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