above: While Menzies was far from without fault, on many issues today's Liberal Party would be unrecognizable for him. 

Dr Tristan Ewins

Much is said about the clash between the liberal and Conservative wings of the Liberal Party of Australia. Usually leading figures will speak of a ‘broad church’ which includes a diverse membership. But the truth is that the Liberals continue to drift ever deeper into the hard Right. Liberals will stand up for religious liberties (which there may be some kind of argument for) ; but John Stuart Mill would turn in his grave if he was aware of Liberal policies on trade unions, charities, and attempts to shut down grassroots mass organisations such as GetUp!

The Encyclopedia Britannica identifies various rights as central to Classical Liberalism. Freedom of association, assembly and speech amongst them. Also: “freedom from fear of reprisal”, and of arbitrary arrest and punishment. It also identifies free industrial organisation of workers as a necessary counter-balance in the marketplace.

Interestingly, iconic British liberal John Stuart Mill was even in some ways sympathetic with the socialist social experiments of Robert Owen in the 19th Century. (see: ‘On Socialism’, J.S.Mill, Prometheus Books, New York, 1976)

And while free markets are crucial to classical liberalism, various liberals are divided on the balance between public and private. All liberals would oppose a ‘command economy’, and would demand a central space for ‘personal determination of needs structures via markets’. For some liberals, however, Hayek and Rand are seen as occupying ‘the extreme end of the spectrum’ ; but those theorists’ ideas are exactly those promoted by the Institute of Public Affairs - which has a powerful role influencing Liberal Party policy. Before the 1970s, Hayek and Rand were ‘on the fringes’ in most Liberal and Conservative parties. Fanatical commitment to the progressive and open-ended dismantling the welfare state, social wage, social insurance and public sector would have once have been ‘out of place’ in ‘the Party of Menzies’. Now those ideas are in ‘the mainstream’. And for Conservatives, adherence to economic neo-liberalism has eclipsed ‘compassionate conservative’ tendencies.

By contrast with the original liberals, today’s Liberal Party of Australia is committed to the total dismantling of the power of organised labour. Its ‘Ensuring integrity’ Bill has several aims. Firstly, the bill (if passed) will take non-protected industrial action as being ‘criminal in nature’ ; and union leaders could thus be charged and imprisoned ; and unions themselves deregistered and ‘dismantled’. It will enable government to “sack” union officials convicted of criminal offenses: which includes ‘industrial’ offenses such as unprotected industrial action, and entering workplaces to organise or inspect working conditions without notice. Also: even ‘protected’ rights to industrial action will be able to be withdrawn if an ‘interested party’ argues it affects their interests. The legislation will establish in many ways arbitrary punitive powers for government against workers and union officials. While freedom to withdraw labour is a liberal right ; so too is freedom of association.

The Liberal Party is also now endeavouring to have mass-based progressive lobby group ‘GetUp!’ considered a branch of the ALP and the Greens ; and hence to restrict its rights to campaign in the lead up to elections, and on election day. With a membership base of over a million Australians ‘GetUp!’ is obviously much broader than the ALP or Greens, and has organisational independence. But these days the Liberal Party is simply interested in shutting down all opposition in a display of crude power politics. This is the opposite of liberalism ; even if defined narrowly as ‘classical liberalism’. True, the Liberals abrogated liberalism when they attempted to ban the Communist Party under Menzies as well.  ('Doc' Evatt's defense of the liberal rights of Communists was an important victory for Labor at the time)   But the Communists never had over a million members: mums, dads, students, retirees. People who want a political voice: but many of whom are not ready to join a Party.

Another example of Liberals abrogating liberal principles regards their treatment of charities and other organisations who must fear their tax-deductibility status being withdrawn if they criticise the government. ‘Political’ speech is seen as compromising the work of charities by the Liberal-National Coalition ; but in fact this is just another rejection of real free speech: sacrificed on the altar of brute power politics. Despite a decision by the High Court upholding the right of civic organisations like charities to engage in political advocacy, the Liberals and Nationals are still looking for ways to shut-down resistance. Arguments have been made to ‘withdraw support’ for organisations ‘out of step’ with majority opinion. (whatever that is)

The other side of this involves calls on the Left to tax churches ; which may include lay organisations at the grassroots level. While the Liberal Party has largely abandoned liberalism in practice, the Left could do worse than to integrate liberal and socialist principles.

Finally we must consider the treatment of refugees and the unemployed by callous governments of the Australian Right-Wing. Open-ended incarceration with the effect of breaking the spirit and the will to live of those affected has no place in any account of liberal human rights.

Meanwhile, ‘Work for the Dole’ comprises a form of labour conscription, and we must consider the real power relationships underlying these arrangements – as opposed to the fantasies of Hayek and Rand who only see ‘individuals freely entering into voluntary economic relationships’. Sophisticated liberals deal with ‘the world as it is’ and not merely as it is supposed to be in the theories of the economic hard right. In reality, both major parties are supportive of a policy of a “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment”. (ie: unemployment of approximately 5% with the point of containing inflation and wage pressures) The point of this is exactly to restrict workers’ bargaining power at a time when the unemployed are vilified, wages are stagnant, and there is restricted consumer demand in the broader economy. (in turn impacting on growth)

In times past liberals would be capable of recognising the real-world imbalances of power in economic relationships: and hence support rights for trade unions, and a decent welfare safety net without punitive, unfair and unrealistic mutual obligation provisions.

While some Conservative figures like Barnaby Joyce are finally recognising the threadbare and punitive nature of ‘Newstart’ unemployment insurance in Australia, Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, is determined to keep existing policies as a wedge against Labor. While 'Robodebt' policies drive innocent people to desperation and suicide, the hope of decent bipartisanship has been cruelly crushed. An ugly sentiment against the welfare-dependent and job seekers has been whipped up in the monopoly mass media in Australia for decades. But the Liberals have all-too-readily seized upon the consequent public sentiment ; and have exploited it.

While progressives should always prefer a Labor Government to a Liberal Government in Australia, it is to be hoped that genuine liberals like John Hewson - who have not been ideologically captured by the Institute of Public Affairs – improve their fortunes in internal debates. While this author is opposed to Blairite ‘Third Ways’ it would nonetheless be a relief to have bipartisanship on issues of basic human liberty and decency. While the Liberals increasingly embrace Hayek and Rand on the economy, on social liberty they are effectively against libertarianism. (eg: on the rights of organised labour)

In Australia the nominal party of liberalism is anything but liberal. Even in the narrow sense of classical liberalism they fail to uphold core principles. Labor could reconceive of itself as a liberal Party ; and occupy that space abandoned by the Liberal Party. But for social democrats and democratic socialists that is not the answer if it means abrogating our own historic principles, and the rights and interests we defend. But a more libertarian position on liberal rights on the Australian Left would apply significant pressure to the parties of the Australian Right. To a some degree this is already happening. It is a trend that needs to be developed further.

Turnbull by the Narrowest Margin - And Why a Return to Abbott and Conservatism is not the Answer for the Liberals

Much has been made of the so-called Labor 'Medi-scare' Campaign.  But reflection suggests Turnbull has only himself to blame for pandering to the 'big 'C' Conservative' wing of his Party - with the profound disillusionment from liberal-minded voters who were originally so encouraged by the departure of Abbott.  For the same reason 'a return to Abbott' is not the answer for the Liberals. In the end the Liberals did not 'tack to the Centre' after all.  And if the Liberal Party swings Right chasing after the votes of the Hansonites that will only provoke further disillusionment from the 'liberal relative Centre' voter demographic.

