthrown when Menzies became the longest serving PM in Australian history). After a few uncertain years, the party gained the majority and formed government in 1949, further consolidating their power in 1954 with the formation of a firmer and more distinctive set of ideologies.
However, the point of this entry is not a history lesson, or to point out the ideas and beliefs of the Liberals, but to examine its ideological transformations. The mid 20th century saw support for the Liberals for a number of reasons. Menzies’ Liberal ideology focused heavily on the three points of “Race, Crown and Nation”. Race, being the supremacy of the white Australian man (examined later); Crown being his loyalty to the British Empire (thoroughly opposing the idea of Republicanism) and Nation essentially meaning Nationalism. These are all conservative views, however what sets him apart and gives his party the Liberal name is his focus on individuality.
The Liberals were drenched in ideological ambiguity by supporting the individual above all else, allowing them to connect to more classes, on more issues; Labor has restrictive membership and following by aiming their policies at the lower working classes and offering heavy support for unions (something which really hasn’t changed). Aside from the fact that communist ally-turned-enemy Russia had placed this grand-scale taboo on left-wing socialist parties, the Liberal Party’s messaged reached out to everyone, regardless of social status. An example of this would be the utter rejection from the nation of Labor’s referendum on price and rent control in 1948, almost delivering the 1949 election into Menzies’ hands. The problem with Labor is they near-ignored the increasingly large middle-class, whereas the Liberals, who believed whole-heartedly in political and economic freedom, appealed directly to the middle and upper classes which was beginning to comprise the majority of the Australian populous.
‘…the real life of the nation … is to be found in the homes of people who are nameless and unadvertised, and who, whatever their religious conviction or dogma, see in their children their greatest contribution to the immortality of their race.’ -Menzies
Where you can truly see the Robert Menzies in John Howard is (along with the near-stifling conservatism and the focus on individuality) in the issue of race. Menzies was a thorough conservative when it came to race and immigration, only relaxing the White Australia Policy when it became apparent that to continue the boom, Australia would need to allow non-white Europeans houseroom. It could be said Menzies’ ideas on Race are a complete contradiction to his belief in individual supremacy, but having said that, seeing as Aboriginals were only counted in the consensus in 1967 and (bad as it sounds), only counted as actual human beings when that legislation had passed, Menzies would not be seen as disloyal to his party’s ideologies at that time by excluding the Aboriginals, and pretty much everyone else of colour. But, seeing as I have ranted on enough, I’ll leave Menzies’ original Liberal ideologies at that, rather than examine every single aspect (or I’d be here forever). Next up: Holt.
Harold Holt; not known for much other than succeeding Menzies in 1966, reforming the immigration policy to allow more non-Europeans; introducing reforms for Aboriginals, building on Menzies’ work to increase relations with Asia, very controversially expanding Australia’s role in the Vietnam war and drowning in 1967 (although, that was all in 22 months!). His term was identified by the progression of social individuality by extending it to all races, not just the Caucasians, and praised for deviating against Menzies by initiating reform, something Menzies seemed to oppose. His work was followed on by John Gorton and William McMahon.
Harold Holt; not known for much other than succeeding Menzies in 1966, reforming the immigration policy to allow more non-Europeans; introducing reforms for Aboriginals, building on Menzies’ work to increase relations with Asia, very controversially expanding Australia’s role in the Vietnam war and drowning in 1967 (although, that was all in 22 months!). His term was identified by the progression of social individuality by extending it to all races, not just the Caucasians, and praised for deviating against Menzies by initiating reform, something Menzies seemed to oppose. His work was followed on by John Gorton and William McMahon.
Gorton and McMahon both continued Holt’s ideas of reform, both in societ
y and the arts. B
ut, both these men had extremely poor political skills and were often overshadowed by their powerful state counterparts. So much so, that the reform they had initiated in regards to Aboriginals welfare and immigration was largely taken credit of by Gough Whitlam. These guys are generally recognised as being Australia’s weakest PMs. However, they too continued the ideas of reform semi-contradicting Menzies’ original ideas concerning the party’s direction. So in a way, they continued Holt’s left-leaning progressive social ideas. Next up: Malcolm FraserFraser was a strong early advocate against increased government spending, which more often than not resulted in higher inflation. He was wary of the Keynesian credit system, and criticised the Whitlam government for its unnecessary spending (Whitlam too saw the birth of the Labor legacy of pointless government spending (*cough* KRudd *cough*) eventually cleaned up by the Liberals). He knew the trade unions needed moderation in their demands.
