Tristan

Good article.

The Howard government has no right to "hold the ring" in any national discussion on "Australian values". The Howard gang's only value is "whatever it takes". If we take part in some govt-initiated discussion on values, as we have to e.g .on the Robb citizenship discussion paper or in criticing the sedition laws, it should be with one main purpose - to expose that this criminal governmemt is wearing no clothes. (See my submission to the Robb enquiry, on my website tonykevin.com)

Good values grow out of good practice (deeds) by free Australians. They cannot be rammed down out throats by this gang of hypocrites and I reject absolutely their presumed right to try to do so. This has nothing to do with whether one is Right or Left or Green. It is about our freedom to choose who and what we are.

Don't feel too grim about some of the comments Tristan - some of the posters have previously said that the ultimate goal of left wing politics is to destabilise society.
As far as an attitudes go, I hardly think that kind of commentary reflects a willingess to consider alternative views.

Anyhow, while it's safe to say I identify with the left, I still can agree with some of the posts that indicate a dissatisfaction with the ALP. I can't help but feel that rather than being a true leftist party, the ALP has traditionally been more concerned with maintaining their union background. Whilst in simplistic terms this is reflective of their role as a semi-socialist alternative, there are subtle issues here, and 10 years of the Howard government has done much damage to the strength of union politics in Australia. Unless the ALP evolves to tackle this, they won't only lose the next election, but the following one as well. Selecting Gillard, or even the suspiciously liberal face of Rudd would reflect a willingness to move forward, though sticking with Beazley was symbolic of the Labor party's unwillingness to embrace change.

Ultimately, we now have an ALP that is mimicking the liberals on leftist issues, and only being leftist when it suits the union base. This isn't going to work for much longer, and it's becoming pretty obvious.

Tristan,

You seem to have misunderstood the comments. I don't think anybody is saying we shouldn't have some legally defined social rights, just that the values we base them on shouldn't be dictated by politicians.

BD's suggestion about an anthropological approach raises a case in point that you'd agree with. Mateship has been a cultural value for a lot longer than Gallipoli. We have plenty of stuff like the Eureka Stockade to demonstrate that the Australian version of individualism includes a collectivist thing we call mateship, but you won't find a politician defining it that way because it questions authority including that of political leaders.

Therein lies the problem I think. It is an Australian cultural value that politicians can't be trusted with Australian values and therefore can't be trusted to legislate social rights based on those values.

re: Rudd and Gillard - well, I think Julia has done a pretty good job as Opposition spokesperson on Health - but as to whether or not she'd make a good leader - I think I'd like to know a little more about her policy preferences first. I know there is enormous pressure on politicians - especially prospective leaders - to conform to the ideological norm - and the ambitious go to great lengths in compromising to fit the picture. I know Julia's on the Left, but I cannot help remembership a speech she made to the Fabian Society praising Blair's 'Third Way'. Julia's is stridently anti-factional - and while I think the way factions operate is authoritarian and exclusive - I don't think Julia's solution of vesting all power in the leader is the answer either. At least, as is, we can be certain that the Shadow Cabinet will be broadly representative of the Parliamentary Party. Apart from this, though, I certainly don't write Julia off. She's a top parliamentary performer, has done well in her portfolio, and I'd like to think her progressive background would come to the fore if she was ever in a position to lead on policy. Re: Rudd - I think he's also a top Parliamentary performer, and he'd obviously come into consideration should Labor lose the next election, but I'd like to think that Julia wouldn't be considered behind Rudd just because she happens to come from the wrong faction. (continued in next post)

re: Politicians in general - I know there are an awful lot of selfish, careerist and opportunist politicians out there - but there are still those who want to 'make a difference'. The problem with arriving at a Human Rights Act by any other means than Parliament (eg: a Referendum) is that we have a very conservative Federal political system where constitutional change is almost impossible to secure. Yes - there should be widespread and robust debate - and the politicians should be held accountable - but if the politicians don't actually pass a Human Rights Act, no-one will.

re: The Greens - I think the Greens have a lot of potential, and I'd love to see the Greens hold the balance of power and force the pace and nature of change on a Labor government. I believe in the principle of a 'Red-Green alliance' - but I must admit I wouldn't like to see Anthony Albanese go - and his seat is the closest the Greens have to securing a Lower House seat. I still think, though, that the ALP is just too important strategic terrain to vacate - and that maintaining a sense of labour's traditions, and socialist traditions in the ALP, is a very important task. Nevertheless, I wish the Greens the best - and hope for them to make up significant ground in the upcoming Federal election.

Tristan

Tristan,

This discussion sparked by your essay is getting more interesting ! Your mature approach to the potential for ALP-Greens cooperation mirrors my thinking closely, which is interesting as I am a committed Green. Actually the ALP opened the way to a major expansion of the Greens when it chose to be a Howard-lite us-too party on so many important national security, civil liberties and human rights issues. This is not to say the two parties could not work together in govt - as in Germany with its Red-Green coalitions, we could in Australia - but that the values frames of the two parties are now quite different. That is not to say there are not very good people in the Labor parliamentary party - my personal favorites at this time are Lawrence, Faulkner, Gillard, Kelvin Thompson, Plibersek, Roxon, Tanner, Emerson - but that while it is Big Kim’s party, it will go on taking positions in the above areas that I find deeply disturbing. We need a strong Greens party in parliament, to help broaden the agenda and seriousness of Australian politics, and also to create room for people like you to come through in Labor.

BTW, it is Howard strategy to encourage a majority public view that all politicians are corrupt and out for themselves. That is not true of any party – all have some good people in them (and of course all the Greens are good!) . But if that view is believed, it cuts the ground from under the feet of ethical politicians and allows the less ethical ones to flourish. Because the voters expect no better of any of them. That is the world Howard wants