Is it okay to dare to mention the term quarry economics which owing to extra droughts, etc, it is minerals, including coal that has been keeping Australia going.

Thus from Liberal and Labor, we have the resultant pitstock politics, with no mention what Aussie-Land will rely on when all the limited underground resources run-out.

As one going on 88, guess there is no need for me to worry, but as well as having 14 great-grandkids, with one going on 17, reckon one should be allowed to peruse a bit over it, especially being one who has done well in his retirement from our farming coy, not so much in golf but very much so in political science and international relations.

Finally reckon we could still learn a lot from Socrates with his not only Out with the Gods, and in with the Good, but also about letting our thoughts run deep to really find the Good.

Now with ultra-modern communication devices, not letting thoughts go much deeper than just behind the eyes and ears, no wonder we cannot forecast the future for our great great grandkids, as a modern Socrates if we can find one, would surely let us know.

Have Fun, BB, Buntine, WA.

The reason we have little balanced political commentary is because the 'simplistic Right' as Chris Lewis calls them appears to be totally consumed by hatred of anyone with a slightly left of centre view. This means they are too busy hurling personal abuse to spend any time actually considering that these arguments might have some validity. In the minds of people like Janet Albrechtson, Gerard Henderson, Andrew Bolt etc., anything that suggests governments could have any role to play other than protecting their Property Rights is equivalent to Communism.

Plus they are no doubt paid to generate as much reaction as possible, so being deliberately inflammatory is obviously the way to go.

How nice it would be if commentators from both political wings would, when hearing arguments from the other side, spend some time identifying what they can actually agree with. My bet is there would be quite a lot.

It would be nice to see the media give some more space to the right, apart from the 4 or 5 people who have managed to retain their positions. There are entire media organisations who have no one from the right at all - e.g. My ABC. Is it any wonder you don't have a wider range of balance in commentary?

Recently when responding to claims of bias, the ABC responded they could not find anyone who held opposing opinions to their 5 to 1 biased perspective - and promptly found that was OK and thus - no bias. Don't worry about the taxpayer, as long as you think its OK.(sarcasm)

I guess the right are less hysterical and populist and therefore less popular with editorial management who want sensation and controversy in order to get attention, and thus sell papers, win ratings competitions, win awards like a Walkley .. who cares if you don't offer balance(ABC ?).

So back to your point .. the reason is .. there is a lack of commentators from the right .. so maybe if they weren't shouted down every time they appear, you might get some more.

Blimey, what planet does rpg live on? What can he possibly mean by saying there are a lack of commentators from the Right?? Just switch on AM radio, open The Australian, peruse the Daily Telegraph.. Almost all the commentators in the commercial media (Fairfax apart) appear to be from the Right apart from the odd token Leftie (Philip Adams once a week in the Australian). Fairfax seems more balanced but even there we get treated to the likes of Gerard Henderson, Michael Duffy and Miranda Devine venting their spleen.

Yes the ABC is biased in the opposite direction (very boringly so unfortunately), but this is mostly reflected in their serious journalism and in depth documentaries. There are very few programs on the ABC providing 'opinion' as such - really only Philip Adams (with Michael Duffy now providing some, limited balance). I suspect the problem here is that the pay and conditions of the ABC don't attract people from the political Right.

And what on earth does tpg mean by "hysterical and populist" if he's not thinking of Alan Jones, John Laws etc? Or maybe he thinks they're Lefties.

RPG,
You really should get your facts correct rather than right.

1. The Walkley’s are for excellence in Journalism NOT sensationalism or political leaning. A list of the major winning subjects would clearly show this.

2. The media generally is geared for the interests of businesses as these are their source of income. The retail price of the paper would hardly cover the staff’s national coffee n’ bickies bill.

3. All Shock jocks and most talk back radio tend to politically 'conservative'. (supportive of the status quo in power systems or returning to 'good old days' that under scruitiny weren't that 'good' just 'old'.)

4. The ABC board has more than enough ‘conservative’(pro Libral) members.

5. I would dispute your assertion that the A BC is Right/Left/centre or in Einstein’s dimensional space. To claim it has any political leaning/agenda is politically self-serving and preposterous. The News and most of the current affairs shows are by and large OBJECTIVELY conducted.

6. The ABC doesn’t avoid issues that might not favour political issues because it may embarrass the Labour party. In fact I’ve seen Kerry O’Brien and Tony Jones mercilessly rip up a labour ministers simply because the poli’s stance was weak (obfucasious spin), That’s his job. Compare that to the backroom deals done to stop a series of articles that examined Murdock’s wife (exposed on Media Watch) while laying it on Rudd’s missus.

