I quite liked Robinson's analysis of Howard's 'paleconservatism', but he loses it when he fantasises about the future. For example:

"Maintenance of high levels of population growth in Australia will require historically high levels of immigration"

This is the premise for the scare-mongering that follows, but since when is it a given that Australia needs "high levels of population growth"? Under the kinds of scenarios being suggested by e.g. Ross Garnaut, I think that overpopulation will increasingly be seen to be the real villain that its is in terms of climate change, resource and energy depletion etc.

However, I think that Robinson is probably unfortunately correct when he suggests that "faith, race and nation" are likely to remain central to the bleatings of 'paleoconservatives' who struggle to reorganise since the overdue demise of Howard's political ascendancy.

Geoff Robinson confused and bemused me.

On the one hand, he implies credit when he claims, "John Howard changed right of centre politics in Australia." On the other hand, he also claims, "During the Howard years the free-market right fragmented". Where does that leave the so-called right?

Robinson also flattered Howard with damp praise. He tells us that, "...the style of conservatism that he represented has substantial political achievements to its credit and it will retain substantial appeal to right of centre voters." What precisely were those 'substantial political achievements'?

Are these 'substantial achievements' those alluded to by Robinson, namely:

- popular acceptance of inevitable human inequality
- the bolstering of a sense of national identity that placed whiteness, Christianity and British ancestry at the centre and
- the encouragement of virtues of individual enterprise and aspiration?

Or are Howards 'substantial achievements' the winning of 'key policy battles' also listed by Robinson:
- the roll-back of native title
- the defeat of the republic referendum
- the draconian legislation against asylum-seekers
- reform of family law and
- the ban on African refugees?

Doesn't sound much to crow about after 11 years. Surely the Howard years brought something more substantial than that? Or was winning and holding power all that he achieved?

Population predictions below:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/ABS@.nsf/0/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument

Peak oil and climate change might curb some of the more foolhardy notions of population growth from the conservative Right. Scientists have argued that Australia hit optimal population at around 17M but there are those that have dangerously argued for levels of up around 30M. (Although some, like Tim Flannery have argued for less than 17M)

Links which looks at this issue more deeply:
http://www.population.org.au/http://www.amonline.net.au/biodiversity/happening/population.htm

It is interesting to note some of the hypocracies of the conservative Right in that the most extremist adhere to the idea of a patriarchal family as outlined in the article, yet nothing much has been done to assist those who might choose to stay at home to raise families in an effort to push more and more people into the workforce in the interests of economic growth.

You can't have it both ways ie. pushing the idea of family but making it increasing harder for parents to choose to raise their children in their own home if they want to. Income splitting would allow more choice particularly for low-medium incomes but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

The paleoconservative right will continue to rally around the same issues they always have, the human and cultural consequences of globalisation - the human companion of an economic climate which provided the lifestyles they so treasure.

What Howard gave them was a powerful messiah figure who embodied their beliefs. Without him or someone like him they're adrift until someone similar comes along. Meanwhile they're gathering in smaller clusters around Fred Nile and Andrew Bolt.

When I saw the name Geoffrey Robinson, I thought of Geoffrey Robertson.His book "The Justice Game" should be read by everybody.He relates what has happenned not make predictions about what might happen.It is experience that forms opinion.I HAVE CHANGED MY OPINIONS, in a long life, but the return of a JOHN HOWARD type leader in Australia, scares me more than the threat of terrorism.Thank God that the normal voter doesn't look further than the hope that our society gives us all a fair go and freedom and equality to live lives in peace.Academia may cogitate on the future, but I for one will only end up at the University as a CADAVER.The whole population of Australia won't be here in 110 years.FAITH, RACE and NATION are giving way already to Science,Multi-ethnic,and Sport-and that's not all that bad!

The only wars I can see, are the wars for oil, the wars against the poor nations, the wars against the migrants and labors. The so called cultural wars are only wars in the dark minds of right extremists and from corporations which benefit from them. Christians, Muslims and the rest people on our planet will not drop into the trap of right extremists and they will continue to improve their relations and cooperation for mutual benefits
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

One thing is for sure and that Mr Howard has gone out of politics with more dignity than Gough, Malcolm, Bob and Paul put togther.

Don't you mean ignominy, runner?

Did you actually read the article?