  

Dr Tristan Ewins

 

With the cliff-hanger/apparent-Liberal victory in the 2016 Australian Federal Election there have been calls from Conservative quarters for the removal of Malcolm Turnbull.  The argument goes something along the lines that because Turnbull abandoned the Liberal base he was punished accordingly.  And that a more decisive Liberal victory would have been possible under Tony Abbott.

Certainly the cross-benches will likely be volatile.  The Government could expect to be put into difficult positions on gambling regulation (Xenophon), law reform and legal euthanasia (Hinch), protectionism (Katter), and totally-unworkable policy objectives based on xenophobia. (Hanson)   Cathy McGowan will probably tend towards to the liberal Centre.  Lambie can be unpredictable – but also in some ways progressive on the economy. (take her support for a financial transactions tax)  She also opposes Same Sex Marriage. 

The Greens will quite possibly enter into negotiations with the Nick Xenophon Team to link their agendas in the context of balance of power in the Senate. The hope is that they will oppose austerity and regressive re-casting of the tax mix – leaving fair tax reform as the only remaining option for budget repair.  (though some are saying the Conservatives may respond with a new election)  But the Greens have failed to pick up new Lower House seats from Labor.   In the Lower House Wilkie can be depended upon to be critical, consistent and progressive – as past experience shows.

 

Already there are arguments to the effect that a hung parliament threatens Australia’s AAA Credit Rating.  The arguments can be summed up in that the various sectional interests will get in the way of ‘hard headed action on budget cuts’.  Though again: few are considering the genuinely-existing alternative of budget repair without austerity – on the basis of progressive tax reform.   Budget cuts also threaten the infrastructure and services the economy craves: resulting in something of a ‘false-economy’.  If possible Labor needs to link-up with Xenophon and the Greens in the Senate to progress the agenda of budget repair without austerity. 

Those Liberals who aren’t braying for Turnbull’s blood are indignant about the so-called ‘Medi-scare’ from Labor.   Yet the reality is that the fear out there in the electorate goes back to the 2014 Hockey Budget ; with its various Medicare co-payments, and other ‘cuts to the bone’.  Labor’s efforts here were nowhere near as objectionable, say, compared with the Howard-Era Liberal government’s ‘children overboard’ panic,  or more recent talk of a ‘war on business’; and so on.  In fact Labor’s interpretation of Medicare privatisation is entirely reasonable if realised as opposition to the winding back of socialised medicine in this country. That the Federal Police are being deployed apparently as a Liberal political asset is perhaps a threat to our democracy.

Turnbull’s alleged ‘Centrism’ is not the cause of the ‘political-near-death’ of the Federal Liberal Government. Turnbull had extensively compromised in order to keep the big ‘C’ Conservatives within the so-called ‘big house’ that is the Liberal Party.  He compromised on same sex marriage ; and on climate change and refugees.  He made billions in inhumane and profoundly regressive cuts in areas like Aged Care.  As opposed to the line being drummed up by Andrew Bolt and other arch-Conservatives : if anything it was sheer disappointment from the ‘small ‘l’ liberal’ demographic in the broader electorate that resulted in the hung parliament. 

Talk now of a ‘new Conservative movement’ – and hints from Bernadi of a ‘new Conservative Party’ illustrate a bitterness within the Liberal Party that goes back to the palace-coup against Abbott.  Regardless of this –any new Conservative movement will need to navigate the contradictions between Liberalism and Conservatism.  For self-espoused Christians heartless LNP policies on defunding an Aged Care sector already characterised by regressive user-pays mechanisms - need to be rejected utterly. Hence ‘Compassionate Conservatives’ have cause to oppose ‘Austrian School-style small government’ and its human consequences.  While small ‘l’ liberals have cause to fear regressive Conservative encroachments on civil and even industrial liberties.   Perhaps the Liberals could even learn from the example of the post-war (1950s) German Christian Democrats and their aim of 'a social market economy'.

By tearing themselves apart the various LNP Liberals and Conservatives may well prove themselves unready for government.  But would a Liberal Party freed from its right-wing once again embody the spirit, say, of Don Chipp; of the later Fraser ; or even the critical disposition embodied by internal critics such as former Liberal leader John Hewson?  Would it become a ‘small ‘l’ liberal party?  Could the Liberal ‘Wet’ faction re-emerge somehow from oblivion?  Or would the LNP  still adhere to ‘large ‘L’ economic Liberalism – leaving dominant narratives of austerity, privatisation and laissez faire untouched?   Turnbull’s capitulation to the ‘big ‘C’ Conservative’ right-wing of his Party during the campaign suggests the latter scenario is more likely.  As they do tend to embrace 'big 'L' economic Liberalism as opposed to 'small 'l' liberalism'.

 

There was talk under Turnbull of the Liberals ‘shifting to the Centre’.  But remember that the Centre is always relative ; and what matters most is the substance which prevails beneath the relative labels.  Moves amongst parts of Australia’s ‘liberal establishment’ (eg: in Fairfax) suggests all-too-ready a willingness to ‘settle’ with the Liberalism of Turnbull ; even when much of it proved to be compromised and hollow.

The real problem with the Turnbull campaign was its shallowness.  That is, the shallowness of mantras of ‘jobs and growth’, and the incredibility of the notion $50 billion in Company Tax cuts  (and even more over time) would ‘trickle-down’ to benefit everyone.  And this at the same time as the government proclaimed a ‘Budget Emergency’.  This was not small ‘l’ liberalism. It was the spirit of Reagan and Thatcher.

It wasn’t political and social liberalism that ‘did Turnbull in’ with a ‘near-political-death experience’.   It was laissez faire : with the LNP apparently having learned nothing from the overwhelming public rejection of the attempted hard-line Hockey Austerity Budget of 2014.


(Postscript: A friend in the Labor Party cautioned me that an open split in the Liberal Party could have bad ramifications long term. He argued that at least the LNP is not radically nationalist and openly accepting of racist Ideology. And who knows what might fill any vacuum? Though I still think LNP members need to reflect seriously upon two policy fronts : The incompatibility of heartless neo-liberalism and attacks upon the vulnerable with the 'compassionate conservatism' some Christians would like to profess ; and the infringements upon civil liberties arising from 'Big 'C' Conservatism' in this country. We need the Liberal Party (and hence the whole relative political milieu in Australia) transformed as a consequence of pressures on both these fronts.)

Our next post will consider the dilemmas facing Labor following the election outcome.

From the place of socialism in modern Australian politics, to 'Record High Taxes', and Police Powers

 

 

 

above:  In the Herald-Sun (4/6/16) Joe Hildebrand laments the decline of  'Third Way Centrism' and the rise of the 'margins' in European (and to his mind probably Australian) politics.  But democracy must mean pluralism and real choices.  In this the real history of socialism and Marxism must be kept in mind. Regardless of the horrors of Stalinism, it is time to reclaim the traditions of the Democratic Left.

