Jay Daniel Thompson “However, he is also one who misunderstood the “ordinary Australians” he supposedly championed.”

I guess the issue here is the “ordinary Australian”

Lets face it, John Howard, on the strength of more than a decade as PM, can justly claim he represented not only the “ordinary Australians” but also the “Extraordinary Australians” who will now be pressured by the levelling hand of banal socialism to knuckle under and stop making the “ordinary” feel inferior.

I see the write is “ a PhD candidate in the School of Culture and Communication at the University of Melbourne. He researches in the broad area of contemporary Australian literature, politics and culture.”, hardly a role indicative of any “experience and reason”.

Well until he has finished “formal learning” and has some “practical life experience” under his belt, he has nothing to offer in terms of assessing the relative merits of John Howard in particular or liberalism / libertarianism over socialism in general.

Q&A: "Leigh only wants to engage with people of his ilk and vilifies anyone that has a different point of view."

Oh, please.
That's the standard tactic of you and all your friends: FrankGol, TurnRightThenLeft, lola, dnicholson and you have done just this in the posts above.

And I don't see how Liberty's comments are inappropriate either.
The article itself spoke of "Left" vs "conservatives".

It's true that some claim to be libertarian socialists or authoritarian capitalists.
But these people are deluded, so cannot be expected to engage in mature debate.

They attempt to apply one principle to economics, and the *opposite* principle to social issues.

Collectivist economically but socially liberal.
Collectivist socially but liberal economically.
i.e. Schizophrenic.
Must take medication.

lola: "You are extremely simplistic and too focused on materialism which is a key problem that the 'right' have."

Hilarious!
Wasn't it the *socialists* who declared that the economic system (materialism) determines one's freedom, equality, justice, etc.
Hence, only an economy controlled by "the people" would be just and fair.
The 'right' only say that a liberal economy may *facilitate* social freedom, not that it's a causative relationship.

I'm what you'd call 'right'.
That doesn't mean I think everybody should be a greedy selfish pig!

FrankGol: "tired old debating tricks"?
Well, you wrote the book on that!

How about your personal favourite:
Don't answer questions that will paint you into a corner, no matter how precisely they're worded.

Of course, you can never actually see Frankie Wankie do this.
He just disappears.

He's like a black hole.
You only know he exists by the absence of any response.

"Sometimes the only appropriate response to some posts is Bollocks!"

Q&A, bollocks.
FrankGol, bollocks.
TurnRightThenLeft, bollocks.
lola, bollocks.
dnicholson, bollocks.

Now just wait for the black hole. Keep watching.

Bollocks

Great article Jay. It seems like it's also pretty brave to write on here, given that some respondents seem to resort to attacking on irrelevant factors like age. We're all adults here...I hope.

Howard identified and for a time exploited, the gap between the inner suburban intellectuals and blue-collar, more traditional minds. If I can generalise a bit. But what happened over ten years?

It seems to me like the 'mainstream' people developed stronger knowledge of Howard's cunning ways, and started to see through the rhetoric of the right. At the same time, left wingers, uni types and especially unionists, moved closer to the 'ordinary people'. This required a grounded and open-minded approach, never better demonstrated than by the ACTU's honest and measured workplace rights campaign.

Contrast that with the Liberal's election ads..."The Unions are Coming.." Some in the Liberal party disagreed with having these ads, they were so blatantly patronising.

So when it comes to the crunch, what side is really patronising towards the ordinary person? At election time it was the coalition and never was it more clear that they have done their dash.

Kind regards everyone.

TurnRightThenLeft

[[[[As far as Liberty's comments go, he's talking about pure socialism and pretending this is what 'left wing' politics in the current era is all about, which is pretty far from the truth.]]]]
All socialism is pure socialism. What is added to pure socialism, does not make the pure socialism any less pure. Just obscured.
Obscuring it, however, makes it no less an enemy of individual liberty.

[[[[Economic and social issues are two very different ideals]]]]
False dichotomy: "Social issues will not be rectified by money".

[[[[plus he doesn't appear to have any real understanding of the social-libertarian economic model which is used by pretty much all western nations today]]]]
The west is now socialist, with wealth added to it from a by-gone era of non-socialism, which wealth is therefore necessarily decreasing.
Your "libertarian economic model" is a fabrication. Libertarianism, unlike socialism, is polluted by the appending to it of any other system. For libertarianism, by definition, comprises no system at all.
Socialism remains socialism regardless of what system is added to it, for all systems are necessarily socialist. (This will probably go over your head.)

[[[[Truly, the old 'socialist' whipping horse has been well and truly flogged, and is utterly irrelevant.]]]]
The old ploy of making yourself a more effective enemy by making yourself invisible.
As long as governments put people in jail for not paying taxes, evict them from their property for not paying rates, make them join the army, and fine them for not voting, socialism is alive and well.

[[[[TurnRightThenLeft]]]]
Your id suggests your confusion. I suggest you read some good libertarian authors before you spread your pseudo knowledge around the forum and confuse others. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Iola,

[[[[You are extremely simplistic and too focused on materialism which is a key problem that the 'right' have]]]]
Rather, it is you who are simplistic, manifested by the fact that you do not understand individual liberty, nor its value, as distinct from economic liberty (having money), nor have you understood that that is what I was relating.

Added to this is your lack of self-examination: you seem to think that your level of personal materialism is sacrosanct.

So here is some homework for you:
Define "Individual liberty". I look forward to your efforts.