Monday, October 11, 2004

POST-MORTEM ON THE RECENT DEFEAT OF THE AUSTRALIAN LEFT

Various people say that Leftist leader Mark Latham lost because of his bullying personality but, seeing that John Howard is a totally colourless personality, it seems to me that neither party had much to offer in the charisma stakes. So I think it does come down to policies.

Australia is lucky that its major Leftist party (the Australian Labor Party or "ALP") is one of the most conservative Leftist parties that there are (only Singapore's P.A.P. springs to mind as a rival). The sort of pro-market, pro-free-enterprise reforms that were in the USA and the UK the work of Reagan and Thatcher were in Australia principally the work of the ALP. (Though it was John Howard who nobbled the unions via the big defeat of the maritime unions).

The Australian Left was not always like that, however. The short-lived Whitlam (ALP) government of the 1970s did a lot of damage to the economy -- mainly through amateurism rather than ill-will towards anybody, though. And even the Whitlam government had some worthwhile economic policies -- with the fact that it started the process of dismantling Australia's traditionally highly protected economy being particularly to its credit. For what I wrote on the Whitlam government at the time, see here.

The damage that the Whitlam regime inflicted on the economy (mainly through overspending, with the resultant high inflation) did great harm to the reputation of the ALP as economic managers -- so that subsequent lacklustre conservative governments won office primarily because they were not the ALP. Nobody wanted a repeat performance of the disruptions of the Whitlam years. And to this day both major Australian parties make a big thing of their committment to surplus budgets -- though few people probably remember now that the committment originated as a reaction to Whitlam's big deficits.

Principally in the person of former Rhodes scholar Bob Hawke, the ALP saw therefore that they had to take economics seriously if they were to have the lasting trust of the Australian electorate. So when the conservative coalition finally died of total inanition (principally in the person of the ludicrous Billy McMahon), and the ALP finally regained power, Hawke took the opportunity to show that the ALP too could be economically rational -- by privatizing various government businesses, by reducing tariffs, by balancing the budget etc. Bob Hawke has however now long retired to private life and his legacy is beginning to wear off. And the first clear sign of that is the set of policies that ALP leader Mark Latham fought Saturday's election on. Although he has an honours degree in economics, Latham seemed to decide that it was time for the ALP to veer to the Left in many respects. He promised to get Australian troops out of Iraq "by Christmas", he shafted the forest industry workers in favour of a deep Green policy of banning the cutting down of almost all native trees, he made huge spending committments to the elderly and, most incredibly, refused to rule out raising taxes. The latter policy alone would probably have served to lose him the election.

So with all due respect to other more complex analyses (e.g. here) of the reason for the ALP's recent defeat, it seems clear to me the reason is very simple: The ALP lost simply because they were too Leftist for the Australian people. If Latham had stuck to the policies of his esteemed predecessor, Bob Hawke, he might well have won. It has often been said that Margaret Thatcher's principal asset was always the (then far-Left) British Labour Party. Similarly in Australia's recent election, Mark Latham was a considerable asset to John Howard.

*****************************

ELSEWHERE

As Australia is a generally irreligious country, the major Christian party ("Family First") in the recent election had little chance of much success and in fact seems to have gained only 2% of the vote nationwide. They may well win a Senate seat in the State of Victoria, however, (thanks to a combination of proportional representation and preference deals) -- in which case they could hold the balance of power in the Senate. Despite amusing media claims that they have "no policies", their policies are in fact classic conservative ones. Just a few excerpts: "Family First believes that Government should be as small as possible and that the principle of Subsidiarity should be a foundational consideration of how or if government should act or involve itself in any matter. This principle can be summarised as stating that the level at which decisions are made and administration is carried out should be as close to the level in society at which the impact of those decisions are felt... However Family First also recognises that there are core areas of business for Government such as defence and foreign affairs, policing, security etc. Economic management is also a core responsibility of governments as is ensuring a basic level of social security is guaranteed to citizens"... Government has a clear role in provision of educational choice... Family First believes that parents have primary responsibility for the care and education of their children and no Government ought to normally usurp this authority." More here (PDF).

A defeat for the intelligentsia: "On Saturday night the giant, lumbering road train known as the will of the people, aka the democratic process, smashed through the pretensions, delusions and manipulations of the unelected and unaccountable who presume to tell Australians what to think and who to be. In short order, John Howard has decimated four Labor leaders - Keating, Beazley, Crean and Latham - and in the process decimated the hopes of the True Believers and progressive utopians, the people who dominate the milieu in which I live and work. This milieu is now in toxic shock".

Fuller Theological Seminary ain't what it used to be: "A group of Fuller Theological Seminary professors, saying they are responding to a "grave moral crisis' in America, are signing a statement opposing President Bush's alleged convergence of God, church and nation and what they call his "theology of war.' " [Note the spelling "Proffesors" in the headline: California education at work]

Stupid Leftist protectionists ignore America's success: "While regularly incurring trade gaps and budgetary deficits, our economy has grown since the early 1980s from a level, depending on dollar valuation, between one-fifth and one-fourth of global GDP to close to one-third of global GDP last year. During this upsurge entirely unexpected by the same economists now advising Sen. Kerry, U.S. per capita GDP surged from 4.7 times per capita global GDP in 1980 to 6.5 times per capita global GDP in 2003. The U.S. created some 36 million net new jobs at ever higher levels of productivity and earnings, while Europe and Japan created scant employment at all outside of government and entered a productivity slump that continues today."

Black conservatism: "The Rev. William Turner voted for Bill Clinton twice and for Al Gore in 2000. But this year he is forming a coalition of African-American pastors in an effort to re-elect President Bush, who, he says, is "acting as the voice of God' by opposing same-sex marriage. Turner, 67, is pastor of the 1,000- member New Revelation Missionary Baptist Church in Northwest Pasadena.... "All sin is against God's will but homosexuality goes beyond the sin of lying, for instance,' Turner said. "... Homosexuality is a sin against God and they want the world to accept them in their sin brag about it, boast about it and want it to become part of America's lifestyle.'"

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the Kerry campaign. They have put up a man whose policies seem to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though they have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftism is for most Leftists a desire to sound good rather than a desire to do good


Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************

No comments: