Uncategorized

Chapter 2: The Current Dynamic is ‘Progressive Versus Conservative’

Table of ContenTS
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 – MAKING THE BEST OF THE SYSTEM WE HAVE
CHAPTER 2 – THE CURRENT DYNAMIC IS ‘PROGRESSIVE VERSUS CONSERVATIVE’
CHAPTER 3 – OUR CURRENT PARTY STRUCTURES ARE INEFFECTIVE
CHAPTER 4 – INDEPENDENTS CAN’T FORM EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 5 – BREAKING INTO THE CARTEL
CHAPTER 6 – PATHWAYS TO SOMETHING NEW
CHAPTER 7 – A POTENT POLITICAL FORCE NEEDS PEOPLE
CHAPTER 8 – PRODUCING LEADERS
CHAPTER 9 – KEEPING IT SIMPLE
CHAPTER 10 – DRAFT ORGANISATIONAL MODEL
CHAPTER 11 – PEOPLE
APPENDIX 1 – HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
APPENDIX 2 – AUSTRALIAN COMMENTARY

The current divide in 21st-century Australian politics is ‘progressive versus conservative’. It is in our interests as progressives to have an organisation which reflects this reality. Most people do not naturally think of the world in terms of two conflicting sets of political ideas. However, our political system frames it is as such, and we must be able to give labels to those ideas. There is only a small percentage of the population who would agree on everything in each camp. Everyone has a bunch of different opinions and influences—their own personal politics.

It is useful to look at how a wide range of political views have been expressed across history through political parties. In the UK, the divide for much of the 18th and 19th centuries was ‘liberal versus conservative’, represented by the Whigs and the Tories. Meanwhile, in Australia around the time of Federation, more practical matters caused the first public divide of ideas in the parties seeking government: the Protectionist Party and the Free Trade Party. The basic concept of this clash was the idea of letting goods come freely into a country (free trade) versus using tariffs and other means to restrict imported goods and protect local industry (protectionism). It was a dispute between different groups of businesspeople playing out in public politics: those who made money importing stuff and those who earned money producing something here.

The rise of the labour movement in the late 19th century began the second divide, ‘labour versus capital’, represented by the Labor Party versus various capital-focused parties (the most notable being the Liberal Party). The ALP took one of the two seats at the table in the early 1900s. In response, the two sides of the earlier ‘protectionism versus free trade’ dispute merged as an anti-Labor force in 1909, called the Commonwealth Liberal Party. Often referred to as ‘the fusion’, this was a significant event where two bitter enemies were forced together to face a new common foe.[1]

As a broad concept, ‘labour’ refers to people whose primary asset to sell is their labour, and the labour movement is focused on improving their conditions and defending their rights. This was traditionally based on recognising the position of workers in society’s structure, leading to values like solidarity between workers and strength in numbers. Labour parties have naturally looked to collective solutions to benefit society, using government to produce public goods and services like healthcare, transport, education, and scientific research.

Capital refers to the owners of capital, who have the means to produce goods and provide services, and usually employ labour to do so. The capitalist has to sell the fruits of the labour for a higher price than they pay for it; otherwise, it is not worth the risk of investing. Through investing, the capitalist owns the physical assets and resources (non-human and nonfinancial) needed to do the work, also known as the means of production. Private ownership of the means of production is the basis of capitalism.[2]

Political parties have often attracted support from the owners of capital by emphasising people’s individuality, through values like personal rights, consumer choice, free markets and competition. The tension between capital and labour is central to socialist ideology, which favours public ownership of the means of production. These ideas developed and grew as the 19th century progressed; socialism was a global movement, and the Australian experience reflected this.

Of the 160-odd labour parties that have formed in different countries since the original movement, only five—in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Norway and Sweden—remain viable for forming government. Most others did not take hold and either died out or have pressed on as extremely minor parties, like in the US. In Australia, the labour movement first picked up steam as workers went on strike in 1856 to demand eight-hour working days, and better working conditions and wages. This eventually led to the formation of the ALP.

In 1944, severe party issues within the United Australia Party (the anti-Labor party at that time) resulted in the formation of the Liberal Party of Australia, the country’s current primary non-Labor force.[i] One of the largest ideological flashpoints occurred from 1947 to 1949, over the Chifley Labor government’s unsuccessful move to implement state ownership of Australia’s private banks. By the 1980s, the idea of a heavily regulated and controlled economy had burned itself out. Both the ALP and the Liberals saw the idea of opening up the economy and pursuing a ‘competitive market economy’ as the pathway to greater prosperity.

In the 21st century, in many parts of the world, the ‘labour versus capital’ divide has become one part of a larger mentality and dynamic in politics—that of ‘progressive versus conservative’.

‘Progressive’, in its basic form, is the idea of people working together through governments to make improvements to society. It is based on the idea of progress via advancements in science, technology, and social organisation—among other things—with little to no religious influence on its values.[3] It also strives to enable people to work together to face challenges. People have strived to make improvements to their societies for thousands of years. ‘Conservative’ beliefs, in their basic form, are adversity to rapid change, and a focus on upholding tradition and traditional social institutions, directly contrasting with progressivism. The conservative tradition has existed for much of recorded human civilisation. Australia’s progressive-conservative divide is reflected in the global dynamic, including issues such as:

  1. the response to climate change and the drive to become more sustainable
  2. the fight against efforts to deny the scientific evidence for climate change
  3. economic equality
  4. the growing number of people working for themselves, outside of traditional employer–employee relationships
  5. attitudes towards globalisation
  6. the declining number of people in the workforce who belong to unions
  7. diversity and inclusion versus more traditional social values, such as the discourses around equal rights—including the marriage equality debate—and multiculturalism
  8. ‘culture wars’—the different narrative frameworks that are projected on society and its development
  9. media polarisation
  10. the acceptance of a ‘regulated market economy’ by almost everyone.

Aspects of the 21st-Century Progressive Movement

In the 21st century, the progressive movement is concerned with:

  1. dealing with climate change and sustainability
  2. advocates for a more equitable society
  3. a focus on effective government
  4. equal rights for individuals and self-determination
  5. inclusive and multicultural communities
  6. equal opportunity
  7. active opposition to racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Aspects of the 21st-Century Conservative Movement

In the 21st century, the conservative movement is concerned with:

  1. advocacy for a small government with limited influence over people’s daily lives
  2. a resistance to action on climate change
  3. advocacy for an unregulated free market
  4. being influenced by religious beliefs
  5. a resistance to social change.

[i] The UAP formed in 1931 out of a merger between Labor defectors, led by Joseph Lyons, and the Nationalist Party, which was a successor to the Commonwealth Liberal Party. Lyons led the UAP to a landslide victory in the 1931 election and retained the leadership until his death in 1937, when he was replaced by Robert Menzies. The party retained government until 1941 when Menzies was forced to give up the leadership to Arthur Fadden, who promptly lost the confidence of the House 40 days later. While Labor took over government, Fadden was replaced as UAP leader by Billy Hughes, who had been involved in previous anti-Labor parties and had been a Labor Prime Minister from 1915-1916. Labor then won a resounding election victory in 1943 and Menzies was soon meeting with other conservatives and forming today’s Liberal Party.

[1] Richardson, Charles. 2009. “Fusion: The Party System We Had to Have?”. Policy 25 (1): 13-19, p. 13.

[2] Zimbalist, Andrew, and Howard J. Sherman. 1988. Comparing Economic Systems : A Political-Economic Approach. 2nd ed. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

[3] The Ethics Centre. “Ethics Explainer: Progressivism”. 2017. The Ethics Centre.