BALANCED simply means that both sides get to say their piece (equal time) regardless of its merit is frankly, a waste of time and effort.
Neither side(?) has the sole franchise on what is best. Surely then issue is OBJECTIVITY (including in our mass media)regardless of our enotional or self interests. That means all argument being held up to scrutiny and dismissing the objectively unsupportable nonsense. A rational search for truth.

It is interesting to note that a majority of Australians WANT aunty to remain (objective) as it is.
P.S. Right/Left are subjective lables with no definitive meaning and as such serve to obscure the truth which resides exclusively in neither alleged perspective.
Examinator :-)

I am sorry but examinator must watch a different version of Lateline to me. The problem with Tony Jones is that he fails to ask the left leaning politicians the hard questions when he needs to. if they say something particularly stupid he will go them but he fails to test them when the points made are debatable. Whether this is because his personal philosophy makes him blind to the shortcomings of the arguments, or whether he does it deliberately, he definitely exhibits a bias. The problem with the ABC generally is groupthink and smugness.

GGF,
You seemed to have read my post and only digested only those points that suit YOUR bias.

Additionally you seem to have missed the KEY point that The ABC and SBS as public media tend to be more OBJECTIVE than the commercial media.
You are remembering only those times when his questioning didn’t follow your beliefs and forgetting the times when the ‘conservative’ side got “free kicks”. “The good a man does is oft interred with his bones but his mistakes live on” (apologies to the Bard)

On Q&A his job is to moderate i.e. make sure all points are fairly made and they stay on point, program flow and on time. In the last show the pro war lot got several egregious points through unchallenged. He is not there to put an argument.
When all is said and done the ABC current affairs (including Lateline) presenters are there to present a Middle Of the Road program. That includes clarifying the issues not to turn it into a blood sport inquisition, a court or a definitive debate. Neither are they there to prove they’re smarter than the subject. That’s the orbit of Shock Jocks and Commercial media 'experts'. Just because a PRESENTER doesn’t ask the questions you would doesn’t mean BIAS. As listed above there are other issues to balance.

I like the ABC assumed that you the reader had enough smarts to decide the issue for yourself requiring the ABC to present SOME of the fact objectively in the time and space available. Unlike the commercial media the ABC does not tell you WHAT to think nor does it indulge in ad hominem arguments(eg Group think claims). They are usually the last resort of someone whose argument is either emotionally based or has no substance.
I also reject Left, Right bias unless defined.

This left/right media debate reflects the political debate between the ALP and Conservatives.

Both sides agree on the fundamentals of the wage slave system; they just have slight differences about how best to run it.

examinator ..

That's my opinion OK, and no comments from some pompous twit attempting to "correct" me will change it.

You just can't help yourself can you - someone has a different opinion and you feel it is your role to address it. Get over it .. I don't much care what your opinion is on my opinion.

I was responding to the article, which on the whole was very good and attempting to respond to the question - did you actually read it?

Examinator,

Forget the commercial television stations. They produce rubbish by the bucketload. When the ABC is compared with the Australian newspaper it is clear that there is a difference in perspecvtive. The ABC, in my opinion, runs a similar line to the Age newspaper, although perhaps not as far left.

Whoever it was who suggested Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen were good examples of right of centre intellectuals is having a laugh. The have shrill counterparts on the left like, Phillip Adams or John Pilger.

Real right of centre intellectuals would include Paul Kelly, Helen Hughes, Noel Pearson, Andrew Norton and Jennifer Marohassy among many others.

You say >> “P.S. Right/Left are subjective lables with no definitive meaning”

So why do we find it so easy to identify one another? The left/right breakdown of the political spectrum separates the public into those who believe in big gov’t and intervening often in peoples lives; from those who believe in small gov’t and people making their own decisions.

Passy,

It’s so sad isn’t it. That the major political parties in this country have actually noticed, and acted upon, the clear and obvious failure of socialism as an animating principle, is at least one example of politicians learning from the mistakes of others.

Cazza

You say >> “The reason we have little balanced political commentary is because the 'simplistic Right' as Chris Lewis calls them appears to be totally consumed by hatred of anyone with a slightly left of centre view”

I don’t know how you failed to notice the culture war currently underway. There is plenty of flak coming the other way, I can tell you. The loony left seems to believe that those to the right of the political spectrum don’t care about anybody but themselves, are hostage to the interests of big business, and hate minorities. Whilst this is obviously nonsense, it still a constant retort from the loony left.