 

LETTERS LATE MAY AND EARLY JUNE:    The following are a series of letters written to ‘The Herald-Sun’ and ‘The Age’ over the course of late May and early June 2016.  The issues discussed include the place of socialism, liberalism and Marxism in Australia.  As well as police powers, and whether or not Australia faces ‘record high taxes’.  At the time of posting only one of the letters had been published – in The Age. (though edited for length)

 

(Published) “Waleed Aly (The Age ; 26/6) regrets the marginalisation of political ideologies like socialism and liberalism, and the rise of disengagement, cynicism, right-wing populism.  But Sanders in the US and Corbyn in the UK show that with the distance of time the damage caused to the democratic Left by the example of Stalinist totalitarianism is finally being overcome.  Australia needs progressive leadership – articulating the best of political and social liberalism, and economic socialism.  There is a constituency waiting for the right leadership: articulating ideas of social justice and compassion.  For Labor to articulate a vision based on provision for human need through social insurance, the social wage, social welfare, the democratic mixed economy, as well as labour market regulation and industrial/civil liberties.  Shorten has moved in the right direction with very modest proposals to reform tax. Though his back-down on crucial Aged Care funding suggests Labor is too sensitive to empty claims of ‘over-spending’:  In fact Labor has a record of bipartisanship on ‘small government’.  In fact our taxes are only approximately HALF of Sweden’s’! A new Labor government needs to be more ambitious fully-funding perhaps $40 billion (or 2.5% of GDP) in new progressive commitments without austerity elsewhere.

 

(NOT PUBLISHED)  Democracy must mean a real choice! ; Joe Hilebrand (Herald Sun 4/5/16) laments the decline of ‘Third Way Centrism’ and the rise of the ‘fringes’, with Marxist voices finding a place in the public sphere.  A few points, though. First, a true democracy finds itself in pluralism.  That is: if voters do not have real choices on the democratic Left and on the democratic Right then the meaning of those choices is diminished. Secondly, fear of ‘Marxism’ in Australia ought not be overstated.  Labor has moved marginally Left of Centre – but only marginally.  Its reform agenda is modest.  Finally, we could do to remember that while Marxism was crudely distorted under totalitarian Stalinism, that it nonetheless began as a democratic movement. Indeed it was one of the first social movements to propose free, universal and equal suffrage (ie: votes for all adult men and women) from the late 1840s and into the early 20^th Century.  Those who remain true to Marxism’s democratic roots would seek “a democratic road to socialism”, with an important place for parliamentary democracy.  As such today’s democratic Left – partly inspired by Marxist traditions – is one of the real, substantial choices Australians should enjoy, informed by a vision of social and economic equality and democracy.  

(NOT PUBLISHED)  (late May 2106)  The Herald-Sun has been depicting Labor as ‘irresponsible big spenders.’ But taxes have hovered around 25% of GDP across BOTH Labor and Liberal governments for many years now. In fact both Labor and Liberal have maintained a regime of ‘small government’, and any Australian government would need to double spending by approximately $400 BILLION a year to reach Swedish levels of expenditure! (ie:  at approx. 50% of GDP)  In fact, if we want to INVEST in education, health, aged care, transport and communications infrastructure, then we need more progressive tax and higher spending. The alternative is that our services and infrastructure will decay. People will suffer ; and so will the economy.  To provide a sense of proportion: Labor’s proposed changes to Capital Gains Tax and Negative Gearing will save only $7 billion a year.  But Malcolm Turnbull’s approach of cutting Company Tax by $50 billion over ten years cannot but result in a massive hit to Education and Health, services and infrastructure.  At the same time it could make any return to surplus impossible.  (once the tax cut reaches its full amount it will cost the Budget more over time)

 

(NOT PUBLISHED)  (Late May 2016)  The Herald-Sun AGAIN publishes information to the effect that cuts must be made “to avoid record high taxes”. (HS 28/5, p 9)  What the Herald-Sun does NOT publicise is the fact that for decades there has been bipartisan commitment from the ALP and Liberals to holding taxes down as a proportion of GDP.  Both ALP and the Liberals have kept taxes down so far that we are one of the lowest taxing countries in the OECD.  We would need to raise spending by $400 BILLION/year to match Sweden for example!  Instead Shorten is proposing modest Capital Gains Tax and Negative Gearing changes that will bring in only $7 billion annually.  The idea of ‘record high taxes’ appears ludicrous in light of all this! 

But without higher levels of fair taxation we will ALL pay more through user pays. User pays for roads. The end of bulk billing and Medicare.   $30,000 a year to send your kids to private schools because the public system is neglected.  Working class people forced to sell the family home to access an aged care system which is grossly under-resourced and understaffed.  This is the price we will all pay for lower taxes!

(nb: DEAR Editor - You keep publishing information to the effect we are faced with the prospect of 'record high taxes' ;  This verges on misinformation when put in context.  It is only reasonable during an election campaign to give significant space to 'the other side of the story'. Not just my own critique ; But a wide range of respectable opinion which would question the notion we are 'heavily over-taxed' ; or that Labor is 'high taxing and high spending' when compared with other governments ; or even with the  Liberal Party itself)

(NOT PUBLISHED)  A Sense of proportion on Company Tax

(Herald-Sun Early June)   In his letter John Morrissey argues  that Australia’s Company Tax regime is “uncompetitive”.   Yet the United States’ Federal rate of Company Tax is 35% ; and in some states goes higher than 39%.  The problem with lower Company Tax is that there isn’t the money left over for infrastructure and education. (that is, without ‘corporate welfare’. ie: workers/taxpayers ‘picking up the tab’ for the services and infrastructure corporations use)  Our Company Tax regime is not ‘uncompetitive’ when compared with the United States itself, and top quality infrastructure and a skilled workforce (paid for by tax!) will attract more of the right kind of investment. Australia also has one of the lowest overall levels of tax in the OECD – at approx. 25% - compared with 50% in Sweden.  To get a sense of proportion: Shorten’s $7 billion of tax reforms re: Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Tax Concessions accounts for less than half a percent of GDP.   A massive $400 billion would be necessary to match Sweden and provide a Nordic-style Welfare State. So keep a sense of proportion when talking about tax in Australia   (source:  Wikipedia)

(NOT PUBLISHED)   Police Powers

The Herald-Sun has been running hard on the issue of Police “move on” powers, and has given voice to those within the force who want a return of those powers.  A couple of points.  Firstly, the role of the Police is to enforce the laws of the day rather than to lobby the government of the day.  The police as such should not be politicised like that against civil liberties which many of us cherish as part of our liberal society.  Secondly, our civil liberties are too valuable to sacrifice in response to the actions of a couple of dozen of people – perhaps including provocateurs.  There are already laws dealing with those who engage in violent behaviour.  But we should be wary of the ‘heavy hand’ where it restricts rights of assembly, association and speech – or even civil disobedience.  Neither should civil liberties be curtailed because they are an ‘inconvenience’ to some.  This is the SUBSTANCE of the liberties and rights we are regularly reminded that our men and women fought for in WWII.  Rights and liberties should not be sacrificed for a headline.

A Letter to the Prime-Minister Elect, Malcolm Turnbull

 

 Above:  Australia's new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.  Will we see a shift in the Liberal Party towards small 'l' liberalism?  This is a letter to the new PM, expressing the hopes, I believe, of many progressives.

