There’s already been some comment at Catallaxy and m c gregg about Judith Brett’s new Quarterly Essay - Relaxed and Comfortable: The Liberal Party’s Australia. It’s not my intention to provide a full review here (and I’d very much urge people to grab a copy and read it - the Quarterly Essay series has been a bit disappointing of late but this one is ace) but one passage struck me as very relevant now. Brett develops a general thesis which she has articulated in other work - the way in which the Liberal Party’s narratives and thematics call upon images of Australian unity. The obvious contrast, for the Liberals and their predecessor parties since the emergence of the modern party system in 1910, is with the Labor Party - which is seen as a monstrous deformation of democracy, representing only a narrow class interest. Rather the Liberals perceive themselves as a government of and for the Nation - and the Nation is the only collective identity permissible. Other than that, we are all individuals, free to pursue our own projects, but united vertically with the imagined community of Australian nationality and its collective values. Thus, Brett argues, Howard’s approach to issues such as Indigenous affairs (which she demonstrates by examining the 1987 policy document Future Directions, has been consistent over his career) and his election slogan in 1996 - “For all of us” are both firmly in the Liberal tradition, and also resonant with a particular version of self-understanding within Australian culture.
Brett doesn’t lose sight of the tension between any political leader’s need to include and need to divide. She also suggests that Howard is not unique in his divisiveness - though perhaps particularly mendacious in how he goes about it. Keating, it occurs to me, also tried to present his view of an imagined Australia by excluding the stuffy remnants of British Imperialism - both through his constitutional modernism and through his interpretation of Australian history.
Brett argues, I think convincingly, that though there are aspects of Howard’s rhetoric and agenda which are imported from US models (such as elements of the culture wars), Howard’s critics are wrong to see the imposition of his vision of Australia as somehow foreign to either the history of this country or its petit bourgeois and middle class self image. This lack of vision, if you like, she argues, is the reason that many on the Left and Right express incredulity at Howard’s success. The thing, she suggests, is to understand it. Only by seeing his appeal and his themes as distinctly Australian will it be possible for a viable alternative agenda and thematics to emerge.
This point is made powerfully with regard to nationalism.
Brett writes:
But are nations necessarily pathological? Is any appeal to a national “us” a sort of warm-up for an attack on a non-national “them”, a dog-whistle letting people know they really can hate the other? I know many of Howard’s critics think so, and this has in my view shaped much of the Left’s commentary on his prime ministership. It is also the basic reason for its ineffectiveness, because it has made it impossible to devise successful oppositional strategies.
This, in my view, is a powerful insight. Intellectuals are often suspicious of nationalism, as she asserts. And there is good reason to be. But there is also good reason to understand that imagining an alternative story about our nation is the first and necessary condition for shaping a vision which can achieve electoral success. Hence, the history wars’ importance. Many writers have noted the way that Howard has appropriated themes - the battler, the digger, Eureka, mateship - which traditionally were a powerful part of the egalitarian and democratic understanding of the Australian story and character. Much of the opposition to these appropriations has taken a stand on the grounds of truth. That’s important, but it’s also important to remember what Paul Keating never lost sight of - the big picture - and to contest Howardian Australian-ness with another vision which also speaks to a national culture and identity and historical narrative.
There are social theorists who would bolster this point. Coming to grips with a much more troubling sense of nationalism than Australia faces, German thinkers such as Jurgen Habermas argue for a “constitutional nationalism” - a nationalism which does not define itself by iron and blood and exclusion but by inclusive and democratic values, and the tradition of fighting for those values. Contrasting the supranational projects of globalisation and regionalism, such as the EU, with democratic nationalist movements in Europe, Tom Nairn argues for the value of subsidiarity and the articulation of democracy with history and community.
Perhaps Australian thinkers, and politicians, could take a leaf out of their books. Australian history is rich with the stories of struggle for democratic and workers’ rights, as well as those for the rights of women and the Indigenous population. There is another imagined Australia which is egalitarian and characterised by communal care for the other - as well as the Australia which is relaxed and comfortable and alert and alarmed.
Brett also writes:
If you regard any talk of “us” as illegitimate, it is not clear to me whom you are going to talk to. Nations are not simply formed and defined by their opposition to or difference from some Other; they are also formed and defined by shared experiences and collective memories. They have centres as well as borders. As I have been arguing, Howard speaks persuasively from that centre. One does not counter him by arguing that the centre is empty, or does not exist, and that he is really only ever policing the borders. One stands in the centre with him and argues about its meanings and its responsibilities, and tells different stories to one’s fellow Australians about their past and present and the bonds they share.
