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 Australian Democrats and the politics of peace > Comments

The Australian Democrats and the politics of peace : Comments

By James Page, published 14/11/2007

In a time of war and crisis a voice of peace and moderation is more relevant than ever.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
With Kevin Blair-Howard set to take over as PM, and the Greens barely keeping a lid on its extremist elements, the Democrats are now Australia's remaining party of considered policy-makers and social conscience. It will be a tragedy if they're marginalised out of existence.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 11:09:15 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
sancho, if you think politics is a 3 hanky soap-opera, then losing the dems is a tragedy. but the reality is more like this:

the dems had no ideas, so finally sold themselves for someone else's ideas and a seat, briefly, on the six o clock news. hellooo gst! goodbye any reason to support a party that could be bought so cheaply.

grow up, sancho. if you want peace, write peace! on your ballot, not some pollie's name. better yet, write 'democracy!' on your ballot.
Posted by DEMOS, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 12:33:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Positioning in the middle ground (centrism) is a different phenomenon alltogether from respectfull engagement of opponents.

For example. The Democrats role in diluting the original Native title legislation.
There was great conflict between Aboriginal and mainstream agendas that were being thrashed out. The Democrats only relevence to this was that they had the balance of power in the senate at the time. They did not mediate or facilitate the two sides, they took a middle ground position within a mainstream, white paradigm. The result of this was they supported the least radical and most compliant of the Aboriginal negotiating groups (all the A team and B team stuff) and were responsible for the undermining of the native title notion, making it a process for extinguishing Aboriginal rights rather than enforcing them. The Democrats sold out the original purpose of native title for the sake of a compromise that was only convenient to one side of the conflict.

Non-violent conflict resolution has nothing to do with the middle ground. It is dialectical in that the outcome is new and fresh, not a compromise between the thesis and antithesis. This necessarily requires the ability to think outside the box - to transcend the status-quo and its established agenda. By definition, a centrist party cannot do this without betraying its status quo mandate. The democrats cannot lead, they can only participate in status-quo mediocrity. They can only represent notions of "normal".

The fence that the Democrats sit on is not the middle ground of any conflict but well within the territory of the status-quo. Centrism is about the common denominator of the mainstream, not about radical process of resolving conflict.

To imply that the Democrats may be a manifestation of Ghandian philosophy is a bit too colouful a writing style for my liking.
Posted by King Canute, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 1:30:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To James – Aust Democrats

Good on you, James - though unfortunately, reckon there’s not much chance for peace with Dick Cheney dead set on knocking out Iran.

Bush is also out to make sure they grant him his spacial platform to knock out any earthly spot in a twinkling.

Such news can now give substance to more than a few of our OLO’s who often talk about backing the big league US of A, more sure now now doubt, because Bush has forgiven his main enemy in Iraq, Saddam’s Baath Party Sunnis, and declaring the Iraqi Shias whom he gallantly moved into save now his main enemy because they happen to be related to the Iranian Shias.

And now we turn to Iran, whom America developed so much hate for since they kicked out the fake Iranian Shah, and held the US Embassy staff prisoner for over a year. Then Donald Rumsfeld saw his chance in 1981 to kid Saddam to knock out Iran once and for all. But once again America lost out, Saddam’s Iraqis soundly thrashed after eight years of fighting.

Now it seems America has her chance to knock out Iran once again, Dick Cheney the Vice –Pres’ seemingly much more eager than Bush, no doubt his mind on the oil.

Finally, the very fact that the only mention that Howard has made on today’s situation in Iraq is that he is so happy that the situation has quietened down for the better.

Reckon the only genuine title for it, however, is all quiet now on the Western Front, ready for the biggest ever bang further East next year.

Now my own experience of our academic historians is that they did not come down in the last shower, even though among our contributors, many, especially the females have been called left-wing loonies.

So it looks like we will be having our own academic revolution, and as far as this one is concerned, I’m afraid though I'm desperately for peace, if war is forced on Iran, I am hoping Iran comes out on top once again.
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 1:53:56 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
Actually, DEMOS, if you visit the Dem's web page you'll discover that they in fact have lots of good ideas, most of which arose out of doing what pollies are meant to do: scrutinise legislation and research and form policies based on equitable outcomes, rather than pursuing purely ideological goals and buying votes prior to an election.

"Grow up"? Where did you learn to conduct an adult debate like this? In the quadrangle, or during after-school detention?
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 2:01:55 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
No one has ever been able to explain why those who oppose the so called war mongers are usually the most violent people in our country. They don't know the meaning of peaceful demonstration thinking it okay to throw urine and abuse at anyone that disagrees with their opinions. This is now showing to be the case with a lot of people protesting against so called global warming. Maybe if the Democrat and Greens supporters learn what peace means they might gain a little credibility.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 3:26:05 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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