Tristan Ewins

Dear Malcolm Turnbull: Prime Minister in-waiting;

The Abbott Prime Ministership is over.  Gone now perhaps are the scepticism about climate change; the bullying of the ABC; the broken promises and blatant breaches of mandate.  The night the change in Prime Ministership was announced the ABC coverage suggested that you and Julie Bishop would bring a ‘small ‘l’ liberal’ perspective to the Government. 

Certainly under Liberal governments across the country there has been cause to fear the withdrawal of civil liberties.  In Victoria freedom of assembly was compromised.  Now, though, can we hope that a Turnbull Liberal Government will recommit to civil liberties; and maybe even industrial liberties – as a genuine, philosophically-liberal outlook would demand?

Pluralism is also core to a robust democracy.  Tony Abbott attacked the independence of the ABC; and the independence and/or existence of various human rights commissioners. And he attacked the independence of charities who took positions contrary to his agenda.  Hopefully this ends now.  But further: what about a reformed National Curriculum that fosters political literacy and active citizenship?  Not ‘one sided indoctrination’ – but exposure to the whole gamut of political opinion ; preparing students to make informed choices as active citizens?

Hopefully under your leadership the Liberals will now remain within their mandate.  No cuts to education, no changes to pensions, no cuts to the ABC and SBS. 

But some of us will be hoping for more as well. The austerity of the 2014 Budget was obviously  ‘a bridge too far’.  Yet austerity needs to be questioned more broadly as well.  We already have ‘small government’ in this country by OECD standards.  We don’t need to venture further down that path.  We don’t need to bludgeon the poor and vulnerable any further.   Neither do we need to venture further down the path of privatising infrastructure.  A non-Ideological view would be open to a mixed economy – letting the public sector do what it does best.  Though of course as a liberal you want the private sector to do what it does best as well.

What is more we don’t need to dilute the progressive nature of our overall tax mix further. Towards the end of his Prime Ministership John Howard made it clear he believed in the principle of progressive taxation.  Mr Turnbull: there is a chance now ‘to break the consensus’ of ‘broadening the base’ in a regressive way.  And if balancing the Budget is a priority, withdrawing superannuation concessions for the most privileged needs to be considered first before hitting vulnerable or average Australians. There is an opportunity to genuinely occupy the centre-ground with a position of small ‘l’ liberalism. 

On climate change I understand you are committed against an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) or a Carbon Tax as a condition of many of your colleagues’ support.  But what about much more robust ‘direct action’?  What about ‘direct action’ in the form of a multi-billion dollar investment in renewables research and renewables infrastructure?  This can be done without a breach of mandate, and without a breach of trust with your colleagues.

Malcolm; On the rights of refugees, Australia can do more.  We can do more for Syrian and Iraqi refugees especially: whose plight has arisen partly as a consequence of earlier interventions which we contributed towards.  The wars in Iraq destabilised the region; they weakened Iraq, leaving it with a sectarian Shia government; and this emboldened the Iranians with their nuclear program. This was the background to the Syrian civil war. Sectarian government in Iraq was also a contributing factor to the Sunni ISIL movement – which was fuelled by Sunni resentment.

Now minorities and oppressed groups are suffering in a region torn apart by war, with maybe over 300,000 dead.  We can do more and we should do more. And we can use our diplomatic leverage with the United States and other countries in the Pacific region to do more as well.  On QandA American folk-singer and progressive activist, Joan Baez pointed out that if the United States accepted refugees on the same proportionate scale as Germany that this would mean support for some 3 million humanitarian migrants.  For Australia’s part we can also radically increase foreign aid – such as to assist Syria’s neighbours to provide for literally millions of refugees.

Finally, here: I don’t often find myself agreeing with Conservative commentator, Rowan Dean.  And I have a history of supporting non-discrimination in Australia’s humanitarian migration program.  But maybe the argument that Christians in these war-torn countries don’t have many places to turn within their region deserves to be considered with an open mind.  I’m not saying Rowan Dean is right.  I am saying his claims deserve to be assessed critically, rigorously and honestly.

Malcolm: I hope this doesn’t cause you to discount all that I have to say – but certainly I consider myself as being on the left-wing side of the political spectrum. So for instance I would believe in a more extensive public sector than you would as an economic liberal. Yet listening to John Hewson speaking regularly on QandA it is evident that the Liberal Party has made a quantum leap to the Right over the past few decades.  Amidst this, Hewson’s politics have remained steady. For progressives, the hope will be that a revivification of the Liberals ‘Wets’ faction will see a shift of the relative centre towards something more compassionate, generous and just. As well as an outlook which is more tolerant of pluralism, debate and dissent.  Egalitarianism was long part of this country’s culture, and of our identity.  Let’s celebrate that; and let’s not emulate the American ‘Tea Party’ movement with its extreme social Darwinist Ideology.  Instead let’s see some policies aimed at our most vulnerable Australians: those who experience the most intense human suffering.  Get the National Disability Insurance Scheme done. But what about a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme as well? 

With many others no doubt, I am hoping with your ascent to the ‘top job’ we can look forward to a new tri-partisan consensus around human dignity and human rights; and around compassion and respect for the rights of the poor and vulnerable.  Please do not crush that hope.

(nb: the author is still Labor to his bootstraps ; but consensus in areas of progressive public policy should be what we're hoping for as well - a shift in the relative centre)

State and Market - A Democratic Socialist Approach

above: 'people power' - time to build a democratic economy

In this new essay Shayn McCallum explores the possibilities for a genuine democratic mixed economy; one profoundly more radical that the social market approach. Debate welcome!

nb: Readers can join our Facebook group too!! at: http://www.facebook.com/groups/58243419565/

Current debates within the European socialist movement on the way forward for the Centre-Left, often seem to be centred on the unnecessarily narrow field of “state versus market”. Much of the debate revolves around questions of the “correct ratio” of state-to-market in the provision of public goods and services, with scant attention given to the political nature of either. Where an economic vision is articulated we see labels such as “decent capitalism” or the highly traditional “social-market economy” employed. Both of these terms however, borrow heavily from a terminology, and therefore a mind-set, which is not of the Left and which unnecessarily limits and restricts the thinking of social-democratic strategists and activists.


The work of George Lakoff and Drew Westen[1] into the neuro-linguistic dimension of politics reveals a great deal that is useful in considering the current weakness of the Centre-Left and its apparent loss of creativity and direction. In accepting the essence of the liberal world-view and limiting its criticisms of the liberal project to the details rather than the over-arching vision, social-democrats have been reduced to becoming the “annoying flea” of politics, creating little more than an irritation for the continuing (neo-) liberal agenda. It has proven relatively easy for conservatives and liberals in Europe and elsewhere to dismiss social-democratic complaints about the ruthlessness of capitalism as mere faint-heartedness or an unrealistic inability to face up to “what must be done”. What is worse, the social-democratic discourse reveals that they may suspect that their neo-liberal opponents might be right after all; thus, the unsure, excessively tentative, somewhat vacuous nature of much social-democratic discourse.