‘…the exorbitantly expensive trips and sight-seeing tours Whitlam and his large number of family, friends and others he took along for the ride, enjoyed at your expense? The expensive cars Whitlam ordered for himself with your money? The very lavish ALP conference at Florida Hotel, Terrigal, paid for by your money?’ - Fraser
Fraser focused on re-establishing governmental stability, something gone very much amiss by the gravy-train-riding Whitlam government. He had some pretty heavy opposition from the trade un
ions and middle-class intelligentsia (who were worried Fraser would revert to Menzies-inspired anti-reform conservatism). In a way they were right; Fraser campaigned and to some extent, ran his government as a reaction to Whitlam, and saw criticism for his reversal of some of the reforms and initiatives contributed to society by Whitlam, including cutting the Medibank and Urban Development Schemes in order to reduce government spending. Fraser continued the former four PM’s contributions to the arts and society (including multiculturalism, indigenous issues and women’s issues (much unlike Howard)) and deeply opposed racism. To think about Fraser’s leadership in party terms, he was perhaps the truest to the ideology of individualism and limited government intervention of those before him, however his reactionism, funding restraints and anti-Labor rhetoric labelled him the PM who focused only on fixing Whitlam’s mistakes, something he never quite recovered from. But, in the end, despite the fact Fraser saw himself as a nation-builder, his loss at the 1983 election was revered, and many were glad to see him disappear from prominent politics. Next up: Johnny “I-don't-apologise-for-anything” Howard.
The most conservative and creative PM since Menzies himself, John Howard prided himself on his legacy of market reform and government surplus. He and Costello made up the “Dream Team”, which is essentially what they turned out to be. Once again, Labor’s mismanagement of finances had left the country in a great hole of red; much of which was overcome by Howard’s transformation of the heavily-regulated economy into an open-trading economy, work which was originally initiated by the Hawke/Keating era, but finalized in Howard’s first and second term.
Howard’s way of thinking was criticized by many academics. First of all, he (especially in his earlier career) publicly advocated against multiculturalism, claiming it deprived the country of its national identity and diminished Australian culture. He went so far as to alter Australia’s immigration and refugee laws after a controversial speech by ultra-conservative Pauline Hanson, something which did not go unnoticed by the public. He was also tough on unions, with implementation of ‘Work Choices’ in 2006 which restricted union involvement and gave companies more freedom to hire/fire workers being just one example.He implemente
d the GST, allowing government to maintain high revenue without raising income tax, paving the way for interest rates to lower and keep inflation at a manageable level. He, like Menzies, believed in a limited government, social conservatism, economic liberalism and constituent monarchism.
ions and middle-class intelligentsia (who were worried Fraser would revert to Menzies-inspired anti-reform conservatism). In a way they were right; Fraser campaigned and to some extent, ran his government as a reaction to Whitlam, and saw criticism for his reversal of some of the reforms and initiatives contributed to society by Whitlam, including cutting the Medibank and Urban Development Schemes in order to reduce government spending. Fraser continued the former four PM’s contributions to the arts and society (including multiculturalism, indigenous issues and women’s issues (much unlike Howard)) and deeply opposed racism. To think about Fraser’s leadership in party terms, he was perhaps the truest to the ideology of individualism and limited government intervention of those before him, however his reactionism, funding restraints and anti-Labor rhetoric labelled him the PM who focused only on fixing Whitlam’s mistakes, something he never quite recovered from. But, in the end, despite the fact Fraser saw himself as a nation-builder, his loss at the 1983 election was revered, and many were glad to see him disappear from prominent politics. Next up: Johnny “I-don't-apologise-for-anything” Howard.The most conservative and creative PM since Menzies himself, John Howard prided himself on his legacy of market reform and government surplus. He and Costello made up the “Dream Team”, which is essentially what they turned out to be. Once again, Labor’s mismanagement of finances had left the country in a great hole of red; much of which was overcome by Howard’s transformation of the heavily-regulated economy into an open-trading economy, work which was originally initiated by the Hawke/Keating era, but finalized in Howard’s first and second term.
Howard’s way of thinking was criticized by many academics. First of all, he (especially in his earlier career) publicly advocated against multiculturalism, claiming it deprived the country of its national identity and diminished Australian culture. He went so far as to alter Australia’s immigration and refugee laws after a controversial speech by ultra-conservative Pauline Hanson, something which did not go unnoticed by the public. He was also tough on unions, with implementation of ‘Work Choices’ in 2006 which restricted union involvement and gave companies more freedom to hire/fire workers being just one example.He implemente
d the GST, allowing government to maintain high revenue without raising income tax, paving the way for interest rates to lower and keep inflation at a manageable level. He, like Menzies, believed in a limited government, social conservatism, economic liberalism and constituent monarchism. Takes breath
He did not believe in Australians apologizing for the Stolen Generation (“Guilt is not hereditary”), he lowered unemployment levels, masterminded one of the greatest economic booms Australia had seen since the Gold Rush, and greatly improved relations with China. John Howard handed a country to Kevin Rudd fit enough to survive the worst world-wide economic disaster since the Great Depression -- which Rudd is systematically running to the ground in debt. With the rise in small (and big) businesses, the idea of individualism was transformed from a predominantly social idea into an economic one, removing government intervention and allowing the free-market to blossom. John Howard’s neo-conservatism and Menzies-inspired government, though had many flaws (actually claiming those who opposed him -- trade unionists and protesters especially -- to be “un-Australian” and expected it to be justification for them to sit-down-and-shut-up), was one of Australia’s most successful. BTW, I am fully aware these past few paragraphs have been very scattered. But it’s a blog! No criticism on the lack of structure!
