|
November 22, 2004
As readers of public opinion are well aware, I am a fellow traveller of the inner city, apartment dwelling, caffe-latte Left, who are deeply concerned about post-Whitlam progressive policies relating to the environment, refugees and multiculturalism. You know the political grouping that is much despised by the right wing grouping of mates within the ALP.
I say fellow traveller because I do not live the Christian life and I am not a member of the ALP. Never have been.
Now that party politics does not matter to people, such as Bill Shorten, national secretary of the Australian Workers Union. He says that party affiliation is not really relevant here. What is relevant is the world view of the innercity intelligentsia which Shorten attributes to "us". He describes this cultural mentality in terms of:
"....a 'top-down' divide, between highly educated, urban intelligentsia [who despite party differences share similar liberal social values and an economically rationalist acceptance of globalisation] and so-called 'ordinary Australians' in the suburbs and regions [who are risk averse to economic restructuring and suspicious of liberal social values]."
Anti-populism+liberal social values+economic rationalist acceptance of globalization sounds like a description of the views of Paul Keating to me. I'm not that kind of guy. I detest Keating, am opposed to economic rationalism (neo-liberalism) and I critique the corporate form of globalization. That only leaves liberal social values. As I said I'm a fellow traveller.
Shorten has lots of strategic advice for the ALP in his leaked speech that he will deliver to the Fabian Society next month. Basically, the advice is that the ALP must distance itself from the Left intelligentsia if it is to win back the suburban Australian heartland now owned by John Howard.
It should move to the centre, establish its superiority in economic management credentials, reconnect with its blue collar base and "middle Australia", and accept that people want more public services and more tax cuts.
Shorten is a little coy here as he interprets moving to the centre in terms of "the everyday experience of working for the economic interests of people in the real economy is a valuable policy anchor." Now moving to the centre---ie., back into Howard's suburbs and towns---- also means accepting a conservative populism structured around an old-fashioned or nationalistic conservatism and cultivating support among socially conservative or religious Australians. This is required to counter wedge politics, where people vote to support certain values even against their own economic interests.
That is the voice of conservative populism in the ALP.
Where is its difference from the conservative populism of John Howard? The only difference I see is looking out for the economic interests of trade unions rather than the bosses. That union boss talk would not resonate all that well with the do-it-yourself enterprise culture of the new middle class of contractors, franchisees, people working from home and fledgling suburban entrepreneurs. Does not the union movement have a problematic relationship with this new middle class?
If I may say so, me tooism does not sound like a sure fire way back to the Treasury benches. I presume that Shorten's understanding of democracy is that if you haven't got the numbers, mate, you're stuffed.
|
The ALP is dead - they will be an irrelevant party of ineffectual opposition as long as they think the way back to government is to imitate Johnny ...