Open, robust debate is needed, from a range of sources. However, it requires background to engage, failure in this is perilous.

To step it up, on grave matters, and observing Online Opinion welcomes solid contributions, on a very serious matter affecting all Australians, I recommend to the editors of Online Opinion an article available over the internetwritten by an internationally recognised authority in economics. Readers should find it a very interesting read too, as well as directly germane to the concern about the adequacy of public debate, noting such material as the article linked is supressed by the mainstream media. Why? To save time, here is the link for the editors and readers of Online Opinion.

http://brookesnews.com/081703manufacturing.html

PaulL>"So why do we find it so easy to identify one another? The left/right breakdown of the political spectrum separates the public into those who believe in big gov’t and intervening often in peoples lives; from those who believe in small gov’t and people making their own decisions."

This is the greatest scam and delusion of our political discourse. I let it pass for stevenimeyer, but I won't for the second or third times.

The right is no more individualistic as the left. They are one and the same, but with different emphasis. People don't get it and I actually constantly shake my head with pity when I see someone from the right take the moral highground and make sucha proclamation. It makes me sick hearing these people repeat the adage like complete idiots.

Neoconservatives and the religious rule the right. The individualists live in a bubble thinking they are on the correct side of things when they are not. Paul for one is heavily socialist in many areas, socialism being defined as one supporting the state/government control of the citizenry and social engineering. I have some contempt for people like Paul who go around looking down their noses at people on the left who are more or less identical to them. These people need a slap in the face. But you won't see it from people from the left because people from the left share the same values.

So let me make this clear. The Right, DOES NOT SUPPORT INDIVIDUALISM OR LIBERTY. PERIOD. They are statists and authoritarian, just like the left.

Steel,

You say >> “The right is no more individualistic as the left. They are one and the same, but with different emphasis.”

Really? Right and left are the same. What’s the difference in emphasis?

You really haven’t got a clue have you?

In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along left- right lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with Conservatism ("the right") on one end, and Socialism ("the left") on the other. In Europe, the term Liberalism term refers to a wide range of center-right to left-of-center politics.) http://www.masterliness.com/a/Left.Right.politics.htm

In this country the right/left divide is fairly clear and is well understood by most intelligent people. The left believes in more economic interventionism (obviously this is on a sliding scale), the right believes in varying levels of economic liberalism. The left tends to believe in “equality of outcome”, the right in “equality of opportunity”. The left tend to believe that living standards can best be improved by direct economic support to the poor; the right, by job creation through greater economic activity.

Right wing liberal economic policies emphasize lower taxes, but also less gov’t spending, allowing workers to keep more of the money they earn and allowing them to make their own decisions on what is best for them. The left generally support higher taxes and therefore greater gov’t spending believing the gov’t is a better vehicle for delivering the services and support that people need.

This isn’t generally contentious, although Steel always seems to struggle. Certainly gov’ts who have supposedly been right wing have run very high spending programs in recent times, particularly Howard. This does not change the definition of right-left. It merely means the gov’t straddles that divide.

You say >> “Neoconservatives and the religious rule the right”

What absolute bollocks. Even if you had the sense to define you terms you’d be way off the mark. The vast majority of those to the right of the political spectrum are divided into traditionalists or free market liberals. The influence of religion on Australian politics has been almost NON-EXISTENT

TBC

I can't name a single media organisation in this country that's as persistently and critically scrutinised for bias as much as the ABC.

I recall a Radio National programme several years ago (Friday Nights, 9pm?) called "The Continuing Crisis" that was supposed to be a "right-wing Philip Adams" concept. It was launched as a response to alleged bias by then board-member Michael Kroger (another unbiased appointee).

Anybody listen to it? Anybody even remember it? I didn't think so.

I do recall however, that both Neville Wran and Bob Hawke loathed the ABC for their "bias" - or was it just "criticism"?

I suppose it depends on your interpretation or your willingless to accept a broader view.

