The Changing Face of the Liberal Party

(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 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.

Gorton and McMahon both continued Holt’s ideas of reform, both in society and the arts. But, 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 Fraser

Fraser 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 unions 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 implemented 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, based 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

Modern Anarchists: Why the likes of Noam Chomsky should be silenced.

You are no greater than, and nothing should humble you as much as the place you consider home, especially if it has provided for you opportunities not available in other nations. It is where you grew, and in the case of developed democratic nations, it has given you the luxury of freedom and human privilege. I love Australia, and although I am at odds quite frequently with our government, it is our ability to grow, learn and therefore evolve that I will always remain loyal to. Australia is the true land of opportunity, and I don’t blame so many foreigners for wanting houseroom here. No matter where you live, if your country has given you health, freedom and happiness, you should not devote your life to criticising it.

Then you have jackasses like Noam Chomsky, a man so revered in the US he has literally become the one of the most cited intellectuals in history, right behind Sigmund Freud (rightly so). In the sub-Ivy League universities of America on the west coast especially, he is literally bigger than the death of MJ, poisoning the minds of up-and-coming academics and providing a one-sided view on the state of modern America. He makes the writings of Dr. Peter Van O look completely impartial.

As put by Bernard Goldberg, he is the world’s most important anti-American American Intellectual. He attacks everything about America; its values, behaviour and generally everything in American society. In his words: “When you come back from the Third World to the West –the U.S in particular, you are struck by the narrowing of thought and understanding, the limited nature of legitimate discussion, the separation of people from each other” and “The Cold War? All America’s fault... (then begins comparing America to Nazis)”. This man has never met an American or American policy he liked, claiming after 9/11 that America’s foreign policy was “far more extreme terrorism”. If there is one thing this man has ever been successful at, it has been systematically dismantling intellectual support for a nation in control of much of the free world. This man should be gagged.

For much the same reason, I give a dishonourable mention to Michael Moore, often cited as “Chomsky for children”. His far more public open hostility towards America has made him more notorious than famous. His arguments are dripping with bias, with his facts often so far spun he is succeeds even John Howard. Take my advice; never see his docos, never read his books (I own them all, and they’re all rubbish), never listen to the dribble spat from his fat mouth. He doesn’t just target politicians, but citizens (circa “Stupid White Men”) and everyone else he considers sub-par. It isn’t even like he’s educated – he’s a college drop out. He isn’t an intellectual, he isn’t an academic, he isn’t anything. If I get strung up by my heels for what I write in a simple blog, then this ass should be strung up by his neck. There is nothing but virulent garbage spitting from behind his teeth; he too needs to be gagged.

What honestly got me started on this rant was a woman at a second-hand book store in Fremantle, who when noticing me buy political texts, questioned if I had read anything by Chomsky or Gore. I of course replied they’re both rubbish (Gore not as much, but I hate is desperate spotlight-grabbing. He lost, he should get over it and stop trying to return himself to the front bench), and left. I have read essays by Chomsky, own three of Al Gore’s books and three of Michael Moore’s. I have earned the right to criticize, because they all need to step back and stop being so high and mighty. It’s spin at its finest, and these dicks doctor themselves out of experience. I don’t buy it, and neither should anyone else. Seriously, bend over, grab a hold of the stick, and pull it out of your ass. People hate you.

The honest fact is that criticism of governments is necessary, it keeps parliament in check and keeps the power bases spread. These men are not criticising their governments, they are criticising their country, their culture. They judge their nation based on what it should be, rather than what it is. I am a Liberal, and therefore am a sworn enemy of the Labor government, but I am not stupid enough to actually believe the Liberals should be in power right now, especially after the last few weeks and the party splits being made extremely public. These men see the world from their own narrow-minded eyes and are too stubborn to shift their ideologies and see the greater picture. They are not rational.

America is a great, however misled nation. But until the high horses are tied up and the ass-sticks are extracted, the world will never be analysed through impartial eyes. These men are anarchists; they will feed off sedition and chaos until the modern Liberal Democratic tradition is bled dry.