Okay, even though there are holes in my analysis of the leaders, I’ve done my best to outline what each of these PMs have contributed to modernity. However, just briefly (and to extend the overall point of this blog, which I’ll EVENTUALLY get to) I’d like to touch on Malcolm Turnbull. Honestly, base
d on who he succeeded, I can’t understand why Turnbull is a Liberal. Firstly, he headed the Republican Movement in the late 1990s.That is such a deviation from the original Liberal ideology of complete monarchical support, it should probably have swayed him over to the side of Labor (although, having said that, the ALP is very selective over who they choose to lead; Turnbull has earned his millions from being a very successful businessman, kind of going against the Labor-grain). Just another example would be his current deviation from most of the party’s leanings by supporting an amended ETS; John Howard thoroughly opposed an ETS, and I suspect only included one into the party campaign to win over voters when he knew he was polling poorly. Many of the Liberals in government now, especially the backbenchers and the co-aligned Nationals, have expressed public dissent over Turnbull’s ETS stance, yet he ignores most of them (Wilson Tuckey...). It doesn't really bother me that he's a Liberal; the party recruits from all walks of life, it's just I don't know if he's seasoned enough to be party leader (he's only been in politics for five years). But, when it comes down to it, he looks good on TV.
Alright, to the point of this very, very long essay-turned-blog: I support the Liberals because it supports diversity. I have systematically proved that these leaders were all different (I, naturally, bulk Gorton and McMahon together); they have different ideologies,
they have different leanings, but they all follow the same party doctrine, and have all taken the country to new places. They can be conservative (Menzies/Howard), or progressive (Holt/Turnbull) or anything in between. The Liberals allow for personal opinion, they encourage one to think outside the mould. They recruit from a much wider ocean of social institutions, not just a narrow pool of workers and unionists. The Liberal ideology may be ambiguous and ever shifting, but that in turn allows for interpretation, giving the country the opportunity for creativity, to grow with each differing leader outlook. If you’re a Labor MP, you’re fired for voting against the party (which explains Peter Garrett’s total hypocrisy), and there is little room for review when the ideology is so firm and long-standing. The Liberals have a long and proud history of reform, more recently of progression, and of surplus (something the ALP can’t say!!!), without negating good old fashioned family values; they give the individual a chance for individuality, it’s as simple as that.
Okay, even though there are holes in my analysis of the leaders, I’ve done my best to outline what each of these PMs have contributed to modernity. However, just briefly (and to extend the overall point of this blog, which I’ll EVENTUALLY get to) I’d like to touch on Malcolm Turnbull. Honestly, base
d on who he succeeded, I can’t understand why Turnbull is a Liberal. Firstly, he headed the Republican Movement in the late 1990s.That is such a deviation from the original Liberal ideology of complete monarchical support, it should probably have swayed him over to the side of Labor (although, having said that, the ALP is very selective over who they choose to lead; Turnbull has earned his millions from being a very successful businessman, kind of going against the Labor-grain). Just another example would be his current deviation from most of the party’s leanings by supporting an amended ETS; John Howard thoroughly opposed an ETS, and I suspect only included one into the party campaign to win over voters when he knew he was polling poorly. Many of the Liberals in government now, especially the backbenchers and the co-aligned Nationals, have expressed public dissent over Turnbull’s ETS stance, yet he ignores most of them (Wilson Tuckey...). It doesn't really bother me that he's a Liberal; the party recruits from all walks of life, it's just I don't know if he's seasoned enough to be party leader (he's only been in politics for five years). But, when it comes down to it, he looks good on TV.Alright, to the point of this very, very long essay-turned-blog: I support the Liberals because it supports diversity. I have systematically proved that these leaders were all different (I, naturally, bulk Gorton and McMahon together); they have different ideologies,
they have different leanings, but they all follow the same party doctrine, and have all taken the country to new places. They can be conservative (Menzies/Howard), or progressive (Holt/Turnbull) or anything in between. The Liberals allow for personal opinion, they encourage one to think outside the mould. They recruit from a much wider ocean of social institutions, not just a narrow pool of workers and unionists. The Liberal ideology may be ambiguous and ever shifting, but that in turn allows for interpretation, giving the country the opportunity for creativity, to grow with each differing leader outlook. If you’re a Labor MP, you’re fired for voting against the party (which explains Peter Garrett’s total hypocrisy), and there is little room for review when the ideology is so firm and long-standing. The Liberals have a long and proud history of reform, more recently of progression, and of surplus (something the ALP can’t say!!!), without negating good old fashioned family values; they give the individual a chance for individuality, it’s as simple as that.But, I’ll admit that an unclear vision often leads to a complete and utter rabble in the party room. But this is a PRO-LIBERAL blog!
Comment/Rate/Appreciate!
Referenced: Brett, J. (2003). Australian Liberals. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
xXx