Hmmm! Pardon me for being out of line here, but it seems to me that we are missing the point over Left/Right here. The issue I have is this - every time ANY stamp of government comes in, it somehow automatically goes to the Right. By this I mean that no matter how well-principled and honourable the Guv may be prior to being elected - he/she/it is inevitably drawn by the lure of power. What this means is that, essentially, all governments become Right once in power, since they all believe in the divine right of government* to make and break any legislation they wish regardless of the wishes and sometimes best interests of the people (pardon me for becoming one of those 'communists' here - if I said this in the US I would be applauded by the Democrats) - this applies across the political spectrum.
What I see as missing in our government, now matter who it is drawn from, is a genuine, down-to-earth interest in the welfare of its own electorate.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
*(The English Civil War was fought over the Divine Right of Kings - the US War of Independence was fought over the Divine Right of an external power - the Russian Civil War (they tend to be somewhat tardy over there) was (again) fought over the Divine Right of Kings - I often pose the question of whether the NEXT Civil War is to be fought over the Divine Right of Government).

RPG,
I’m sorry I offended you. That was not my intention. Nor was I intending to pass judgement on your opinion. I was of the understanding that this was a discussion site. I would have thought that included accuracy in facts and some measure of objectivity.
I was simply trying to correct the errors of fact in your piece and offer a little objectivity. As for changing your opinion I wouldn’t dare. Of course it’s YOUR OPINION and you’re entitled to it. Yes I read the article.
I’ll TRY to remember in future that your opinion supersedes the facts and not comment.

PAUL L
I distrust the common usage of the left/right labels because;
1. They seem to mean different things to different people.
2. And imply, as some would have it, there are two opinions ‘theirs and the wrong one’ or you’re an idiot, imbecile, pompous twit etc.
3. That there only two valid perspectives, left or right.
4. That these views are mutually exclusive on all issues.

I hold views that run from left of centre to right of centre it depends on the issue. I would contend that this mixture of perspectives is true of most people.

Yet politics tends to squabble over this middle ground. The public’s (and my) distrust of the two view scenario is evidenced by their deliberate and constant vote for a hung Senate to ensure no extremes from either party.

As I have consistently said ‘neither political side have sole franchise to the best ideas’ hence I don’t automatically support either. Instead I examine issues/views on their merits and then decide (hopefully) on OBJECTIVE grounds.

Have to agree with the comments that most Australians have varied opinions on different issues, and that Australia forunately lacks influence from extreme left and right views, although individuals such as Bolt and Pilger do make important contributions that help vitalise any liberal democracy.

Key focus of my opinion piece is indeed the economic debate over the balance between govt intervention and market forces.

One can be of the centre-left and centre-right and be able to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each side.

My criticism, including of Kelly who promotes a centre-right perspective, is that he makes too much of statistics that show Australia's improved per capita GDP as he fails to understand how such statistics mask the reality that most Western societies are struggling.

I am indeed a supporter of liberalism and capitalism, but such support should never downplay the immense problems ahead. While any policy alternative may be hard to find, thus reflecting the ongoing difficulty of balancing national and international considerations in a world of competing nations, intellectual laziness about the consequences of such trends can never be excused.

As for Albrechtsen, one response was that she was hardly representative of an articulate centre-right perspective when compared to Kelly, yet she is a member of Aust's Foreign Council. Hence, we should all take her comments seriously and expose her strengths and weaknesses, whatever one's personal view.

Re all this left equals state intervention, right equals state restraint stuff, Marx saw the state as an instrument of class rule. For him the abolition of class rule would lead to the withering away of the state.

And the US leaders (all, as far as I can tell, right wingers) not only use the power of the US state to further the economic power of US companies around the globe, but also, as US economic power declines over time they strengthen the state to bolster their position in the world.

Paul...I guess I should be thankful you tried to comprehend it but you basically withdrew to a position that does not fit with the reality. It may fit history to some extent, even a large extent. But it does not fit with reality. Let me simply mention straight with your contention that religion has been almost non-existant. This is simply outrageous. Religion has categorically influenced politics through a 'back door'. Politicians with their private religious beliefs have defined a large amount of policy. The most recent and obvious case is gay marriage, perhaps stem cell research, for example. In terms of economics, I think the religious feed off the state to a massive extent and wield economic influence in this way. They have influence over the media which has a distinctly christian viewpoint. I wouldn't of course expect a partisan like you to care about this or know how these religious groups connect with each other, so I won't bother continuing. The fact these things never even registered with you is predictable.

examinator
In fact I did read your post and understand the points you made. I simply question your assertion that the ABC and SBS are more objective than the commercial media. They all have their biases. The ABC makes more effort to pretend it is even handed but the reality is that it is not. The Australian for example gives space to both Albrechtson and Adams so you do get the spectrum and has articles written by politicians from both sides. If the editorials have a slant, so be it, but you at least can compare it to other views from both sides. The ABC presents a monotone. If you can't see that I feel sorry for you.