Completely agree with Brett here - one of the Left’s problems has been an inability to ‘do’ nationalism post- White Australia.
Minor quibbles though (and havent read it yet, but will): Would Howard’s early years as PM have looked the same without Hanson? And how much of Howard’s success lies in his appropriation & reconstruction of the old labour nationalism - rather than a Liberal tradition?
I think Brett suggests Howard was moving the same way as Hanson anyway - ie attacks on PC, early denunciations of ATSIC corruption and hacking its budget.
As to the second question - I don’t know that she has an answer - she certainly recognises that Howard’s grafting on of traditionally labour themes is highly significant. She also brings out the important political/class context of much more fluid allegiances and collective and individual identities.
A very good piece of analysis with important political implications.
The ALP had so disgraced itself doing nationalism until Whitlam, that its elite tried to ditch nationalism altogether. Unfortunately nationalism cannot be entirely ignored. But it’s a tough thing to do and at the same time keep to liberal values in a globalised world.
No wonder Beazley couldn’t even start on a response to Tampa.
Howard owns the nationalist vote. I don’t think that can be changed. You just have to minimise it’s ranking in the list of key issues.
Shorter Mark: There’s a tough wirey and witty thread running though Aus that Howard is trying to splice into a decayin’ empire’s fraying anchor ropes.
But time will tell. Or least it will shout a round, slap the plastic on the counter, bugger off to the pre-loved beer department…and not return.
wbb, I don’t know at all that the ALP had so disgraced itself doing nationalism until Whitlam. You’re doing what Brett cautions against - equating nationalism with exclusion. There was much that was positive in the labour view of history and nation and community - as I’ve indicated it wasn’t a top down version where rights are granted to citizens by their betters but one where the values and rights we have emerged through our own struggles.
Similarly, you’re equating the “nationalist vote” with what I’d call, following Tim Phillips from UTAS, the “Australian Nativist vote” - ie the Hansonites. There’s absolutely no reason why you and I can’t be nationalist voters. I was quite excited by the vision of Australia that Keating represented to us. Or the way Manning Clark told our story. Now I’m not saying we need to recreate or revive those visions, but I am saying we need an inclusive and democratic nationalism for the new century.
It’s an absolute precondition for a successful electoral project. If you retreat to a sort of cosmopolitanism, where you refuse to speak in terms of “us” Australians and regard “nationalists” as them, we’re all fucked. The charge of elitism will ring true. Howard will rule forever.
I hope to tease out these ideas with some further reflections on Islam and Australia, and Indigenous Australia, but that’s for another day (or night).
Quoting myself from a paper I wrote a while ago that never wound up getting published:
[NB: That was within Lefty Elitist’s three-paragraph rule. Happy?]
I haven’t read the Quarterly Essay yet, but in a way this idea of reclaiming nationalism from the likes of Howard is one of my themes with regard to the republic and politics in general. Howard is working from within the primordial strand of nationalism. This is the exclusionary ethnicity based nationality that we know from Howard and Hanson. Opposed to this is an institutional nationalism.
Perhaps a key to understanding primordial nationalism is the idea that they try to relativise democratic institutions so that they can be applied to the IN group only and not to an OUT group. They do this by trying to make out that democratic institutions, such as the rule of law and human rights, are VALUES only.
The nationalism of Howard is actually quite weak - in a country such as Australia that has a strong democratic tradition of the fair go, and a nasty colonial history to remind us about abuses of power.
Even Pauline Hanson has softened her attitude toward Indigenous Australians after her time in jail - and after she actually got to talk with people about their circumstances.
Institutional nationalism is actually much more stronger.
Nationalism is about narratives, and maybe that is why the left don’t like it. But instead of a grand narrative of …… we can have many personal narratives about how we live and do what we can with our opportunities. The traditional preoccupations of the left - redistributoin of wealth, justice, education and good public health systems, etc - can be part of this story. This might add to the ownership that the public feels towards public services so that it may become more difficult for a government to flog them.
The Quarterly essay and the responses above this are one of the major reasons why the ALP can’t win Government at the Federal level. Too much navel gazing, at the wrong navels, in a manner that the vast majority of Australians find condescending and elitist claptrap.
Keep it up - your doing a wonderful job. The Liberal Party thanks you.
Good concision Liamista.
Yes, labour once owned the narrative of Australiian nationalism. Right up unitl CW Bean and the Tories turned mateship and egalitarainism into something we do dying on foreign soil for Imperial overlords.
Mark is right: old labour nationalism was more than racial exclusionism. It had vigorously democratic themes in a time when this was not standard issue, a critique of religious sectarianism, and suspcion of inhertied forms of power - monied or aristocratic. Not all bad - but alas, critically premised on racial exclusion - to the extent that little else is recalled.
LE - it is C.E.W. Bean. Do you have a problem with E’s? Or, perhaps the name Edwin is distasteful?
Howard’s narrative of Australian nationalism wont survive the next government, the same as Keating’s narrative didnt survive his government being replaced by Howard. Keating called it “politics do matter”, but in reality it just shows the economic and media dominance of government. Culture, society and economy are intended to be emergent properties from the people, not the domain of government. This shows big government at its worst. However, this meme can only be propped up by government intervention, which shows its inherent weakness. Once government gets out of the way, then the Australian people can get on with their cultural flowering again.
Howard’s form of “provincial ockerism” is inherently hollow anyway. Australians are a global people, who stride this planet with far more confidence and grace than the Australian government does. The Howard government has shown some of the worst aspects of the “political cringe”, especially in its foreign policy, nationalism and constitutional encumbrance. Greg Egan called this style of provincial ockerism, acting as Professional Australians.
That all being said, there is a narrative in Australian history, and an easily recognizable us and them. It has been a history of constant violence by the government, at both state and federal levels, against the rights of its people. The common thread in Australian history has been individuals stamping their foot in the ground and standing for their rights against the tyranny of government, and government maintained institutions.
This is an inclusive history which starts with Pemulwey, to Cunningham, to Lalor, to Lee, to Lingiari and on and on. Australian history is a noble one of great strength. It is individuals fighting for their rights against the tyranny of government. It is also a narrative which does not require the nation-state’s interference. It also does not fall into the trap of nationalistic triumphalism.
I consider Vincent Lingiari as Australia’s greatest patriot. He fought tyranny from government, from entrenched private interests, and from institutionalised thuggery. Amazing courage, resilience and commitment to his beliefs. Lingiari is an inspirational figure in Australian history.
Cam, the only possible purpose of nationalism is to support the existence of, and perpetuate, a nation-state. Liberal rights held against the Government don’t require any kind of Australian identity.
‘Standing for rights against the tyranny of government and government maintained institutions’ isn’t an exclusively Australian thing to do, it’s the universal trope of small-State liberals.
Nationalism is neither anti-government nor pro-government; it’s just an imagined community.
Call me a Benedict Anderson groupie if you like. I can take it.
liam, We are seeing the erosion of the nation-state with globalism anyway. 5% of Australians live and work outside of Australia at any one time now. If immigration laws were looser between nation-states, we would see more Australians overseas.
There is nothing to suppose that nationalism and the perpetuation of the nation-state a natural political grouping anyway. They are fairly modern, and are more to do with the concentration of capital required to perpetuate defence and to maintain the political power in an elite few.
Well, there we have to part ways Cameron. Globalism may be smashing open national markets like so many ripe coconuts, but it’s reinforcing the nation-state as the ultimate authority of collective identity. Just because you trade or work overseas doesn’t mean the nation-state isn’t an important part of identity. Consider the strength of the arguing for and against the Republic in 1999.
Arguably the strongest anti-national, pro-global force in the twentieth century was COMINTERN, and even they loved a nationalist stoush before being sent to the dustbin of history. In these days of unilateralism and Wars on Terror, the idea of civilised cosmopolitanism is just going out the window.
Nationalism is the new black, baby.
Liam, “but it‚Äôs reinforcing the nation-state as the ultimate authority of collective identity” You will need some facts to support this statement. There are nationalistic governments in Australia and the United States but Iraq is showing that the nation-state cannot compete with the decentralised technology and organization of the insurgents. Centralism is too slow to innovate, respond and is far, far too interested in its own preservation beyond the benefits of the wider, decentralised needs.
Nationalism is the old and busted. Decentralised organisational structures - societal, cultural, technological and political are the new hotness (and the new resilience).
Nice post mark. Haven’t read Brett’s essay yet but I’ve been wondering why labour hasn’t been embracing this for a while now.