So next time you see a Sicko on television, or feel the need to cite On Nature and Language, remember what these men represent, and find another source of information. You’d have better luck with Charles Firth, at least you’d get a good laugh.

xXx

Archive (26/2/2009): Compassion in the political spectrum

Those who know me well enough (and those, I suppose who have only just met me), would know that I am a narcissistic semi know-it-all who can rarely keep silent when it comes to expressing my beliefs and certain views I hold of various people. I actually learned today that Narcissism can be a Personality Disorder, in which the more severe forms were axiomatic in both Hitler and Stalin...just a little fun fact. The point of this entry, however, is to address compassion and self-censorship when it comes to proverbially disembowelling (nice image for you) others publically, humiliating the target, and in most cases, the shooter.

My example this week is Dr. Peter Van Onselen, who is fast coming to be my professional idol. He is an Political scientist, who has received both his Masters and PhD in Political science. He is the example of one of the few people who have made something of themselves with only their single BA – don’t kid yourself and expect anything the same if you’re graduating your Arts degree and seek a decent job. It won’t happen. You wasted your money. Arts degrees mean shit these days unless they are attached to a 2nd BA like Law/Education/Business/Psychology etc, or followed up with honours and Masters. Back to my point; Dr. Van Onselen has become a well received political commentator and analyst, writing Op.Eds for Australia’s largest papers, as well as having released three books on Howard and the Liberal Party. Overall, a household name when it comes to Politics. Well, at least he has become lately.

His latest offering, Liberals and Power: The Road Ahead, is a manifesto, if you will, of the Liberals and their plans for the future and eventual re-election. As a standard, Onselen requested Julie Bishop (The deputy leader of the opposition) to write an essay entry for the text. However, what he received was written not by her but by her Chief of staff, Murray Hanson, with chunks of it lifted right out of a speech by New Zealand Businessman Rodger Kerr made in 1999 without any sort of acknowledgement (all students know what a crime this is; referencing’s a bitch). I mean, if it was me, I would be psycho about it too. If I was releasing a book which was to be received by the public as the future of the opposition, I would be pretty pissed off the deputy leader couldn’t be assed writing it herself, let alone proof reading. Now, Hansen took full responsibility, but it makes little difference. This event occurred only a month after Bishop was in a plagiarising scandal with a speech she had made ripping off an entry in the Wall Street Journal. Bishop’s a lazy knob-head, and I say that knowing that no one else will read this, because I know I could probably count on one hand the losers who actually read my crappy notes, but Van Onselen went one step further. He doesn’t write a crappy blog for Facebook, he writes for the Sunday Times.

His reaction was a little extreme; “Julie Bishop has the stench of political death about her” and so forth. Wow. Harsh much? Now I initially applauded him for having the guts to speak out about something which until then had been mostly confined to jokes in Parliament house, but then I thought again. His entire article had absolutely no compassion whatsoever. Most people who know politics know she is not all up to the job of deputy, but confronted with her, we would not tell her; because it is our humanity which would give her a second (or third..or fifth) chance. I mean, there are ways, and there are ways. His response from the public was just that; ”Peter van Onselen, we are all sick of your self-promoting, ubiquitous presence”. People can sense an asshole, they’re not all stupid. Bishop herself addressed Van Onselen directly, labeling him a “Political stalker” with an “unhealthy obsession”. To be honest I agree with her.

His first lecture last week revolved around his criticisms of the political spectrum and its visibility in today’s media. Again and again he reverted back to Bishop, and at first I did not know why. I had already known she was a bit of a discredited outcast (can you guess the interest rate today folks?), but hardly worthy of repeated mention in a room full of soon-to-be academics. I did my research and found out about Van Onselen’s personal involvement and then understood his side, but not the underlying venom in the words he spat. He then went on to appear on Lateline which I also watched, crediting her as deputy shadow minister “In name only”. She’s a smart woman, perhaps not deputy worthy, but not virulent bitching either. Enough is enough. I think Van Onselen should go on hiatus for a while so people stop resenting him and his omniscient presence in today’s media. As it is now, he is too overexposed; if you read the paper carefully, or have been for years, his name will at least ring a bell. He is supposed to be a Liberal, but here he is criticising one of their prominant leaders. He is not acting as a political analyst, but as a political aggravator; however all he seems to be aggravating are the people he is supposed to be informing. Time to hang up the pencil and hide under a rock I'd say.

Ash OUT!

xx