The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The death of politics- part 1 > Comments

The death of politics- part 1 : Comments

By Peter McMahon, published 11/8/2005

Peter McMahon argues politics as we know it has changed with the weakening power of nation states.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Sorry Peter, this is just another “leftie whinge”.

All the bad nasty neo-conservatives – lead by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

Turning away from protectionist policies which nourished the “entrenched” and toward a world with more of a “level playing field” (oh I remember Bob Hawke using that turn of phrase - maybe he was a closet neo-con too).

Reality is this

The World is a changing place.
Protectionist policies and practices have been repealed and torn down just like the Berlin Wall.
Socialist ideals and mantras are as out of place as trench warfare would be in a contemporary conflict today.
The Siege mentality (Fortress Australia – protected by huge tariffs and import quotas which in turn indulged inefficient local manufacturers and union practices and were confronted by like tactics in potential export markets) does not compete on a world stage.

Politics nowadays is a matter of interpreting and representing public opinion. It is not a matter of paternalistic shaping and controlling of society, as preferred by the old socialists.

Politics is not dead.
The “politics of your comfort zone” may be dead.
But possibly it is the limitations of your “comfort zone” which defines your real problem.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 11 August 2005 10:24:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry col, politics is dead, we have no choice any nore and are in the control of corrupt monopolies that control the political scene. As to comfort zones, I feel that they are about to be removed from us all. We are about to enter a world and time that will change the way life is viewed here and political monopolies are to blame for that. only those to blind to se won't see it coming, until they hit the wall
Posted by The alchemist, Thursday, 11 August 2005 10:54:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Protectionist policies and practices have been repealed and torn down just like the Berlin Wall."

Come on Col which planet do you live on?
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 11 August 2005 11:08:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The alchemist – what a cynical view – I am not responsible for such

Because the liberal/ conservative side of politics is not in the pocket of the union bosses (like socialist politicians), does not mean they are in the pocket of monopolists.

If our government were in such a pocket, institutions like ACCC, US Trade and UK Monopolies Commissions etc. would not exist.

Kenny – I live on this planet. I suggest you ask any Australian clothing or Shoe manufacturer if they now experience anything like the degree of “protectionism” they had in 1970.

You will have noticed you pay less on clothes and many other manufactured products than you would have done 30 years ago – a benefit of free-trade, or do you only see with one eye and measure but one side of the equation?
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 11 August 2005 12:32:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col - what about the Reagan Sugar Bill, so totally sacrosanct it was the sticking point of the Australian/US FTA (and before which, Australian canegrowers were thoroughly competitive)? EU subsidies and dumping? Free trade exists, except when it doesn't. And the bigger the player, the less interest there is in free trade. Free trade, sadly, is the mantra of the powerless. And the mantra of the powerful wanting cheap exports, while protecting their own industries.
Posted by anomie, Thursday, 11 August 2005 1:02:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Priminister Howards call for party unity over the unpalatable sale of Telstra and IR reforms signals to the community that not all of their candidates who represent communities agree with these reforms and changes.

Mr Howard needs to put aside the gun that he is holding to heads in the name of party unity and insist that the Candidates who have been elected for their electorates, represent their community who voted them in.

Not all communities have the same needs and this was realised in the implementation of our Constitution and the implementation of the Westminster system for a fair and equatable representation of the people voice.

These bully boy tactics that have gone on within our parliament walls for far too long need to cease and parliamentary representatives of community need to start standing up for their constituants.

Australians have been deceived with our current representatives who have been in our Ivory Tower, parliament. Their representatives have become store blind over the fifteen to twenty years they have held their seats.

Political members of political parties can still have the moral and value of the party but it should not stop our representatives of parliament from being honest and in the Nations best interest for all, not some.
Posted by suebdoo2, Thursday, 11 August 2005 1:45:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking generally I think Peter is becoming somewhat pessimistic about politics as he gets on. While not of his years I cannot identify any good old days when politicians were above human frailty.

I've found that our politicians, of the left or right, have almost always been a dour derivative bunch.

If someone points to Gough as the exception - he would have truly served the voters well if he stayed in longer. But that takes rat cunning in addition to the higher political plain (that Peter yearns for).
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 11 August 2005 2:05:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Politics as it relates to the voters has been dead for quite some time: And I dont see Peters comment as a leftist whinge - and thats a phrase straight from Andrew Bolts lexicon of derision.
I no longer think the divide between the left and right is that significant; what is problematic is the divide between those who are genuinely interested in the well being of their neighbour and those who are not.

But aportioning blame to either side of politics denies the reality of contemporary change. There is no longer time to continue to renegotiate the social contract on any front.

Where we once had the luxury of time to mull over the introduction of new technologies the average punter is now swamped with new ideas developing at an exponential rate - look at the brou haha over reproductive technology; for better or worse we were knee deep in IVF kids before the community could say happy birthday; and the ethical challenges keep on coming. The law makers and the community are always stuck playing catch up football to the pioneers of thought.