Dignity? He got clobbered & hasn't been game to show his face since. He & Hyacinth have attained ancient history status in the space of a month.

I was a little confused by this as well FrankGol. The language used here at times hints at a success story which can assert political gravity on Australian political dialogue, by sheer respect of its achievement, but the actual argument appears to be closer to something far more pedestrian. That is, that Howard will leave a legacy of political and cultural definitions and frames that will contest the soul of conservative ideology in Australia, and thus the goalposts of the modern Liberal Party, for a long time to come.

I think the second formulation is fairly uncontroversial, but even then there isn't really any effort put the argument as to exactly why Howard's terms of reference will win any such contestation in the future. Why, for example, wouldn't the Liberal Party become like the modern Tories in Britain or Canada, who more or less accept the small 'l' liberal consensus? The author doesn't tell us..

Yes, bennie, which is exactly what all ex prime ministers should do.

DIS

PART 1

THE ANSWER IS.....CHRIST!

yep.. might as well unfold my conclusion at the beginning :)

I find it quite fascinating that 'Christianity/Whiteness/Right/Conservative' are all lumped together and then.. to add further blemish to a very strange article, we get this.

at the centre and
-the encouragement of virtues of individual enterprise and aspiration.

Here is my problem......

"Christianity" says:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26)

So... how in the WORLD does this author get the idea that to be Christian means accepting INEQUALITY among people?

In fact.. I believe that Christians have an absolute right to SUE this author for religious vilification..and holding Christians up to serious public contempt!

Brother FrankGols' post confirms this.. as behind his crusading words is the undelying assumption, now re-inforced by the author's vilification implying Christians are bad, evil and don't care about non them. (specially if they are assylum seekers etc)

PART 2

(errata) in the last post the words 'at the centre' were meant to be with an ealier sentence..apologies)

THE AUTHOR
Is WRONG about 'what it means to be Christian'
Is WRONG about the purposes of policy aimed at controlling immigration and illegal entry to this country.

Is RIGHT about 'cultural identity' becoming an increasingly important issue.

Denying that people have a culture and willingness to commit cultural mass murder/genocide against one's own country is contemptable beyond belief! Imagine..I mean..IMAGINE telling people in other countries "You don't have a culture of any significance and your culture is based on immoral ideas such as 'not all people are equal' etc"

The problem is.. most migrants from backgrounds having strong cultural and racial foundations DO have this very idea.. evidence? Simple..just look for people continuing their old culture after migrating to Australia.

Why pander to it?

Yes..I can read Frank and CJ's minds.. "Hah! ...what about the white British who came here with that idea, what about Indigenous Australians..don't they have a culture of significance?"...

good point :)

PROBLEM.. while this point would be valid at the time of British arrival, we have since developed an AUSTRALIAN identity, (which should include indigenous Aussies) and that now can legitimately be promoted, protected and defended at every level.

One thing I learned from confinement in a jail cell Davie-Boaz was "vengeance is mine said the Lord". Maybe God can fit John Brat into his own sphincter. Good luck Jonnie. Think you'll need it!

Geoff Robinson is correct to say that "faith, race and nation" are a Sirens' call for politics.

And we all know what fate befalls those who answer the Sirens' call...

Boazy: "THE ANSWER IS.....CHRIST!...

...I believe that Christians have an absolute right to SUE this author for religious vilification..and holding Christians up to serious public contempt!"

Well, I suppose we have neoconservatives, paleoconservatives and now idioconservatives to deal with :)

bennie

Gough and Paul got clobbered and refuse to hide their face. Their adoring mates at the ABC/SBS can't wait to give them the continual exposure that makes many people sick.

BOAZ: "THE ANSWER IS.....CHRIST!". Fine, but what was the question?

BOAZ: "I believe that Christians have an absolute right to SUE this author for religious vilification..and holding Christians up to serious public contempt!"

Would I have an absolute right to sue BOAZ since he attributes thoughts to me that are not mine: "Brother FrankGols' post confirms this.. as behind his crusading words is the undelying assumption, now re-inforced by the author's vilification implying Christians are bad, evil and don't care about non them. (specially if they are assylum seekers etc)"?

BOAZ, you can't just fabricate things and tell the world they're true. That's called lying, and I don't think Christ liked liars. For the record: I don't think genuine Christians are "bad, evil and don't care about non-Christians". Just the opposite; but I do think there are some people who call themselves Christians who are bad, evil and don't care about non-Christians. Maybe that's overstated. I believe there are nominal 'Christians' who are hypocrites and others are not very bright - and some of these infest OLO.

BOAZ: "Yes..I can read Frank and CJ's minds..." I won't speak for CJ (he's perfectly competent to do that), but instead of reading my mind why don't you actually read the words I write?

Nice honest description of the anti-left.
Various parts of the right would find this article just a tad too honest for them!
-The poor have been put there by God, so its OK to screw them.
(Never mind the Christian duty of charity, God says it is OK!)
-Family has priority over everthing.
(That is, my family. Nepotism is OK (like bailing out your brothers company with taxpayer funds). The Mafia uses family in the same way, and for the same reasons.)
-Natives do not deserve title.
(Invasion and aggession are OK, hide it this generation and next can ignore it. Justice is only for the strong! (God allows it, so it must be OK))
-It is OK to be hypocritical. Non-core promises and the like are OK because everyone does it. This is called "cynicism", and despite the popular usage it implies the sort of "relativism" that Howard accused the Left of. Howard (and BOAZ_David) both subscribe the Christian school of "I'm so bloody holy that I don't need to care about facts or other people".
-It is OK to have an opinion on anything, despite lack of subject knowledge. If someone who has knowledge disagrees, attack the person relentlessly; avoid facts! This arrogance is staggering and is getting scary.
-Worship Authority. Truth is hard work and you are sometimes wrong. Better to team up in a tribe, cloak yourself with virtue and attack any threats to the tribe's version of truth. This is how Humans lived for 100,000 years and we got nowhere.
Only when Law and Science triumphed over authority did Humans become modern. I feel that Howard has tried to drag us back.
the cuture wars are well and truly alive if the right tries to revive Howards legacy.

1)"Australian political life cannot remain exempt from the siren calls of
faith, race and nation" … as if it’s a contagion …

The only difference between Aust & the rest of the world is our
intelligentsia will largely bemoan such siren calls as unfortunate, or
pathological and, Australians will be spoon-fed the proposition that
there are certain international standards & forces at work which simply over-ride our
national interests –though, the rest of our near neighbours , particularly
the 'new ...superpowers' like China ,India etc will continue pushing their own
selfish, national interests.

Issues of immigration & values are bigger than any pro/anti-Howard posturings.
To portray them as another lib/lab demarcation is both simplistic & mischievous.

Supporters of either party need be mindful that a "radical & accelerating
change" to our ethnic composition or values is not in either’s long-term
interests.

It is notable that contrary to many a oracular pronouncement that Howard’s electoral defeat would overturn everything Howard stood for, the Rudd govt has only tweaked the key policy dials by a matter of degrees - though this may change the celebratory period ends & hardcore lobbyists call in their IOUs

Immigration is NOT largely driven by the young who migrate in search of higher
living standards, rather, it is driven by the mums, dads, sister, brothers,
'partners' who follow-after them ( legitimately or illegitimately ) and stay
, even when/where the yuppies have moved back offshore.

And in the future, immigration is likely to be driven more & more by guilt-mongering, that blames the rich/developed world for Climate Change, North–South Wealth imbalances, and its colonial past & declares it has a moral obligation to take in all and sundry who were damaged .

2) The comment “The role of Asian-Australian voters in John
Howard's Bennelong defeat has already attracted conservative ire" is,
LAUGHABLE! .A very small number of locals have blamed Asians -but they are
hardly representative of "conservative" opinion either in Bennelong or anywhere else. And some of Howard’s most ardent roadies & supporters were from the local Asian community.

Aaah..Frank.... (and Ozandy.. in a moment)

You said: (quoting)

- "the bolstering of a sense of national identity that placed whiteness, Christianity and British ancestry at the centre"

on your list of 'BAD'... but the suggestion from your structure was this:

"Christians.. actually support such a view..and thus, are evil"

All I did was point out that the Bible does not support such a view, in fact, such a view is ANTI Biblical.

Ozandy seems to have booked a passage on the good ship 'Frank-Ahoy'
and waved signal flags of support from the lower portholes.. and fuelled with toxic accelerant the already 'out of control' flames of the Myth 'Christians think they are better than every1 else".