TBC
"Right wing liberal economic policies emphasize lower taxes, but also less gov’t spending, allowing workers to keep more of the money they earn and allowing them to make their own decisions on what is best for them. The left generally support higher taxes and therefore greater gov’t spending believing the gov’t is a better vehicle for delivering the services and support that people need."

This is too simplistic, there is more than one dimension to the political divisions in the population. The 'right' are divided between the authoritarian (e.g. fascist) and libertarian (e.g. Ayn Rand), just as the 'left' are similarly divided (e.g. along the communist/anarchist spectrum). One can be simultaneously a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian (like Kevin Rudd). The system is far too complex to be defined in such a one-dimensional way.

To me the key question to be asked of any particular policy is "cui bono?", who benefits? Does this measure provide improvement to the life of the ordinary wage-earner, or does it improve the bottom line of a corporation and increase the wealth of its shareholders? This is the real faultline of politics in the 21st century, and it is not seriously addressed by the policies of either political party. Both sides are too dependent on the corporate dollar for their survival to do anything which might interrupt the flow of golden eggs.

Chris, the balance is in the eye of the consumer and depends on the content available. When consuming the australian newspaper,balance and choice is apparent and satisfying. The fin review in not comparable. The age, smh and couriermail etc, pander to the local audience with little depth or balance except to moddy coddle the nimby to capture increased circulation. The abc's lateline and 7.30 report close off issues of interest too early and spoil a possible balance and therefore lack depth that may arrive to satisfy my thirst. Commercial TV is purely entertainment. Q&A is a cheer squad prank with an agenda and narrow terms of reference akin to enquires with predetermined results to satisfy so called balanced audience.

On the left and right we have the interested, players & political activists which produce content which is light on, heavy, sideshow, blind alley,fillers and distractions etc with no go areas which do not fit popular agendas or supply the contributing agent with a "hit" for assurance to support their politics. The internet wins hands down with the australian newspaper coming a close 2nd. The left have had plenty of time and support and now have overplayed their hand on globlal warming. Wanton greed now effects the left and their comrades in arms. It is a real pity that housing prices were forced up to serve the social engineering labor states "national housing constraint with wedge agenda" and the silly mob went along with it. Now the architects will tell us that they need to win more awards for vertical phallic construction to house living spaces suitable for families except it won't be their family, to be continued...

Again no insult intended (ggf and others).
My concern is as stated I have issues with boxes and labels and on a more meaningful level, definitions. Therefore my posts are usually intended in the context of the whole.

Sure the presenters on the ABC sometimes have perceived biases and weaknesses like all of us but one can be objective about them, considering what else might be at play. If Kerry/Tony gets too tough with a poli (particularly in govt) they may then:
• Create waves inside the ABC (remember the hoo-ha about his salary being outed in revenge and distraction)
• Refuse to come on the program then where’s the show?
• Do what Bob Carr used to do say his piece then close his tent and go.

The point of all this is that programs on the ABC have unseen constraints and in this context we shouldn’t expect/demand too much of the old troll and her monotonal utterances.

For example brilliant political comedy/analysis (Chasers is not that) if it gets too politically biting the show
• gets squashed ether by the power that be, or
• is ganged up by the subject of criticism’s ‘cheer squad’. Most likely,
• bores the socks off the majority of the ‘great unwashed’ who simply want to be entertained not educated. At best they want their gristles aired(not really debated ) eg Q&A, Insight etc.

Put another way we shouldn’t expect the media to do our thinking for us when it does it’s rarely in our interests. Even in the days of Ben Franklin the press was biased. UNBIASED AND A TOTALLY INFORMATIVE MASS MEDIA IS A MYTH.

Like the prospector said “Gold isn’t found in the safety of your veranda … You gotta go where it’s HIDDEN…The trick is not letting your laziness get in the way of deciding between fools gold and the real stuff… You have to test it.

As Chris Lewis correctly said ‘intellectual laziness can never be excused.’ Fixed opinion are exactly that.