Over arching Politcal systems are not much different. The challenges facing politicians also arrive at a much faster rate than they have the capacity to manage. Few issues are home grown; most have an international perspective and wave after wave of new ideas need to be addressed within shorter time frames; politicians more and more interested in the concept of power for its own sake will exploit this fact.

Consultation is meagre, decisions are made at an executive level, debate is stifled, dissent is dealt with harshly; all that coupled with no vision sees the voter out in the cold.

I dont see it as necessarily a creature of the neo cons; succesive government embrace centralisation and a minimalist appraoch to consultation - it suits them. Its gets their ideas across the line.

I am not as pessimistic as Peter. But a change will only come from a leader who is prepared lose an election on a principle with an eye on the future.
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 11 August 2005 5:11:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

As a mature 'ager with a political science degree majoring in International Relations, would like your opinion on economic rationalism - first promoted by Bob Hawk - being regarded as a doctrine aligning Labor and Liberal too close for political commonsense?

Some say Labor would probably be safer if it stuck to its allotted role of social democracy.

Regards,

George C - (Bushbred)
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 11 August 2005 5:33:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Makes perfect sense to me. "Politics" is now a career, not a calling. That politicians never experience business in any shape or form, but simply work the party system to become elected, is today the norm rather than the exception. This applies equally to both sides of the political fence. Their limited collective experience is one of the reasons we have a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy running this country, hell-bent on finding more rules to impose, and more laws to choke the life out of any initiative or originality.

It is all very well to say "'twas ever thus", but the compounding effect of a massive public service that needs to justify its existence by continually growing, and a political class that concerns itself with i) the next election, ii) awarding itself more pay and iii) demanding, and receiving, obscene superannuation and perks, has brought us to a very sad place indeed.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 11 August 2005 5:55:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

Politics is counting heads.

Direction is Left or Right.

The Hard Left lost the economic debate in Australia with the success of the Hawke/Keating economic program.

However the opportunities delivered by Labor in terms of education and participation are worth noting heavily.

"Education, Education, Education" which could equally mean "the Ladder of Opportuinity" is the new mantra as is "social obligation".

The Hard Left lost - get over it and think about all the great things Hawke/Keating did to improve all our lives,

Corin
Posted by Corin McCarthy, Thursday, 11 August 2005 7:02:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many concepts have been prematurely pronounced dead - history, god, tyranny, and poverty come to mind, and now politics. As some posters have pointed out, politics is a dynamic thing and has always undergone change, so the fact that it has changed does not mean it has died. However politics has become very corporatised since the 80's, and in doing so its lofty aims have been replaced with the business principles of competition, market forces, and shareholder return. In a sense this does destroy its soul. Art, elite sport, religion, and charity have also become largely corporatised and in the process lost most of their spirit.

I dont think we can lay all the blame for this on multinationals - they may epitomise coporatisation, but I suspect we are all becoming more corporatised. We increasingly view ouselves in terms of market segments and niches, and our lives focus more on short term returns and less on intangibles. As the philospher Baudrillard said, "our political authorities themeselves are but mere shadows of their declared functions", but perhaps they are only mirroring their constituents.
Posted by AndrewM, Thursday, 11 August 2005 9:34:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why is it that GDP per capita in government outlays have risen steadily in the Australian economy since WW2 and very much under the "highest taxing government in Australian history" under Howard if the state had been so "repudiated".

What is clear is that we are reaching a tolerance point and balance between when the state promotes opportunity for most and where efficiency is maintained. Victory!

Where regulation has reduced is primarily trade liberalisation and competition policy. If someone can find an economic argument against these please feel free to enlighten me.
Posted by Corin McCarthy, Friday, 12 August 2005 12:44:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Corin
Peter's article may have been partially motivated by anti government sentiment, but his central point still has some validity. Politics should be about principles, debate, and ideas as well as improving standards of living. If we treat politics as a business and look at it from a purely economic viewpoint we see it is improving all the time, but businesses are not democratic and are only driven by one principle - maximisation of shareholder return. Politics should be bigger than that, and so we shouldn't just assess it in purely material terms like GDP, tax rate, greenhouse gas output, or square km of tree coverage.
Posted by AndrewM, Friday, 12 August 2005 8:14:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anomie - WTO has a standing system of review and challenges to anti-competitive behaviour – it is a feature it has had all along (if you bothered to listen to the news you would have heard how USA and EEC are constantly challenging each other protectionist measures).

Ultimately a market is a market, the agents of both supply and demand will always battle for a commercial advantage. Likewise, governments are national bodies employed to serve the needs of their sovereign nation first.

As for your assertion re cheap exports and protection for domestic industry – USA has been at the forefront of the free trade movement – and has suffered considerably from opening up its markets both from imports from Canada and Mexico as well as ex-North America. Of course the US Auto companies are facing such a decline there is a need for drastic restructuring – yet the US economy is buoyant and growing – so I guess something “good” must also be happening too.

The benefits of “freer trade” infinitely outweigh the hiccups it causes and dysfunction it reveals to the institutions built around the credo of protectionism –

Although their will always be a wailing from the luddites,

Basically, because their will always be luddites and that is all they know - how to wail.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 12 August 2005 1:08:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy