Wouldn’t the perpetual ’secret ballot’ in both houses of parliament, administered by the AEC, be the easiest way of breaking up the two party stranglehold?

LOL worst idea ever

Unions like the SDA - combining classic labourist collectivism with social conservatism and a disdain for individual rights conceived in a post-materialist sense - are much closer to the heart of the Australian Labor tradition than the infusion of liberal sentiment that came with the party’s middle-classing in Victoria, a wave Gough Whitlam rode, but which has since arguably receded.

The comment about the SDA is probably true, but I don’t know if the infusion of liberal sentiment has receded - many middle class people support the ALP and it has an element of liberal economic and social policies.

Classical liberalism was once a civilising influence on the body politic, encouraging the growth of an educated middle class. But the middle class is now interested in conserving its gains, not “pushing the envelope”.

The benefits of the tenats of liberalism can not be reduced to making life nice for the middle-class. The middle-class as a group hasn’t been interested in pushing the envelope since the reform act of 1832. The divisions between the ‘liberal’ and the ‘oligarchical’ are a feature of Western politics going back at least as far as Periclean Athens.
.
I’d suggest that if you intend to be this political philosopher/historian your comments infer a wish to be you might wish to expand your learning somewhat. Hyperbolous statements about the death of liberalism sans substantiation or historical perspective are a bucket of swill.

But can you really be so certain that individual control and collective say are mutually exclusive? Is it really so inconceivable that each could reinforce and promote the other?

I didn’t mean that at all — of course, both exist in all societies everywhere to some extent. I’m just suggesting that liberal socialism/social liberalism, as described in that article, doesn’t give me any idea about the kinds of political choices a libertarian socialist/social libral would actually make in the real world, compared with someone of any other political stripe. It is a “pretty clear articulation of [a] reality”, no doubt — but simply stating a conflict is not staking out a position. The fact that you asked Mark for clarification seems to suggest you agree with me.

And Leon if you know of a better tool to manage that, ahem, “paradox”, than democracy, I, and thousands of others would like to hear it.

I think I do, as a matter of fact — but depending on your definition of democracy these aren’t new.
Imagine all government decisions could be controlled by worm, a la channel 9. The fact that this is so undesirable is an argument in favor of less “democracy” or more arbitrary power, of the kind that already exists within our system: fixed terms, political parties, the cabinet system, the special power conventionally held by the PM, the GG, the monarchy, separation of legislature and judiciary, etc. In reasonable doses, such as exist in our “democratic” state institutions, these things can add stability even at the expense of pure democracy. Bills of rights are another obvious example, transferring power away from a democratic parliament, and giving it to either a piece of text or a body of judges (depending on your view on these things).
On a related point, I think the extent to which democratic institutions express the will of the people (or ever could do so) is greatly overrated. It seems that “representative” democracy largely means that the people act as a kind of referee in a conflict between two or three groups of elites. I would offer family conflicts (or life in a share house) as evidence that although an appointed leader represents some common ground, their most important role is to manage conflicts between interests.
In other words, I think democracy is only one tool to manage that paradox. There are plenty of undemocratic, somewhat arbitrary tools available there as well, because democracy is only an abstract principle until embodied in imperfect institutions.
Besides that, being pro-democracy doesn’t say what decisions you think should actually be made. For example, I think many of us would have disagreed with the democratic will of the people of Camden in May even if we think planning decisions should be made a local level.

A paradox can’t be solved, only managed - and the tool to manage it is democracy.

Leon -

This seems incredibly wishy-washy to me. Both more individual control and more of a collective say? At every level? One can use “paradox” as a nice sounding word, but if there are real conflicts between the perspectives it’s just sugar.

Not so wishy-washy really Leon. I think Lawson meant ‘paradox’ in the sense of there being mutually-exclusive values in contention, not a strict logical paradox.

But can you really be so certain that individual control and collective say are mutually exclusive? Is it really so inconceivable that each could reinforce and promote the other? There are numerous historical occasions where collective action has increased individual freedoms. And there are numerous occasions where individual action has led to more collective organisation.

But in any case, Lawson’s statement seems to me a pretty clear articulation of reality - that there often are real conflicts between our human need and desire for individual freedoms, and the collective will and organisation that’s sometimes required to promote those freedoms and protect them from tyrannical and oppressive forces - including other collective actions.

