Since the federal Coalition's defeat in 2007, several commentators have called on the Liberal Party to embrace a progressive agenda. The argument goes like this: From climate change to border protection, Liberals should ditch the conservative shibboleths that defined the Howard era, inch back towards the political centre and demonstrate they are not as out of touch as the critics allege.
The party of Menzies, urges frontbencher Christopher Pyne, "must again be a force for change".
The problem, though, is that, notwithstanding the loss of conservative government, the centre of political gravity in Australia remains conservative. No longer, for instance, is welfare seen as an unconditional right. No longer are activist judges rewriting our constitution. No longer are Australians ashamed of our past, pessimistic about our future and unsure about our place in the world.
In this environment, why should Liberals lurch left when Labor could only win power by moving right? Why should a right-of-centre party run to the left of a church-going, family-values Labor leader almost as conservative as the prime minister he replaced? Indeed, Kevin Rudd -- first as opposition leader and then as Prime Minister over the past 13 months -- has had a lot more in common with John Howard than he has with Phillip Adams.
As opposition leader, Rudd not only styled himself as an "economic conservative" but also mimicked Howard on virtually everything from opposition to gay marriage and teacher unions to support for anti-terrorism laws during the Haneef debacle and the federal intervention in remote indigenous communities. Such tactics worked a treat. He convinced key segments of the socially conservative working and lower middle classes in marginal suburban and regional electorates to vote Labor again after their 12-year affair with the Coalition.
What about Rudd's record since he's been PM? True, he has jettisoned some of the former government's positions. He ratified the Kyoto protocol, expressed a formal apology to the stolen generations, and he is in the process of tilting the workplace balance in favour of unions. His decision to withdraw combat troops from Iraq, moreover, marked a clean break with what the Australian people regarded as the biggest mistake of the Howard era.
But take a closer look at Rudd's other positions. This is a malleable pragmatist who was far more critical of Bill Henson's so-called art of photographing naked young girls than Malcolm Turnbull; who defied his left-purist base by keeping Howard's citizenship tests; who prefers the teaching of narrative history over the black armband view; and who is contemplating another round of income and company tax cuts. Just this week, the Australian Human Rights Commission's annual report on detention revealed that Rudd is maintaining the very policy of indefinitely detaining asylum seekers, including children, that Howard's foes regarded as cruel and evil. So much for being a change agent.
In this environment, do Liberals win electoral kudos by becoming more progressive? In fact, the most politically important voters remain not the so-called doctors' wives from metropolitan Australia, but the so-called Howard battlers from middle Australia, particularly in outer suburbs of Sydney and Brisbane and sunbelt seats of Queensland. It was these people who formed Howard's core support. It is these people to whom Rudd has appealed in the past two years. It is these people to whom today's Liberals need to appeal in coming years.
They may not read Edmund Burke but they are a temperamentally conservative lot, wary of change, believing that efforts to transform anything quickly will have, as Burke wrote, "pleasing commencements" but "lamentable conclusions".
They were attracted to Howard because he championed Australian values, based on a robust patriotism and the repudiation of Paul Keating's political correctness. They turned off Howard because they believed his Work Choices and the rising costs of living threatened their personal security and prosperity. And they felt reassured by Rudd's conservatism, including his pledge to turn back people-smuggling operations.
Would a progressive agenda that includes zealous efforts to combat global warming really play well with this group? Take the debate over emissions trading schemes. After proclaiming that "climate change is the great economic, environmental and moral challenge of our time", Rudd has significantly downgraded his Government's carbon targets.
This was wise. After all, it would have been crazy for Australia, heavily dependent on fossil fuels, to slash its greenhouse gas levels at a high cost in jobs and cash when no nation that matters would follow our lead.
But in their rush to outflank Labor on the environment, there is a risk that Malcolm Turnbull and his spokesman Greg Hunt could further alienate the party from the very constituency they need to win back (not to mention the energy-intensive industries that will be slugged by the trading schemes).
It is one thing for Liberals to place themselves at the forefront of this debate. It is another for Liberals to insist that a single-income family should pay more to run their air-conditioner, fridge and stove, computer and large flat-screen television. Middle Australia may not understand emissions trading but they understand hits to the hip pocket.
For these reasons, it would be a mistake for Liberals to embrace a progressive agenda in a political landscape that remains conservative. As Peter Costello argued on these pages recently: "The Liberal Party should remember it is the guardian of the centre-right tradition in Australia." If Liberals cede the nation's heartland to Rudd, they might as well kiss the next election goodbye.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment