The Howard era has spawned a lot of this ‘triumph of the Right’ kind of writing – in both the MSM and blogosphere. Beneath all the crowing, however, the reality is a little different.

Remember that in 2004, the combined Right-leaning parties (Libs, Nats, FF and One Nation) cleared about 49 per cent of the first preference vote, and the combined Left-leaning parties (Labor, Greens, Democrats) about 48 per cent. That hardly indicates a long-term Right-wing ascendancy.

I also object to this interminable assumption that the Left is radical (or ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’) and the Right are the conservative upholders of tradition. Left-wing politics has been around since at least the nineteenth century, so it can hardly be classed as radical or progressive. Also, in the past two decades, the policies of the Right have been intensely radical – overhauling at least a century of mainstream economic and social policies.

On both Right and Left, there are those who now want a more inclusive, co-operative political system, and those who want to move more towards a system of dominance and fear. In an era of climate change and nuclear weaponry, if the latter system wins out, it's not the Left or Right that will be 'in retreat’, but humanity itself.

Considering the real state of the world with unipolar Americana acting unethically while spinning tales of socio-political morality, one could regard the above thesis as printed in Alice's wonderland.

The real facts are, our conservatism as stated, with huge growing corporates calling the tune, is not much different than when huge concerns like the East India company and the Dutch equivalent were practising similar overlording.

Admittedly, countries like China and India could be helping to paint a brighter picture, yet historically we might have slipped back into the 19th century period when Herbert Spencer slipped his own conception of a Survival of the Fittest, in front of his former friend Darwin's simple animalistic concept, justifying not only the injustices of colonialism, but caused America to take over countries on both sides of the Pacific in the name of protection for honest or rather dishonest free-market trade, not forgetting to also blockade China, sacking Tientsin in the process.

And now with us Anglipholes having crushed the attempts by Germany and later Soviet Russia to stand up to us, we are still playing the old colonial game with a different name calling it freedom and calling the poorly armed unfortunates terrorists similar as we called our Aborigines even here in Perth, while shooting old Midgercoo at ten paces outside the barracks gates, having made sure to organise a mixed big crowd to watch.

From one who spends his old age studying history and decency, reckon us Anglipholes haven't changed much.

Several contributors have pointed out that the terms social, liberal, and conservative don't do much to inform the discussion.
Humans are both selfish, greedy, and opportunistic on the one hand, and altruistic, sharing, and long-sighted on the other hand. I think we need to encourage the so called virtues rather than reward the less admirable qualities. But to ignore one or the other sides of the human equation is to cause the pendulum of political change to swing. Maybe an electorate that is somewhere within the 45% to 55% spectrum is the best we can do to prevent gross excess for too long. So we need to be very zealous in protecting the right to elect governments, and change them, and to put up with the pertubrations of excess for a few years before we kick the bastards out, and give some other shade of bastards a try. Does it matter much? Probably not. But if the pendulum has swung one way, let it swing the other way for a bit.

I'm not hip to the lingo, but if conservative mean "to favour traditional values", then I am mostly conservative. However, I don't see anything conservative about these current policies:

* Globalisation

Pat Buchanan - the Return of Economic Nationalism
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52837

"With the 2006 election, America appears to have reached the tipping point on free trade, as it has on immigration ... Anxiety, and fear of jobs lost to India and China, seems a more powerful emotion than gratitude for the inexpensive goods at Wal-Mart. The bribe Corporate America has offered Working America - a cornucopia of consumer goods in return for surrendering U.S. sovereignty, economic security and industrial primacy - is being rejected ...They are tired of sacrificing the interests of American workers on the altar of an abstraction called the Global Economy ...

China and Japan manipulate their currencies and tax polices to promote exports, cut imports and run trade surpluses at America's expense. Europeans protect their farms and farmers. Gulf Arabs and OPEC nations run an oil cartel to keep prices high and siphon off the wealth of the West. Russians have decided to look out for Mother Russia first and erect a natural gas cartel to rival OPEC. In Latin America, Bush's Free Trade Association of the Americas is dead ... We are entered upon a new era, a nationalist era, and it will not be long before the voices of that era begin to be heard".

Ditto Australia.

[continued ...]

* Immigration

The Howard government bellows "we shall decide who comes to Australia and on what terms" and appears tough on immigration and border control. But the reality is different:

"Rarely in our history has a federal government pursued such a high level of immigration as the Howard Government ... The Government plans to increase the numbers ... The fact that John Howard, who has gained re-election by exploiting Hansonite xenophobia, has presided over a record inflow of foreigners is an irony little remarked"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/its-life-but-certainly-not-as-we-want-it/2006/12/29/1166895477172.html

I don't see anything conservative about bringing in different races/cultures, and turning a fairly homogeneous society into the strains of diversity. It is radical social engineering, a dangerous experiment that will end in Australia splintering into warring factions unless a tough over-arching monoculture is enforced from the top.

* Muslims

There is nothing conservative about permitting the immigration of Muslims, or their population growth from within, in the "clear and present dangers" associated with a rising Muslim population. There is no apparent strategy to deal with the march of regressive Muslim culture that, apparently, inevitably follows their exploding birth rates.

* Nationhood

The growth of the EU highlights a disturbing loss of nationhood and we have to be careful values such as "free worker movement across borders" don't find their way down-under.

AND THE CONSERVATIVES ARE IMPLEMENTING/THINKING ABOUT EXTREME GREEN POLICY HOW IS THAT FOR YOU??!?!!?!?!?!?*

I let myself utilise all caps this once :D