And Leon if you know of a better tool to manage that, ahem, “paradox”, than democracy, I, and thousands of others would like to hear it.
—

BTW Mark - any chance of a clearer definition of this mysterious “liberal socialism” beastie that’s invoked in the thread..?

I found this articulation of libertarian socialism from Chomsky in 1973 that seems as good as any: “a final act of liberation that places control over the economy in the hands of free and voluntary associations of producers”. In case you think that sounds like the current state of the world, where a ‘free and voluntary association’ of Halliburtons, Exxons, and Murdochs pretty much control the economy, I should point out that the purported object of such a system is not for the pursuit of power as in a cartel or plutocracy, but rather for a more just organisation of society.

*pauses for breath*

But then again, as a rallying cry, “people, let’s all get together and then do whatever we each feel like”, yeah, it has, ahem, some paradoxes to overcome
Er. This post did have a point, somewhere, towards the beginning.

A paradox can’t be solved, only managed - and the tool to manage it is democracy. Instead of the bureaucratic or market state, social liberals want a democratic state, so that at every level, people are given not just more individual control to pick and choose providers but a collective say in the big decisions and institutions that currently dominate their lives.

This seems incredibly wishy-washy to me. Both more individual control and more of a collective say? At every level? One can use “paradox” as a nice sounding word, but if there are real conflicts between the perspectives it’s just sugar. Or perhaps they’re simply saying we must navigate a course between liberty and equality — if so, that’s been going on “since forever”.

You sound confused. Social liberal and socialist are two very different ideologies.

I found that article a very interesting read. I agree that there are some social liberals in the Labor Party. I’m not sure if there are any social liberals in the Liberal Party. However, there are some classical liberals in the Liberal Party. Unfortunately, it seems that there are a majority of MPs and Senators in both major parties who tend to favour socially authoritarian policy more often than not.

In the Australian context, Liberal liberals are hardly likely to go along with the collectivist elements of Labourism - right from the start the liberal strand, such as it is in this country, had a social basis in the professions and among small employers and the self-employed bourgeoisie.

I’m wondering if a sentiment is gathering in puntersuburb which is about calling the Liberal Party on its attitude, specifically, the born-to-rule imperative. This pulls up all manners of historical manifestation as in the ruler and servant, hiding the crucial: we are better and better at it. This is welcome by the electorate when Labor up-buggers it, but I wonder now in this world of fast and drastic global change that it still has a place.

Could we hear the public response to this attitude as: “How can you possibly know what is better?”

I think it’s that gap which the Liberal Party needs to fill. They can shift their policies all over the place but it mightn’t matter a toss if their attitude remains the same.

The Libs may well have ridden through the changing age ahead on this attitude if it weren’t for Howard sucking their well dry on it. People finally saw enough clarity through the “everyman” pose to see his attitude was anything but. We know all this but bear with me a sec. Downer, Abbott, Andrews, they all came to stink of it. By constructing a pose to deny this attitude, headed up by JH, the attitude was eventually highlighted.

They still have it! It’s going to take a heck of a shift to present as something more representative of the common folk. Facts such as ‘more people are self-employed’ today doesn’t alter the nature of the commonfolk in that they want (or want to feel) representation other than by well-sold policy. This shift is obviously difficult enough but it’s made all that more harder now because whatever it is it surely has to be real and honest.

Placing policy as a net to cast upon a targeted people - and the angst of that - might be hiding this attitudinal problem and leave it unattended. Pundits and policy-makers and politicians and media get all caught up in that angst. It could be terribly misleading for the Libs. Punters don’t.

Labor Party attitude has its own flaw; perhaps for another time. Something like a “we’ve broken into our grandparents’ warehouse and we can play now”, a kind of incomplete embracing of power (which I can’t put my finger on at the mo), but the flaw is there resonating with the punters just the same. For all of Rudd’s useful dissolving of the cruelty that gripped the electorate, his appearances of flippancy at times draws a direct line between this Labor flaw and the people, and is a worry.

Grip-too-tight on the one hand, looseness on the other.

These are living perceptions which real or not definitely affect voting while at times flying in the face of actual policy. I’d hazard that Labor has long lived publicly with its flaw, but the Libs have been spared due to the times. Not any more.

Bowen argues that social liberals within the Liberal Party are as marginalised now as they were under John Howard,

Particularly with the demise of the Democrats, social liberals are far more likely to have to sort out where they stand in their own party, rather than entering the Labor fold, at least in the immediate future.

Good to see Bowen, mark et al finally hearing the penny drop on the Decline of the Wets. For the better part of the decade denizens of the “strocchi-verse” have know that “social liberals”, “luvvies”, small “l” liberals, “wets” call them what you will, are in decline.

Liberalism has had its day but ran out of steam some time in the early eighties. Since then it has been pretty much all down hill.

Twas not ever thus. Classical liberalism was once a civilising influence on the body politic, encouraging the growth of an educated middle class. But the middle class is now interested in conserving its gains, not “pushing the envelope”. And normal people are sick of hearing civil rights violins played everytine someone rolls out freedom as an excuse for misbeaviour.

And there is nowhere for liberals to go but down. There is little hope for fashionable liberalism in either party. Both parties respond to populist pressure and the majority do not like the way certain economic and ethnic minorities abuse freedom.

Keatings social agenda has failed. The indigenous intervention, the most flagrant bit of authoritarian paternalism in recent history, is very popular and has bi-partisan support. Republic is stale and multiculturalism is being quietly shelved. You only have to look at Rudd’s reaction to the Henson exhibition to see that there is no room at the Labor in for “social liberals”.

The major problems confronting society now come from individuals taking liberties in one way or another. Neo-liberalism has degenerated into the ideology of pre-modern diversity and post-modern perversity, for problem people at either end of the Bell Curve. Uber-class individuals engaging in white collar crime, off-shore tax havens, hedge funds, art salons. Or unter-class individuals going right off the rails in ethnic ghettos, remote communities and booze-binge bars.

And dont get me started on the need for authoritative action by institutional authority to mitigate ecological bads and promote technological goods.

Jes’ glad it wasn’t me that asked.
Oh, it was me.

I like the idea of splitting the two party system as much as the next person, but it shouldn’t happen at the expense of my fun.

Wouldn’t the perpetual ’secret ballot’ in both houses of parliament, administered by the AEC, be the easiest way of breaking up the two party stranglehold?

The problem is that we voters tolerate parties that turn elected representatives of the people into rats in a maze.

The major parties have their duopoly because voters like what this duopoly produces — stable politics run by political machines rather than unpredicatble politics driven at the margins by the conscience of a few individuals.

Secret ballots of politicians for parliamentary votes is an appalling idea.

I want to know exactly who is voting for and against certain measures. I want to be able to vote them out next time if I don’t like the way they vote.

The institution of secret ballots would probably have the opposite to the desired effect. It is likely to increase the power of political machines. Apparatchiks would redouble their efforts to ensure that elected representatives were simply ciphers. Except in the case of saecret ballots voters wouldn’t know which cipher voted which way.

The only solution in a democracy is for voters to decide whether or not the individual consciences of a small number of elected representatives produces better outcomes than puppets whipped into accepting iron party discipline.

The answer to that question isn’t as clear-cut as it might initially appear.

I know this is going to bring about arguments of voids and vacuums but..why wouldn’t there be a new entity?

As others said in different ways, it’s because we have a two party system, and we already have two parties. Unless the Liberals disintegrate (slightly possible, but still pretty unlikely), the current arrangement isn’t likely to change anytime soon.

There’s strands and occasional outbursts of liberalism in the ALP I guess, but they seem to have a much stronger liking for authoritarian - esp if you look at many of their state governments.

In any case, while is there is some case to be made for Labor liberal tendencies, they can never really credibly lay claim to such a label whilst they maintain such a completely rigid demand of 100% caucus solidarity, forcing people to vote in favour of things they are completely opposed to, regardless of the nature of their concerns. (they even disendorsed a Senator over their stance on a conscience vote FFS!!)

The Liberals are not overly better on enforcing ‘party discipline’ these days, but as the example in this post of Sue Boyce shows, even the potential of being able to cross the floor gives you greater bargaining power. (and lets not forget who pushed the amendment which opened up the possibility for this partial overturning of bigoted bastadry on the same-sex Bill to occur)