|
August 26, 2010
In his Both parties need a new look before the next poll in The Australian Arthur Sinodinos briefly sketches a big picture around the recent federal election. He says:
The alleged "Greenslide" should be kept in perspective. The main parties still got at least 85 per cent of the total vote. The Greens and independents do not have a coherent strategy for government. Nothing that would replace the economic modernisation project of the past three decades.
Presumably, the economic modernisation project of the past three decades is the one neo-liberal of free markets, small government delivering prosperity; a project premised on the roll of back of the welfare state and the destruction of social democracy coupled to the exploitation of the deep uncertainty created by the pace and unpredictability of change.
Sinodinos points out how the Right were able to exploit the mood of deep uncertainty:
The Howard credo of economic liberalism and social conservatism attempted to smooth the passage of reform by promoting social cohesion in the face of change. This combination works best in the upper half of the country. The southern states seem to be more socially liberal and economically conservative. Commonwealth assistance accounts for more than half of state income in Tasmania. This quasi-welfare dependency is reinforcing the drift to the Greens, with their aggressive opposition to growth policies and focus on wealth redistribution and new age issues.
Of course, Sinodinos does not mention the politics of fear in the Howard credo --eg., the exploitation of fear of outsiders and strangers, which culminates in putting up barriers against immigration, refugees or exiles; or the fear that we may lose our jobs next year if we introduce a carbon tax or tax the miner's profits.
The southern states are committed to social democracy which has been enfeebled by the neo-liberal mode of governance of the past three decades in which public spending is deemed to be a recipe for future disaster, and that ‘private’ is better than ‘public’ . If the core of the ALP's version of social democracy is equality (albeit watered down to a fair go and equality of opportunity), then its current understanding of social democracy is feeble and it has lost its language. As Tony Judt points out with the cheating language of equality deep inequality is allowed to happen much more easily.
What we don't have is active interventionist states protecting us against things that frighten people: states controlling changes so they don’t get out of hand or create a political backlash. Labor is not willing to face up to this challenge in the name of a progressive state with collective objectives and purposes, which preserves institutions that give us a sense of shared identity and values.
Nor do we have something that would replace the economic modernisation project of the past three decades whose goal was the pursuit of wealth --ie., the greening of social democracy. This is the absence that is troubling. If there is to be a rebirth of social democracy in the space opened up by the discrediting of neo-liberalism over the global financial crisis, then it will come from The Greens rather than Labor.
|
There's a whiff of panic in the ruling class. Everything has been going along swimmingly for years: unions demoralised, share of GDP going to wages steadily eroded, incremental tax changes benefiting the wealthy, acceptance that taxes are BAD, acquiescence in the growth of the power of the state in the name of national security, Labor transformed from a progressive party to a well-behaved centre-right toothless tiger ... then along comes this election result with dangerous reformers like the Greens getting actual power along with a bunch of independents with crazy romantic ideas about restoring power to parliament and the like.
No wonder they're either in denial or demanding that the masses have another go and get it right this time.