By adopting terms such as “good capitalism” to combat the “bad capitalism” of the neo-liberals, social-democrats are exposing themselves to the obvious response, common to both far Left and Centre-Right, that really “there is just capitalism” and adjectives such as “good” and “bad” are irrelevant or misplaced. For the hard-core economists of the Right, as much as the more economistic voices on the hard Left, speaking of “good” and “bad” capitalism makes as much sense as speaking of “good” or “bad” gravity or “good” or “bad” oxygen. The term is weak, ineffective and unambitious and fails to offer more than a limp moral critique of the system as it is. In fact, the charming vision of a virtuous, industrious society re-enshrined in the virtuous “real economy” of manufacturing and productive industry is not only a fantasy, it is, in many ways, a reactionary one at that. When ecological collapse is looming right behind the collapse of the unbalanced and excessive, increasingly-consumption driven, global economic system, producing yet more “stuff” is probably not the optimum way forward from where we are now. Short-sighted, populist attempts to revive the industrial revolution in the wealthy nations makes as much sense as trying to stop the Titanic from sinking by making the orchestra play more slowly. The era of unsustainable industrial growth, at least in the first-wave of industrialised nations, belongs to the past not to the future and this is, perhaps, one thing the “neo-social democrats” have got right.


The state we are in demands a much bolder response than a nostalgic appeal to the good old days of industrial growth. Terms such as “decent capitalism” or even the “social-market economy” are flawed, in that they create a conceptual framework that is inseparable from, and therefore unable to move beyond the basic framework of the existing system. In contrast, by adopting terms such as “economic democracy” or even “a democratic mixed economy” socialists would have the means to open up this currently truncated and inhibited conceptual framework and, potentially, take back control of the dominant discourse. Where capitalism, whether “good” or “bad”, is defined by certain structures and institutions that cannot, even must not be transcended or interfered with for fear of undermining the system itself (once the central goal of socialists not so very long ago) terms such as a “democratic mixed economy” at least open the door to the possibility of transcending the flawed logic of capitalism and “the market economy” altogether.


Not only “capitalism”, which, it should be pointed out, is a term originally coined by critics of the system and which has only recently been embraced by its aficionados[2], but also the term “market economy” (whether social or not) is a conceptual prison. The Delors-era social-democratic slogan of “we want a market economy, not a market society” is reminiscent of a caricature of a man being devoured by a tiger and, whilst half-engulfed in the tiger’s maw, pleads with the creature to eat only his lower half and no more. A market economy, in the sense implied by liberal theory, cannot but lead to a market society[3]. A “mixed” economy however, at least conceptually, has the potential of being a society “with markets” without necessarily being dominated by them.


Just to frame this concept so it can emerge from the level of rhetoric to the level of a concrete example, economic history reveals a myriad of examples of economic systems which employed markets without being dominated by them and without exchange and commerce occupying the central place in economic life. Indeed, for much of human history, commerce has existed as one among many forms of economic activity and it is only in the modern age that it has acquired such a uniquely pervasive influence. Feudal economies, for example, were essentially war-driven economies based on the control of land and commerce remained a highly secondary pursuit. Merchants were tolerated and or encouraged as a means to an end and it wasn’t until the vast influx of wealth from the new world, from the 1500’s on, began to undermine the feudal power structure and grant the rising merchant class a significant degree of political influence that the road to modern capitalism was opened[4]. Likewise, in the Islamic Middle-East, trade was an important pursuit and markets held an important place in the life of the cities yet, even here, the dominant economic engine was the demands of a militarised state. There was no market economy to be found in the Middle-East, although very sophisticated markets played an important role in the urban economic order. No matter how important markets may have been to pre-modern economies, these were always merely one part, mostly a subordinate part, of the broader economic and political context.


As Polanyi points out[5], economic relations are always embedded in (and have been historically subject to) broader social and political contexts. Capitalism therefore, may be perceived as an attempt to dis-embed the economy and grant it a central, autonomous and superior role in the construction and maintenance of society. This is, however (according to Polanyi at least, and history is yet to prove him wrong) an unworkable fantasy. The idea of the self-regulating market is just as mythical and untenable as the idea of a fully-planned, efficient communist paradise. In reality, all economies embody a variety of co-existing production and distribution systems and most have varied property forms. Even the most “capitalistic” economies, such as the U.S., clearly demonstrate these variances. The state and large corporations are intertwined in ways that make a mockery of Smith’s “invisible hand”. Capitalism, in short, means “the rule of capital” and markets are merely a vehicle to be used when profitable and to be ignored whenever a liability[6].


This definition of capitalism permits the, otherwise absurd, position of advocating free markets against capitalism. This highly optimistic approach can be found in the works of David Korten[7]and the theory of mutualism associated with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, together with various theories of “market socialism”. Indeed, there are a number of political approaches which separate the market as a mechanism from the rule of capital. Although this “socialist reading of Adam Smith” is perhaps naïve and overly rooted in a near extinct class of smallholder artisans, farmers and entrepreneurs, the idea of a separation of the market from the rule of capital, although problematic, is not totally unreasonable as the existence of socially-embedded market mechanisms long precede the emergence of the capitalist political economy. As has been mentioned above, the self-regulating market is an ideological fantasy and does not approach the reality of capitalism which is increasingly exercised through highly-organised, bureaucratic trans-national corporations that employ markets as a tool. The problem of “markets against capitalism” however, is that the competition inherent to a market system inevitably creates winners and losers and leads to an evolutionary dynamic that, in a very short period of time, undermines the basis of the market itself (which is the essence of Polanyi’s critique of free-market ideology). A market-centred economy, regardless of its ideological foundations, appears inevitably to tend to support the emergence of capitalism at some point (a process somewhat demonstrated by real-world attempts to implement “market socialism”[8]).


Capitalism therefore, defined as the “rule of capital”, is, in every sense, at odds with popular sovereignty. If social-democrats accept “decent capitalism” as a goal, they are essentially pleading for capital to be decent as they are not capable of advancing any meaningful counter-power, such as powerful, well-organised trade-unions or citizens’ alliances to ensure this. In fact, the “decent capitalism” of the post-war Keynesian era, that forms the basis for this vision, was “decent” precisely because capitalism was compromised and partly balanced by a rising wave of democratisation. This democratic revolution was, unfortunately, undermined by circumstances and partially abandoned in the late 1970’s, at which point the neo-liberal counter-revolution seized the initiative. After WWII, capitalism was forced into an open-ended compromise with democracy, from the 1980’s onwards it has been busy undoing the bonds imposed by that era.


Just as it is impossible to serve two masters, it is also impossible to simultaneously uphold the power of capital and the sovereignty of the people. The unsatisfactory compromise offered by liberalism is to separate the political from the economic, leaving the economy to the abstraction known as the market (in truth, organised corporate interests) whilst parliaments elected by the people handle what remains of the political. In short, according to the theory, the “market” will see to employment, prices, wages and the distribution of essential and non-essential goods and services, whilst “democracy” need content itself with rulings on issues such as the permissibility of gay marriage, the criminalisation of flag-burning, gun ownership, abortion or other details of the social, cultural and political milieu. In such an environment, politics becomes a matter of flavour and preference with cultural issues substituting for questions of class power, redistribution or the provision of social goods and services[9]. That social-democrats have allowed themselves to be led down this path is a sad indictment of the robustness of socialist thought and strategy in the current era.