NEWSFLASH.. stuggling with issues of national interest and importance is NOT anything to do with "We are better than you".

Jesus said "When you goto a banquet, don't take the highest seat, or the host might come along and inform you that someone more noble than yourself is here..and you with shame will have to give your seat to him... no.. when you enter, take the lowest seat, that the host might say "Friend..you are more noble than this.. come up higher"

There are many levels and layers in that parable. But while it emphasises humility..the context is:

-There is a host.
-There is a peck order.
-Don't elevate yourself without the hosts approval.

Migrants who do so, will possibly be told that the seat is reserved for others. Not by way of 'Christian' reminder, but of the simple facts of life, to which Jesus was alluding.

The only people who would wish to usurp the "Hosts" arrangment, are those who are either racist or seditiously minded.

Boazy: "stuggling (sic) with issues of national interest and importance"

Is that what you think you're doing when you post endless biblical quotations and intemperate blather designed to fan intolerance against anybody who isn't Anglo-Celtic, Christian, heterosexual and conservative?

No, I think Geoff Robinson's located you and your cohorts very well in that disaffected and bitter minority who supported the execrable Howard government and its odious manipulations of the underbelly of the electorate, but who now find themselves relegated to the political wilderness.

The rather hysterical (e.g. "racist or seditiously minded", "religious vilification" etc) sputtering coming from the political black hole into which they have fallen is an indication of how much ground that conservatives - whether neo, paleo or 'idio' - have to regain before anybody takes them seriously.

BOAZ,

For the second time in two days, PLEASE (you might appreciate the shout) stop attributing comments to me which I didn't make. You're either dishonest or a bit thick - tell me which.

It was the original article's writer, Geoff Robinson, who argued (among other things) that Howard was responsible for "the bolstering of a sense of national identity that placed whiteness, Christianity and British ancestry at the centre..."

I merely commented that such an achievement was nothing much to be proud of.

Spare us your puerile sermonising. I can get more intelligent sermons from the back of my breakfast cereal box.

The only reason we need high immigration is that our society is failing to survive. We are committing genocide against ourselves through low birthrates.

Our current fertility is about the same as China, with their "one-child" policy.

Women are missing their biological clocks - because many men are refusing to become fathers and husbands. Men are on the MARRIAGE STRIKE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike)

Why? Fatherhood has never been so dangerous (with winner-takes-all divorce rates around 50%).

"Nasty Feminism" (as distinct from equality-feminism) has treated men as the goose-that-laid-the-golden-egg for too long and now men are refusing to becom husbands and fathers!

You want to see a 'culture war'? look no further than the looming battle between the grass-roots 'Fatherhood and Families' movement and the vested interests of the well-funded, deeply entrenched and powerful (but aging baby-boomer) Nasty Feminists.

www.Fathers4Families-Australia.org

Well said partTimeParent,

You have my support and the support of the vast majority of late 20's and early 30's men. It's about time the worthiness of men, and what they bring to the family is appreciated.

You guys and gals must win this coming war on all fronts. If not we'll have to start up a new country cause I ain't living under the philosophy of The Greens or Getup.

It is going to be hard for the Right to build an agenda based on your 3 conservative objectives: "popular acceptance of inevitable human inequality, the bolstering of a sense of national identity that placed whiteness, Christianity and British ancestry at the centre and the encouragement of virtues of individual enterprise and aspiration."

The first goes against the venerable Aussie tradition of 'the fair go'; national identity has some legs, but basing it on Christianity and Britishness is backward-looking; individual enterprise and aspiration has appeal too, but most of us want it balanced against the fair go.

The Right can always win some easy votes by playing the race card, but in the coming Asian century, individual enterprise and aspiration will be closely dependant on maintaining good relations with our Asian neighbours. A future Coalition Opposition or Government would tie itself into knots whipping up popular ill-feeling against foreigners while at the same time courting Chinese and Indian governments for favourable trade deals.

The dilemma for the Coalition is that social attitudes have become more liberal over the decades. Going to the people with a program invented by the Sydney branch of the Anglican church will be a recipe for defeat. But if they tack to the Left, they risk being a pale shadow of a rampant Rudd Government.

Glad it's not my problem.