Political comment and analysis is rife with labels, such as "right", "left", "wet", "dry", "conservative", "progressive", "liberal", and a multiplicity of others, and their variants and shades. Indeed, there has almost been an obsession with trying to fit individuals and parties under some particular label, even though none can ever be defined completely by any one label, nor do such classifications remain static.
The Liberal Party is generally seen to be conservative, along with the National Party, Family First Party, One Nation, Democratic Labor Party, Shooters Party and Katter's Australian Party. However, not conservative enough for the likes of Cory Bernardi, George Christensen, Tony Abbott and others in these parties who are threatening, more or less, to break away, perhaps even forming yet another "purer" conservative force.
More National News Videos
Abbott not helpful: Joyce
The former PM's recent comments including advice to Coalition colleagues isn't doing the party any favours according to the Deputy PM. Courtesy ABC.
Of course, there is no specific set of policies that could be regarded universally as conservative, let alone even among these proponents.
Much of the recent momentum has been emboldened by Brexit, the Trump victory, and the resurgence of Hanson, allowing these proponents to cherry-pick the anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, anti-climate elements of these events as fundamental elements of their "new conservatism".
This is also coming on the back of what has been referred to as the emergence of "Australia's Far-Right", consisting of various movements claiming to protect our history, our culture, our Aussie pride, and wanting to "make Australia great again" – including United Patriots Front, True Blue Crew, Party for Freedom, Australian Liberty Alliance, Reclaim Australia, Halal Choice, Aussie Farmers First, and so on – all anti-Muslim/Islam, anti-immigration, anti-asylum seekers, but some with dashes of anti-politicians, anti-political correctness, anti-welfare cheats, and more.
There are various "anti-establishment" elements but they are basically mechanisms for racism and bigotry, designed to incite race hate, and to hopefully close our borders to Muslims, at the very least.
As populist as this may be in the current political environment, it is clearly against our national interest, given the overwhelming evidence of the significance of immigration to our post-war development, and the richness and diversity of our tolerant multi-cultural society, surely the greatest national asset that we have created over that time.
Moreover, it is incomprehensible that we would consciously seek to isolate key ethnic communities, when we need their co-operation to root out terrorists, to uncover potential terrorist activities, and to minimise the risk of radicalisation.
Some, like Bernardi and Abbott, also want to compound all this by further weakening section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. While in different circumstances this may have been drafted differently, it couldn't be a worse time to contemplate a change.
The "new conservatism" also unifies in its scepticism about climate change, but mostly just scaremongering over power prices – again, clearly against our longer-term national interests – by eschewing effective debate about, and thereby delaying, the essential transition to a low-carbon society.
However, conservative attitudes to economic management vary. Some argue the urgency of budget repair, but simply imagine this can be achieved by attacking dole bludgers, welfare fraud, and foreign aid, while promising tax cuts and protecting areas such as defence and their particular "pork". Others have moved to the Trump camp, now backing massive stimulus to "restore growth".
The National Party has always been less pure than conservatives on key economic issues. Issues such as free trade – wanting free access to foreign markets (but preferably via a "single desk" marketing authority), while seeking to simultaneously impose health, quarantine and anti-dumping restrictions on foreign competitors they may face in our domestic economy, and also demanding various subsidies and support for farmers and miners – diesel rebates, concessional loans, and other subsidies. Similarly, on welfare – the Nats are hard on the disadvantaged, unless they are farmers facing drought, flood and fire.
It is important to ask just how much of this "new conservatism" is simply motivated by ambition and ego, as the main proponents believe in (and start to wallow in) their own media. As Charles Krauthammer said of Trump: "The world outside himself has value – indeed exists – only insofar as it sustains and inflates him."
John Howard often referred to the "broad church" of the Liberal Party, while running a very narrow conservative agenda, and indeed only giving token recognition to the small "l" liberals in the party. He could do that because he never faced any real opposition, either internally or from the other side (pre-Rudd).
Turnbull has a more difficult task, having sold out to conservative forces to gain the leadership, and now having to govern with just a seat majority, and a difficult Senate.
But, as much as it is a situation of his own making, his credibility and future depends on his ability to manage it, while delivering real leadership and good government in the national interest. He can't simply govern just to placate the conservatives, yet he can't afford for them to break out either.
How he does will be the story of 2017.
John Hewson is a professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, and a former Liberal opposition leader.
252 comments
Comment are now closed