As Thomas Meyer points out[10], economic issues, issues of public welfare and economic justice give democracy its substance. If the liberal celebration of “negative freedom” (i.e. “freedom from” as opposed to “positive freedom” being the “freedom to” act or access something[11]) leads to little more than the “freedom” to be unemployed, homeless, ignorant or uninsured, there is good reason for adopting a more balanced and sober attitude. There is no point speaking of “freedom” unless people have the basis on which to enjoy that freedom and this can only be assured politically, by means of an active, participatory democracy that embraces all areas of public life.


Thomas Meyer roots his approach to social-democracy in the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and there is some merit in referring to this document. The Declaration attempts not to align itself overtly with any particular political or economic theory or ideology although it is quite explicit in its advocacy of a political and social democracy entailing a raft of full social and political rights. Indeed, the resulting document proves, in its fundamentals, incompatible with either capitalism or communism (as practised in the Soviet Bloc or China) but highly compatible with either democratic socialism or social-liberalism and, indeed, it was on this terrain that the post-war Western European political order was established. The emergent order was a compromise between socialism and capitalism which, although capitalism was always the dominant force, arguably also contained the (historically unrealised) potential also to evolve in a more socialist direction.

It is worthwhile remembering that liberals such as Keynes, although by no means socialists, were also very much disenchanted with capitalism, although they grudgingly tolerated its continuation as the least-bad of the available alternatives. The aim of Keynesian demand-management was the general welfare and it saw capitalism as a tool, a means rather than an end. Keynes’ economics were, therefore open-ended and evolutionary and, arguably, contained the seeds equally of what could become either a democratic socialist or a social-liberal approach.


Although the benign capitalism of the “social market economy” may have resembled, in practice, the social-democratic ideal of a “democratic mixed economy” in truth the intentions were, and are, different. The social market may be “social” but the market is the indispensable, central mechanism of the economy, albeit modified where necessary by the need for a degree of social justice (again, to the degree that it does not “distort” the market mechanism). The “democratic mixed economy” however is an open-ended evolutionary project which stresses democracy as its primary feature. Its goal is not mere benevolent capitalism but a terrain on which new, emancipatory forms of property and production are able to evolve and emerge. It does not seek to overthrow capitalism in a frontal assault, nor necessarily to entirely eliminate market mechanisms from the economy, but rather to tame them, then subordinate them to the general good where possible. The difference, in brief, is that the “social market” is conceptually rooted in the market and therefore limited by the demands of the market whereas a “democratic mixed economy” is conceptually rooted in, and limited by, the demands of democracy and social justice. In the former, the limits of the social are determined by the market whereas, in the latter, the limits of the market are determined by the social.

Of course, in the real world, assuming the basis for a new compromise could be created, there would be a competition in politics between the visions of the “democratic economy” and the “social-market” which was, indeed, the ideological cleavage separating the Centre-Right and Centre-Left in the post-war Western European political economy. The democratic Left begins from the assumption that its own vision must be fought for amidst a plurality of competing visions and approaches. Any democratic political project must be open-ended and subject to both advances and reversals. It is a pity that the large sections of the Centre-Left abandoned its own vision before it had even achieved the bulk of its goals, although there is still a chance it will find its way back home.


At this point, it is perhaps appropriate to remember the approach of Eduard Bernstein for whom the “movement (was) everything, the end nothing”. The end, for modern socialists, is perhaps not “nothing”, in that it helps to have a landmark in the distance by which we can measure our progress, although, the nature of social-evolution is such that there usually is no identifiable end that can be discerned as one victory endlessly opens the path to new struggles. The goal of the Centre-Left therefore ought to be to ensure that the direction of evolution be towards greater freedom, equality and solidarity. Getting trapped in the historical cul-de-sacs of specific systems or institutional frameworks, whether it be “state-socialism” or “decent capitalism”, is the passport to extinction. Socialists need to imitate life itself and embrace constant evolution, but they must never forget the direction they wish to evolve in if they are to avoid the fate of the dinosaurs and dodos of the past. In time, terms such as “democratic mixed economy” are bound to pass their use-by date and develop into hidebound clichés as reality continues to extend its limits and social-democrats, if they are even continuing to call themselves by that name by then, will once again need to adapt or die, but always, hopefully, on the path to ever more democracy, ever more equality, liberty and fraternity.


[1] Lakoff and Westen’s work strongly parallel and even largely duplicate each other. The most comprehensive exposition of their approach can be found in:
Lakoff, George (2008): The Political Mind: why you can’t understand 21st-century politics with an 18th-century brain, Penguin, NY
Westen, Drew (2007): The Political Brain: the role of emotion in understanding the fate of the nation Public Affairs, NY
[2] Professor Fred Block points this out frequently in his work on capitalism and social-democracy and particularly compellingly in a Miwon lecture he delivered to Kyung-Hee University, Korea on September 26 2011, entitled; The Origins of the Current Crisis of Global Modernity
[3] Articulated most clearly by Karl Polanyi, especially in his magnum opus The Great Transformation. See
Polanyi Karl (2001 (1944) The Great Transformation, The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Boston,
Beacon Press
[4] These ideas are explored widely in Polanyi’s writings on economic history and can also be found in Eric Hobsbawm’s writing on the era as well as in a number of other sources. There is a wide range of literature dealing with the Islamic Middle-East however, among the best is probably the 3-volume investigation on the political-economy of the Ottoman Empire by Halil İnalcık and Donald Quataert., see
İnalcık H & Quataert D (1994) An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, CUP, Cambridge
[5] Polanyi Karl (1944) op.cit.
[6] This is also mentioned by Polanyi but also widely commented on by a very wide range of other sources positioned on all points of the political spectrum. It was even acknowledged by former U.S.president Dwight D. Eisenhower in his musings on the “military-industrial complex”.
[7] David Korten is a leading proponent of a non-capitalist market economy. Most of his work embraces the central contention that capitalism is actually not a market system and that a “true” market economy is the solution. In many respects, his work is reminiscent of classical Proudhonian mutualism.
[8] Examples of this may be cited as the collapse of Yugoslav market socialism as well as the rather makeshift “goulash socialism” of communist Hungary but also the feeble market reforms of perestroika or state-capitalism of China and Vietnam. It remains to be seen how the emerging reforms in Cuba are likely to take shape.
[9] For an enthusiastic embrace of this process, see Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat
Friedman Thomas (2005) The World Is Flat: a brief history of the twenty-first century FSG NY
[10] Meyer, Thomas & Hinchman, Lewis (2005 (2007) The Theory Of Social Democracy Cambridge, Polity Press
[11] The distinction between “positive” and “negative” freedoms here are based on the categories introduced by Sir Isaiah Berlin in his famous essay Two Concepts of Liberty.

Abbott a'Courting and Conservative? PPL, Nannies and the Nanny State

above: Tony Abbott
In this guest-post article Tom Holland provides a critique of Tony Abbott's complex ideological contortions.  Holland explores the tensions between 'Abbott the Conservative' and 'Abbott the economic liberal'.  Holland thinks it ironic that Abbott puruses policies for parental leave and elsewhere that could be described as 'socialist'.  The blog publisher (Tristan Ewins), however, observes that populist social programs have been implemented in the past by Conservative social forces seeking to broaden their appeal. (eg: Bismarck's 'practical Christianity' - Social Programs implemented in 1880s Germany partly intended to undercut the Social Democrats)

This article was originally published at Tom's blog on March 31st 2012. 

See:  http://cousinzoidfarb.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/abbott-acourting-and-conservative-ppl.html

Tom Holland

Tony Abbott has gone a'courting this year with big ticket policy proposals for women voters, and in the process has exposed confused purposes at the heart of Coalition policy formation and an ideological departure that will disappoint conservatives.

The extremely generous proposed Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme, and the recently announced plans to extend the child-care rebate to in-home nannies are policies designed to woo women voters to Mr Abbott and the Coalition. Both of Mr Abbott's proposed schemes have their merits and are likely to appeal to voters. But both policies are decidedly 'big government' initiatives, and are at odds with Abbott's attacks on the Government, most notably over the Carbon Tax and the NBN, and more broadly with 'small government' conservatism that underpins Liberal thought. Recent weeks have produced friction and confusion for the Coalition party room accommodating the growing divide between the tenets of their faith and the approach of their leader. Does this change in policy sit with Abbott's political philosophy, or does it represent a divergence in favour of populism?

Abbott, the Conservative

The Liberal Party in Australia is the custodian of two ideological traditions - Liberalism and Conservatism. One champions the importance of the individual while the other places faith in the importance of our society's institutions. The contentions of both philosophies create a natural contradiction, which continues to this day. But with the emergence of socialism, to which both were opposed, a pragmatic union of the traditions occurred in the modern Australian context in the form of the Liberal Party. Party members still identify as liberal or conservative, known as 'wets or 'dries', with Tony Abbott very much in the latter camp.

Damien Freeman wrote an interesting analysis of the the political philosophy of Tony Abbott in Quadrant in 2010, examining what Abbott saw as the obligations for a conservative politician to justify policy decisions. He notes that Abbott, in his book Battlelines, explains that a conservative is not burdened to produce a unifying ideological justification for policy in the same way as socialists or liberals.

Abbott argues that the other ideological traditions are obliged to impose and justify change based on their philosophical model on how they wish the future to be. He argues that progressive conservatives, rather than opposing change, accept the inevitability of a changing society and need to ensure that this change occurs in deference to the past and its institutions - “achievement is possible because ‘pygmies are standing on the shoulders of giants’”.

Whilst Abbott argues that an all-encompassing ideological justification is not required of the conservative, Freeman does enumerate a few ways Abbott believes policy can be explained. Firstly, the ideological explanation from either a liberal or conservative perspective. Secondly, an 'approach that transcends ideology' and goes to nationalism and the national interest. Thirdly, a purely pragmatic policy approach without ideological abstraction. And finally, what Freeman calls the 'counter-ideological approach' where policy is directed towards frustrating an opposing abstract idea rather than promoting one's own.

When Abbott defeated Malcolm Turnbull and Joe Hockey, both liberals, for the leadership of the party, he restored a conservative approach to politics and brought with him his political philosophy. Through the prism of Freeman's analysis, one can identify where Abbott would justify his efforts up until this year. He opposes the Carbon Tax on counter-ideological grounds, takes a hard stand on asylum seekers on what he sees as nationalistic grounds and could justify his opposition to pokies reform on liberal ideological grounds. But when one considers recent policy announcements, it is difficult to explain these using Abbott's own methods.

The Nanny Scheme and Paid Parental Leave

This week it was announced that a Nanny scheme would be referred to the Productivity Commission by a new Abbott Government as a matter of priority. It would entail extending the non-means-tested child-care rebate to nannies, who are not currently covered. The child-care rebate increased under the Rudd Government to 50% of costs to a maximum of $7500 per annum per child with child-care subsidies already costing $3 billion dollars a year. The nanny scheme threatens to increase this burden.

While it is likely to produce some migration of children from centre to nanny care, thus ameliorating the expense, it will still be a costly undertaking for the tax-payer. Mr. Abbott has said the scheme must come from within the constraints of the "existing budget envelope", but given that he rejected the proposal at the last election due to its sizeable cost, this does not seem a realistic expectation. More recent comments from Liberal sources have suggested that Abbott knows this.

The other key policy announcement by the opposition recently was the PPL scheme, which is more starkly contrary to their aims of minimising government spending. The Coalition's PPL scheme will pay a new mother a full replacement wage for 6 months, including superannuation, of up to $150,000 per annum and is expected to cost $3.2 billion. Counter-intuitively for the Coalition, it will sting its natural business constituency to pay for it. Under the scheme, a levy of 1.5% tax will be applied on businesses earning over $5 million.

In this sense, it is not dissimilar to the Carbon Tax which Mr Abbott has lambasted as overreaching government interference in the economy, and has routinely warned will drastically increase the cost of living with flow-on costs to consumers. Perhaps this is not lost on some members of the Coalition with the scheme drawing uncharacteristically public opprobrium from the Liberal backbench and mixed signals from the front bench.

Abbott, the Populist

So lets return to Abbott's methods for explaining conservative policy. These policies are contradictory from a conservative point of view with government funding of the family unit via the PPL, only to disband it with incentives for carers to return to work through the Nanny scheme. Neither scheme is easily justified through nationalism, nor pragmatism when there are adequate existing schemes. And they can hardly be described as counter-ideological as each are 'big government' policies which will spend more on these issues than the social-democratic government of the day.

The Abbott opposition has spent much of its tenure attacking Labor for imposing a nanny state on Australians. Yet now, they have introduced two cornerstone policies, which have been described as close to Abbott's heart, which are closer to socialist in philosophy than liberal or conservative. As Emma Alberici put to Barnaby Joyce on ABC's Lateline programme, if "the Coalition in government would reverse the nanny state, [why are you] saying the state should pay for nannies?"

The answer lies with Abbott, and a departure from the political philosophy that guided him this point. Perhaps a still personally unpopular Abbott, faced with a re-united Labor Party, even with a recent thrashing in Queensland and abysmal polling at present, senses that he must lift his efforts to personally appeal to voters. The PPL and Nanny scheme are policy for populism's sake, and we may see more of it yet before the next election.

Election Fiction versus Political Reality

above: the author, Justin George

In this article, Justin George considers the shallowness of discourse surrounding the 2010 Australian Federal Election.  Spin and trivia overshadow political substance, obscuring the narrowness of choice between the main parties.  But regardless, rather than counselling resignation the author calls for mobilisation and hope.


by Justin George

The vacuousness of the current Australian election is the culmination of several trends that have been shaping and directing Australian politics over the last 15+ years.

From the time of the ALP brokered ‘Accord’ between unions and business to allow for the introduction of Hawke and Keating’s free market reforms, to the push to the right and conservatism of the Howard years that resulted in a jingoistic and antiquated form of nationalism and political dialogue, Australian politics and political parties have drifted to the right of the political spectrum for the last twenty or more years.

The ‘wilderness’ years of the ALP during the Howard reign, saw it completely shake itself of any meaningful remnants of its past as a worker’s party. To share power in modern Australia requires appealing not to working class interests or improving the daily lives of the majority of the population, but to ensure and secure the wealth, privilege and power of those at the top-Corporate Australia.

Both the ALP and LNP have moved away from their traditional, ideological bases. The disconnect of the ALP from any meaningful popular working class base is mirrored by the trade unions themselves as both have sought power over true representation.

The Liberal Party under Howard moved away from the principles of classical Liberalism, where concepts of freedom, justice and minimizing the intervention of government in people’s lives emerged from a rich theoretical heritage, to a Liberalism that serviced the economic realm solely. This was combined with a social conservatism that abandoned Liberal notions, outside of economic policy, completely.

