Tom Tesoro writing on Facebook, said:
“They all sense their economic destiny, their power to shape their society to suit the elite they believe to be the superior class. They adhere to the ancient principle of the aristocracy, the ‘betters’, natural leaders, and those best suited to rule. They must accrue all the benefits that society creates as a reward for their superiority.”
I hesitate to say that Australia has a fascist Government only because it has so many entities. However, there is some form of it in Australia’s governance.
The way countries are currently being governed or taken over, for that matter, one couldn’t but agree that nationalism, dictatorship or a mode of fascism is prevalent.
That Australia needs a change in government is becoming more apparent by the day. The current one has all the ingredients of a recipe for disaster – corruption, dictatorship, secrecy; if it governs for much longer, and should it win another term, I fear change might become less likely over time.
Indeed, if Morrison and his corrupt band of Ministers win the next election, they will become emboldened to shift the balance of power further to the far right.
If we acknowledge that we live in a world that is more complex, more scientifically advanced than at any other time in the history of the world, it then brings on a moral and ethical dilemma that we are at a loss to explain or cope with.
[textblock style=”4″]
Socialism comprehends empathy; conservatism and its partner capitalism do not.
[/textblock]
Change can be so rapid that we can barely keep up with all its complexities. It is often ahead of the game, sometimes disregarding opinion and becomes a phenomenon of its own making, with Its own inevitability.
Older people have not coped well with it and still think the right will prevent it or slow it down, but all manner of things are being changed to the right’s advantage.
Whereas the young have grown up with technological change and are disadvantaged with a lack of political education. The old fight to remain in a world of sameness and never see other ways of doing things. It is a conservative value. The young see change as a process; the old see it as an unwanted intrusion on their conservative principles.
They dislike and resist change in the foolish assumption that we can permanently be made to feel secure. Yet change is, in fact, part of the very fabric of our existence.
There is not an area of our existence that has not been dramatically changed by technology. Medicine, weaponry, communications, education, economics and many others.
The Internet has changed the lives of hundreds of millions of people. It is rapidly changing how we do many things, including entertainment, commerce, global trade, health care, transport, international, national news, world financial services and so on.
Globalisation is gradually framing a world without national borders with a cross-pollination of ethnicity.
Many countries successfully embrace multiculturalism but are consistently incapable of accepting change because Nationalism clouds many eyes.
Out of the necessity of survival, future generations will have to embrace change not by fighting old ideas but by building on the new.
Today I thought I would canvass the failure of Australian politics to embrace change.
Political change is everywhere – Brexit, the last British election result, and the Australian election result reflected dissatisfaction with traditional politics. The emergence of Trump and the resurgence of extremism in France, Brazil, political insurgency in the Middle East is evidence of global political change everywhere.
It is interesting how Australia, or more importantly, our politicians, has adapted to a transforming world where those on the left find difficulty understanding why the world has so empathetically turned to the right. But those on the “extreme” right have not only understood but implemented it. They have all but taken our democracy from us. All we have left is the power to dismiss them, but we are reluctant to do so.
The indoctrination of society began under Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher.
Rapid change brings with it the need for new rules and regulations that question traditional values and concepts. People accept those changes that benefit them but don’t like the necessity for regulation that often comes with it. Yet, they continue to vote for the extremity of the right in believing that things might be better for them. However, the truth is that the right are the ones less likely to do anything for them.
If nothing else they are very skilled at political propaganda.
So, I ask myself; which major political party is more qualified to embrace urgent change, implement it and legislate it for the common good?
Before answering that, firstly, let us appraise the ideological political philosophy of the left and right in Australia to appreciate what they stand for.
What is a conservative?
I know I have put the same question before, but I have expanded a little more here:
“Conservatives believe in free markets, individual liberty and traditional values. They believe the role of the Government should be to provide people with the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.”
They also believe that change should be incremental.
Note: Contrary to what they believe, they, the far-right, now seek to control us.
Conservative policies generally emphasise the empowerment of the individual to solve problems. And they are cautious about change or innovation, typically in science, politics, or religion.
They believe that free markets produce more economic growth, more jobs, and higher living standards than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation.
The right supports the separation of church and state, but it allows its conservative views to affect its legislation in practice.
