DavidJS, another great post. I'm assuming in the last section when you talk about "conservative" voters you are using a different version of conservative to the one often used in Australian politics. I'm more concerned about the excesses of government than about terrorists, gays, etc. Not so sure about fundi christains but their excesses are generally being played out via the government rather than a hands on approach.

There are definately reaons some of us who do support personal liberty etc tend more to the "conservative" side of politics than the "left", how to match those reasons to the current government is another issue except that the alternatives seem even worse. In my dealings with moderates of a left persuasion I often find we have some common objectives in mind, what differs most is the way we want to get there. Different story for extremists of any persuasion.

As with most things balance in politics has ebbs and flows, right now the hardliners hold the power in the "conservative" side of politics, hopefully in time a more balanced approach will come back (I'm guessing that opponents won't see it that way but thats politics).

R0bert

The conservatives I am referring to here are John Howard's core constituency. Those more likely to vote Liberal/National (depending where they live) first and put religious based parties such as Families First or Christian Democrats further down the ticket. These people you'd think should be worried about the encroachment of government on everyday life and be cynical of government. But no, to be a Howard conservative is increasingly to want a "nanny state". Nanny with a big stick who can chase the nasty people away.

Whatever he did in office, Reagan's mantra was "get the government off people's backs". That was the conservative philosophy. Now conservative parties seem to be the biggest busybodies outside authoritarian regimes.

DavidJS

You got it!

The usual definition of a conservative used to be one of the rights of the individual and pro small government.

However, Johnnies connies (do U like that?) are another breed entirely. Look at all the legislation that has been rushed through which curtails individual freedoms from workers through to media. Although I won't be holding my breath to see if anything comes of Alan Jones' latest foray into sedition. Some people are definitely more equal than others in Howard's world.

Even old Malcolm Fraser (looking more like a leftie every day) states that the 'liberal' has been dropped from Liberal.

To think that people used to complain about Labor's nanny-state - it looks pretty tame compared to the rule by fear we are experiencing now.

And fear not only is contagious it seems to grow with repeating. For this reason I believe that things are going to get worse still. It would not be a far leap from 'Leb-bashing' to gay-bashing among the yob element.

Well, DavidJS and R0bert, on that gloomy note I wish you all the best that Australia and the coming year has to offer - may you be spared the worst and revel in the best.

Dianne

I've said my piece on gay marriage, but am interested in the discussion over whether the Liberals should be liberal or conservative.

Take a look at the major parties...

Labor was more socially conservative than the Liberals 55 years ago, take for example women within the workforce. It was a threat to the unions' position of power. After the DLP split, Labor was jolted to the left, more so in states like Victoria and ACT, less so in NSW and Queensland where the split was less prominant, and the people more conservative. Labor is moderately conservative; a unionist party with a powerful left-wing lobby. In some states, like Queensland, it's as conservative as the opposing National party.

The Liberal Party is a broader church: some socially "liberal" members, but also very conservative ones. Howard often opposes these conservatives, especially over gun ownership, but realises that his electoral sucess depends on his image as a steady, conservative fellow. Seeing the impact of Queensland's vote on the Coalition's recent success it's obvious that this conservatism is falling on acutely-listening ears.

The National Party also calls itself a broad church, but also calls itself a conservative party. It is the only party to affirm monarchy and family explicitely. The National party does not support classically liberal economics theories to the degree of their city cousins, and it's the same with their social policy.

The Libs are more liberal than the Nats, but don't have the willingness to restructure society which Labor does... and that's what I feel this article was asking for. Libs are about tolerance, but won't go futher, because they would disenfranchise a majority for the sake of a minority. As long as the gay movement attach itself to iconic issues such as some form of socially recognition of union, of adoption, of access to IVF, and promotion of gay lifestyles within the school system, it won't gain traction amongst the Liberal shot-callers. Then again, if the gay movement is to detach itself from such issues, it would cease being a movement, for it wouldn't aspire to much.

DFXK, good post. Being raised a Queensland farm boy I have tended to have a preference for the Nats and thought that they were more into personal liberty than the libs even if not being bleeding edge on social reform. As you said less willing to restructure society than labor.

Your comment about the Qld Labor party was interesting. I tend to think that they have addopted the worst aspects of the BJP govt without the good bits. Back to a topic I seem to hit regularly in one form or another lately (it makes an interesting benchmark item) is Beatty's treatment of calls for legalised nude beaches, utter refusal and the perception I got from media reporting was that the labor member who raised the issue again recently will find it a career limiting move to have done so. Very conservative.

Your comments about the ties to issues make a lot of sense, many "conservatives" are fine with gays but don't want the issue in their face (in private between consenting adults etc).

From what I have read in DavidJS's posts he does not fit the stereotype public profile and is not very threatening, too often the image is of the Mardi Gras (how do you spell that) and requests for personal services on toilet walls. Both of which tend to be kind of threatening.

I don't know how much any of that is adding to the overall discussion. I doubt that even a dropping of some of the more aggressive agenda's will help with a government which has such strong ties to the churches.

Thats enough ramblings for one post.
A great christmas to all and especially those who I count as friends on this site.

R0bert

There are words that offend like "gay"' I would call it "grey"' areas of human lust when men want to have sex with men and women with women .Read God's word in New testament Romans Chapter 1, it is as up to date as today's fresh bread , not archaic as some say and a word that was invented to please the homosexuals of the day is "homophobic", (not in dictionaries 'til recently)how about us Christians invent words like Christianphobic,Jewaphobic,Isalma phobic,all these religions don't agree with men or women having sexual relations with each other.

In the beginning God created man and wom - an for help (sex) mates.Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.If all were homos than there would be no humans anymore .The vagina was made for man to procreate. Lust and perversion are the names of homosexual relationships with sex diseases rampant,why is AIDS no longer a major topic in the media ? Can we trust the media?
Just like body piercing is a trendy thing ,so is having a Gay mate a trend ,as I see hetro going homo and vice versa for a while.
No body is born GAY it is taught and bought at a price.

Boys without a male model (dad) are mainly victims of the GAY set. Weak mother's are also involved with ruining their little boys in the bath tub up til teens as well.Come on Australia don't go down that path and blame religion it is religion that has ruined Christianity.Which is a lifestyle robbed by religious zealots .