This morning the Australian Liberal party will elect a new leader. There has been much talk about how they need to make a break with the Howard years. Malcolm Turnbull has outlined a programme of social moderation when compared with the thuggery of the Howard years. Nelson has made similar noises, though I am not sure I believe them given his record as a minister.
The Howard years have been charactarised by the leader's own introversion and small mindedness. International media has called Howard the most successful conservative leader in the world in modern times. But herein lies a contradiction. Howard called himself a conservative and a liberal. As a teenager my understanding of the word "conservative" came to be synonymous with the Howard government. There is a fundamental contradiction between liberalism and conservatism. The latter, as its name suggests, in its pure form is more concerned with not changing the status quo and opting for social change through gradual and natural progression rather than sweeping reforms. Howard was in many respects a radical. His GST, gun reform, flouting of international treaties on the treatment of refugees, Iraq, David Hicks, Timor... and the list goes on, all point to someone desperately trying to mould his country into his own vision. It is a mistake to call Howard a conservative. Reactionary is far better.
Unlike Gough, he didn't loot the economy, but he did loot the decency inherent in the Australian people. We are now a far more fearful, intolerant people than we have been for some time. Interestingly, Howard's racism has picked up a vote which was a traditional Labor stronghold. Indeed, that party was founded largely on an anti-immigration platform. But where the labor party was fearful of the loss of jobs, Howard was only fearful of a loss of votes. I'm not suggesting that it was as simple as a marketing ploy, I firmly believe Howard really believes that Muslims are suspect people.
For reasons such as these and many many more (not saying "sorry", for example), The Liberal Party must now move back to the centre. Its role as a moderate party has been lost and must be retrieved. The small "l' liberals within the party must triumph. For if both the ruling party and the opposition are of reasonable ethical and moderate persuasion, it will forge a more decent democracy in Australia.
UPDATE: Nelson and Bishop??? Beggars belief. The man looks like a bird that's got stuck in a fence and has the nouse of a hose. Still, it can only be good for labor. Bad, I feel, for democracy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It's almost too wonderful.
The Liberal Party, having had its arse kicked from one end of the country to the other, has gone and voted for the man least likely to alter their course.
I actually have quite a soft spot for Malcolm Turnbull. His republicanism, relatively small 'l' liberal views and a lack of crippling ideologies hanging round his neck means that he is one of the more progressive members of the party.
I agree it will do them more harm than good putting in Nelson, and that can only be good for the ALP. And maybe Turnbull will get his chance when the future looks brightest for them (though with the Abbott lurking in the shadows that will be quite a fight), but it saddens me to think that they had a real opportunity to move away from the Howard-style scare-mongering and they've just blown it out of the water.
When I say saddened...
Welcome to the interblogs by the way!
yes, it is rather fun... I thought I should start the venture after some exceedingly good news (saturday)!
I feel sorry for Turnbull, he's a decent person. It was an opportunity to have an opposition which had some substance and a real role in the democratic process. But they went for the right wingness again...
fools.
On the bright side, Labor is a shoe in in 2010 provided Rudd doesn't pull a Gough (which he won't because he's FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE)
Post a Comment