Good contributions Sympneology and Dallas

Sympneology's contention is nuts. Rudd has no libertarian qualities at all, by any stretch of the imagination or honesty...it's like describing John Howard as a Muslim. It's so fradulent it requires grand delusion (which members of the left -such as Craig Emerson- have recently shown such qualities they hold in spades- see Emerson's Dark Green Barbarians article here, for example)

I want to warn people not to start a stupid media is biased debate. It is biased, but to start talking about left/right bias is ridiculous. Honestly it serves no purpose and since the "left and right" can drift together as they are currently drifting to the right, to label the centre of such a drift as balanced is delusional. It's also a stupid thing to say. Journalists who think that sitting in the centre is balanced are ignorant and lazy and dare I say uneducated. Also saying, "to hell with it, the media is always biased so you can't say anything about it" is extremely dangerous and lazy.

Cont,

As evidence for religious involvement in politics you cite the continuing prohibition of gay marriage. In fact, a large section of Australian society believe that marriage should be reserved for "man and wife", without being remotely religious. Stem cell research, too, has far more potential detractors than the merely religious.

You say >> “Paul for one is heavily socialist in many areas ...”

What complete and utter rubbish. There are very few areas I believe the state has a role to play outside of the traditional liberal ideal. Ensuring equality of opportunity through gov't participation in health and education are the exceptions. Steels attempt to tell me what I believe are so astoundingly arrogant and so obviously wrong that I cannot fully express my amazement.

I have a great deal of contempt for those who don’t have the good sense god gave them, yet insist upon inflicting that grievous miscarriage upon the rest of us with their hysterical rantings.

You say >> “So let me make this clear. The Right, DOES NOT SUPPORT INDIVIDUALISM OR LIBERTY. PERIOD. ”

What can I say; the Oxford English dictionary and Wikipedia will be very pleased you have comprehensively dealt with this left-right issue so succinctly and completely. I hadn’t realized until now that Right and Left did not refer to a continuum of political belief where a large range of views could be found.

This is so completely flawed as an argument I’m not sure where to begin. For starters, the Right, as you refer to it, is not a single voting bloc. Those who believe in free market economics do generally support individualism and liberty, although within this group there can often be found a heavy emphasis on law and order. Law and order being one of the primary functions of gov’t in laissez faire economic policy. This certainly does not make them Statists, nor necessarily authoritarian.

The facts bear out that the 20% of most free economies are also among the most free politically. The reverse goes for the least free economies. They are among the least free politically. http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp102.pdf

Well done Chris... It's great to see a hint of compassion and good sense reaching the pages of Quadrant... In the 'bigger picture', those of us who want compassion, kindness, justice and good sense to prevail - must complement each other in a number of forums - and across ideological lines...

At different times I refer to myself as either a 'left social democrat' or 'liberal democratic socialist' - but these matters have a strong element of semantic variation - and, for instance, I do not agree with the Marxist definition of socialism... Critics of socialism, meanwhile, are usually in the business of setting up a 'straw man' - and of ignoring alternatives such as the 'mixed democratic economy'...

To hear Brendan Nelson - the other day - saying he supported privatisation effectively without exception - as 'a matter of principle' - was very disheartening... There was a time once when social liberals and compassionate conservatives - found a home in the Liberal Party...

Unlike David McKnight I still have not given up on social democracy as - in some ways - a radical project... But for liberals and conservatives interested in innovative synergy - they could do well to consider his book 'Beyond Right and Left'...

My critique of McKnight can be found here:

http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/188.html

There was a time once when the 'mixed economy' was 'common sense'...

For me - in my pursuit of a liberal and demoratic society - characterised by social justice, compassion, economic democracy- intellectual and political exchange and innovation are critical...

So Chris - what can I say? - Keep it up. :-) It's great that Quadrant is providing for you a platform - and I hope it's indicative of things to come.

sincerely,

Tristan

Tristan,

Unfortunately, I do not write for Quadrant anymore. Had a number of article proposals rejected, although they probably were not good enough, and no longer feel the same affinity with the magazine now that the former editor (Paddy McGuiness) is gone.

My goal with Quadrant, however, was to prove that someone of the centre-left could be published in that so-called right-wing magazine. To that, I will always be grateful to Paddy and the magazine for giving me such an opportunity and publishing four of my article proposals between Nov. 2006 and Jan. 2008.

Dear Chris;

Don't give up. Broadening the ideological base of Quadrant to include social liberal and compassionate conservative perspectives - along with other measures - could help transform the poltical and intellectual culture of this country. To this end, I believe the kind of contributions you've made - if they are like this OLO essay - are essential.

If need be, ask for detailed feedback on your submissions - and be ready to revise the work until it reaches the necessary standard... Then there would be no reasonable basis for declining to publish your work.

most sincerely,

Tristan