Note the Prime Minister’s confusing allegiance to his religion, one that he never seems to practice when he is doing politics.
What is a neo-conservative?
Neo-conservatism goes back to the 1930s; however, it is identified with George W Bush in its modern form.
Bush embraced unbridled Capitalism, corporate greed together with literalist Christianity to form modern-day neoconservatism.
Carl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and others added global superiority to the mix, believing that American exceptionalism in all aspects was above the rest of the world.
What is a social progressive?
Social democrats (the left) believe in:
“… government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. The Government must alleviate social ills, protect civil liberties provide health services and individual human rights, thus believing the role of the Government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.”
And that:
“Government must protect citizens from the greed of big business. Progressive policies generally emphasise the need for the Government to solve problems.”
Social progressive democrats believe that a market system in which Government regulates the economy is best. Unlike the private sector, the Government is motivated by public interest. Government regulation in all areas of the economy is needed to level the playing field.
The left also supports the separation of church and state.
The answer to my question is that the left of politics is best qualified to handle rapid change generally and the changes brought about by climate change and COVID-19.
I am explicitly talking about Australia’s two-party system here, and the answer lies in comparative political history.
The Greens and others of English Liberal philosophy might argue their case for inclusion, but at present, we only have two possibilities.
By scrutinising the historic social reforms of Australia’s major parties and comparing them, we can determine who is best qualified to take us through this ongoing period of change and the necessary political, social and economic reforms.
The left side of Australian politics has, until now:
“… implemented the following reforms or policies that have directly contributed to change for the better.
A National Health Scheme, a National Disability scheme, compulsory superannuation, a National Broadband Network, Paid Parental leave, major educational reforms, a price on carbon, equal pay for women, the Aged Pension, Mabo and the Apology to the Stolen Generations, and of course the Hawke – Keating major economic reforms that have given the country 25 years of continuous growth.” (Refer to comment from ‘jim’ in the above link).
The ‘right side of politics has implemented the following; Howard gun buyback, the GST that benefited the rich, an increase in immigration after the Second World War, and Harold Holt introduced a bi-partisan referendum that gave Indigenous people the right to vote in 1967.
And there, I have to stop. The Liberal Party website provides a comprehensive list of achievements in Government as distinct from significant policy reforms. Here is the list for you to judge for yourself. If I have missed a considerable reform, please correct me.
In a world where science, technology, and information progress quickly, change sometimes disregards opinion and becomes a phenomenon of its own making. With its own inevitability.
Conservatives oppose change and are wary of science and intellectualism, as was demonstrated by the Abbott Government.
They seem locked in a world that no longer exists without comprehending how much the world has progressed. Remember, Abbott wanted to destroy the Internet.
They believe in traditional values (whatever they are) without recognising the historical elasticity of society. That change is inevitable.
We need to be governed by rules and regulations. It is the only way change can be civilised and cohesive.
Leaving individuals to pursue their goals without the infrastructure society provides and allowing Capitalism (the GFC) to go on unregulated can only lead to disaster.
A society that has change for the common good at its heart can only be attained with conventions, guidelines, systems, laws, policies, instructions and procedures.
While the central argument of conservative philosophy empathises and overtly supports the individual’s rights, it can never initiate the reformist zeal for change like the left.
I have concluded that a society facing the changes confronting us can only achieve worthwhile change under the umbrella of social democratic philosophy.
An ideology that believes in equality of opportunity, an equitable share of the country’s wealth, maintains individual rights and liberties within a societal framework is best equipped to bring about change. It would also guarantee that no one is left in need.
A government that solves the problems of change together with all who have a vested interest in it.
Change that only serves the secular interests of the wealthy and privileged is change doomed to fail.
Every facet of society, including the democratic process, needs constant and thoughtful renewal and change. Otherwise, we become so trapped in the longevity of sameness that we never see better ways of doing things.
[textblock style=”4″]
Some thoughts for the day
I think accepting and embracing change is one key aspect of what we try to define as wisdom.
How is it possible for the inherited rich and privileged to understand poverty – how can those with the means to pay medical costs understand the inability of those with ill-health who cannot?
In 2011 Malcolm Turnbull didn’t think there was a need for an inquiry into the news media but agreed with the then PM Gillard that Newscorp should stop publishing crap.
[/textblock]
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