The result has been a politics in Australia that is firmly framed by the right, with a two party dominated system where both parties rely upon and pander to business for financial support to replace the lack of meaningful popular bases within the country.

In a feedback loop, each party has moved more to ensure business support and funding. The further disconnected they have become from traditional bases, the further their reliance on business has become. This in part also explains why both parties have needed to embrace the rhetoric of populist politics to camouflage their policies’ true benefactors.

All of this has been driven by the current corporate media environment we see in Australia today. In this environment only two companies own and control all the nation’s major newspapers and television stations. The result, here, is that only one nationally available newspaper is published - run by billionaire Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch’s media empire spans the globe reflecting his rightwing, neoliberal position via a cynical form of crass populism.

As media ownership becomes concentrated and as people’s spare time becomes more pressed, the pressures on politics and media are to strip away meaningful debate. Exploration of ideas, of policies and their merits, are forsaken in favour of sound bites, catchphrases and the more entertaining clash of personalities.

The economic structure of corporate media also drives this process. A focus on profit rather than providing a public service to the population drives the current media model. A general rejection of intelligent and challenging programming that does not assume a lack of intelligence on behalf of its audience has seen a rise in sensationalist and vacuous news and current affairs coverage that appeals to the lowest common denominator.

The dumbing-down of news, and particularly politics, to a circus - a real life soap opera of personalities - makes for splashy headlines and easy to produce but highly rating television segments and news programs. This strategy is designed to increase audience ratings - which then enable television stations to sell advertising time or space at higher rates. This facilitates - for the right price - the meeting of a captive audience to a company’s particular product or service.

Politics then becomes another profitable media extravaganza: cheap to produce and to market, but yielding excellent returns. Finding or developing a political narrative rather than political content and meaning becomes the primary focus. In this manner we see elections being a clash of personalities and special interest stories: of Julia Gillard’s husband; of Tony Abbott’s sporting pursuits; the drama of Kevin Rudd being pushed out of office- the ‘who said what to whom’. If a narrative line plays itself out, or a more exciting or controversial narrative can be found then the story changes quickly and like Orwell’s memory-hole the previous issues or stories are quickly forgotten.

It is this framework that politics and political parties - especially during an election - pander to. Rather than challenge the reduction of important issues and ideals to mere soap, political parties cater to it.

Hence we have ‘Moving Forward’ vs ‘Real Action’. Hence we have debates so heavily scripted that the purpose of having a debate is itself lost. This is visible in both parties’ policies, especially the craven and ugly narratives being played out regarding asylum seekers, immigration and all the fears and resentment it carries. Policies like that attract headlines and vocal support from Murdoch’s lackeys and shoulder shrugs or mild handwringing from the Fairfax media.

This corporate media environment facilitates the appearance of difference between the parties. By removing the need for meaningful difference, news media helps enable the appearance of difference via its soap opera narrative coverage. In another cyclical process, the shift of Australian politics towards the right has also driven the media to find stories and divisions where few actually exist. As the parties become similar on what matters, media coverage spends more time on the remaining superficial differences.

Both the ALP and LNP are parties of business: only the degrees vary. To compete, the ALP moved to the right. Now out of power, the LNP has found it necessary to move even further to the right. In an attempt to not be undercut, the ALP, with Gillard at the helm, has sought to trend its policies even further to the right again.

The ALP seeks to mask its politics with an appearance of concern for ‘working families’ and the like. The Liberal-National coalition isn’t restricted by such niceties. The fundamental policy and ideological substance shared by the two remains the same.

The lack of difference then sees debate centring on how much, if any, tax should be placed on the mining industry. Or which market driven response to climate change is preferred. Or who can be the most ruthless to desperate people arriving from war-torn countries.

The debate is not on whether the market is fundamentally flawed in addressing climate change, which is an effect of the wasteful inefficiencies of the market that now threaten environmental collapse.
The debate does not centre on whether the mining industry should be nationalized with public control deciding how profits are distributed for public benefit.

The debate does not centre on the fact that our military, or our allies, are directly responsible for the destruction that forces people to flee their homes in leaky boats.

Such a politics would require principles and courage, a respect for democratic notions.

The mining tax ‘furore’ especially demonstrates the increasing vulnerability of our meagre democratic processes to big business and media manipulation. The modest attempt by Rudd Labor to cut into mining companies’ profits, and therefore their power, was responded to by an industry threat to remove the government from power via a 200 million dollar media assault.

This highlights how all parties involved pursued their own interests and forgot about the Australian people. The ALP kowtowed to the mining lobby, avoiding a campaign against it during an election year. The mining companies obviously were seeking to maintain their exorbitant profits, not caring about the environmental and other costs that come from practices. The media not only received a situation that could be easily framed into an appropriate narrative, it also was happy to receive the money from the mining companies for the advertising space to protest against the tax.

The difficulty of a principled, truly democratic and participatory Australian politics emerging is thus evident. If introducing substantive changes that seek to shift power from corporate Australia back to the Australian population were introduced it would face challenges much greater and widespread than witnessed with Rudd’s mining tax.

It is in this manner that both parties are parties of corporate Australia. To challenge their masters would see them removed from political power either from without or from within as we have seen recently. The result then is an interconnected race towards a hollow democracy lacking in real choice or democratic participation, driven by image instead of substance.

However, just as the problem is a web of interrelated issues, potential solutions also rely upon addressing these interconnections. Addressing the corporate strangle hold on Australian politics involves in the short term refusing to participate in the two party system. Voting for independently funded parties helps undermine the two dominant parties’ power base. If third parties are successful, election reform and parliamentary reform could bring about an end of the two party system in favour of proportional systems such as those in Europe where a range of political actors shape policy rather than merely two.

Media ownership reform is needed. Australia has the least diverse media ownership in the world. TV and newspapers provide a vital role in educating and informing people about what is happening in their society, a vibrant media means a healthy democracy.

Reject sensationalist news media. Turn it off or don’t purchase it. Demand meaningful content, and support small independent operations that provide critical information about those in power. Democracy means informed citizenry.

In the longer term, corporate, market economics must be seen for what it is- inherently anti-democratic, environmentally unsustainable and unreformable. Our economic, political and media realms all need active popular participation, with processes that engage people, facilitating democratic input and direction on how we organize our lives, how we make decisions, the principles that guide those decisions and the media that reflects, questions and analyses those decisions.

Further, we need a politics that addresses the needs of a majority of the population; and that seeks to empower the population; engaging them in the political process rather than one designed to create apathy and cynicism.

It is easy to be cynical in the modern world. To do so often feels like rebellion, but it merely masks an acceptance - and thus a complicity - with the world as it currently stands, and those small few who benefit from it. Elections remind people of this reality: of how little say we have in the current workings of power.

That, however, can be changed in both the short and long term. It requires demanding more from those in power; critically engaging in politics; rejecting cynicism in favour of principles such as democratic participation, equitable outcomes, and sustainability.

In doing so, Australian politics still holds potential be filled with substance: such as to improve and enrich our lives rather than maintaining the current state of popular disillusionment. In promoting popular mobilisation and hope: a better world remains possible.


Justin George is a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne and Participatory Society Advocate. His writing can be found at http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/movingpast

nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.
see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565