Comment on the ALP Draft National Platform

The ALP Draft National Platform is here.

My comment was somewhat limited (700 words max, trying to be pithy).  I realise this does mean anyone from the Party who is totally obsessive can work out who I am.  But I'm sure they are far more busy doing much more meaningful things.  Like counting numbers.

Comment:


The provisions relating to the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers are contradictory and illogical.

The language implies that the obligations placed on us by our signatory status as members of the appropriate UN conventions are voluntary adoption on our part and did not enter into legal force following the adoption of the said conventions. This is incorrect.

We claim to maintain our adherence to these obligations and to ensure that asylum seeker claims will be processed by Australians in Australia and under Australian law. Yet the current Labor Government continues to excise certain proportions of our territories in order to prevent these obligations from being met in all cases. Why should we adhere to any obligations in only the ways we choose to do so?  It's like saying we will obey the law, but only when we feel like it.

The National Platform does not clearly state that seeking asylum is not actually a crime and that those who are considered refugees should find sanctuary.  It does not address the use of security concerns or the lack of documentation which can be assessed by intelligence agencies to refuse to let people who have been declared as 'genuine refugees' into the community.  This speaks to a backward assumption of terror, paranoia and scapegoating, remembering that the lead terrorist attacks have been undertaken by 'home grown' activists or long-stay non-humanitarian arrivals.  It speaks to policy and assumptions brought in under the previous LNP Government, which were not based in evidence, research or a fair understanding of our international obligations.

It is completely understandable that our policies have died in the public's view and our polling is so dire, with the Party unable to get traction or cut through Opposition criticism. As we've continued to scapegoat refugees, to say that it's fair to not help out sometimes, that we can only afford to look after our own, why shouldn't the miners say the same? or the coal producers? or big business?  Why should we consider the needs of low-paid workers, Indigenous Australians, or sell pokies reform?  Vested self-interest has become the norm and we utterly failed to change the basis of this 'national conversation.'

Should this platform be adopted at conference as is, I will no longer be able in good conscience to be a member of the Party, to undertake activities to promote Party candidates or policies, or to honestly consider my vote to be rock solid for the ALP.  As a gay male I understand the disgusting Howardism that has crept into the party and our failure to combat it, but if we fail to treat fairly with some of the most vulnerable in the world, then our definition of 'fair go' becomes meaningless, vacuous and self-interested. It also will fail to hold water in the long term: what makes union members or low paid workers so special?  why should we look out for the environment, or women's rights, or learning, or culture against self-interest, consumerism, profit and need, if we won't consider refugees?  Either everyone deserves fairness or we all don't, and if we all don't, let's just declare it a dog-eat-dog country and join the LNP.

The Perils of Being a Progressive

Once upon a time, social and political action was defined in broadly economic terms:

In generalising hugely, we can posit that Leftism operated on the premise of collective action - that by banding together, those without power (in an economic sense) could provide a counterweight to the heft of those who dominated economic and political spheres. The greatest concern was the flow and control of capital, and the lack of capital opportunity available to those who were powerless within a capitalist paradigm. In that sense, regulatory and legislative action by Government was an adjunct to collective action by workers - it enabled and promoted their capacity to organise themselves, work collectively and consider their capacity to be treated 'fairly' in an economic sense by management.

Protecting the 'working class' was foremost a consideration for the Left - which is why policies which were protectionist (whether tariffs or the White Australia policy) were heartily endorsed by unions and unionised workers of the Left. Analysis of social aspects were often pushed to one side, as the operating paradigm was an economic one, one necessitated by the capitalist society in which workers existed. If the key indicators were job security, fair treatment, safe workplaces and equatable pay, then issues such as concern for homeless, unemployed or those needing welfare were considered to be issues of fair access to gainful employment and the creation of safety nets (health, education, welfare) for those still unable to benefit from the employment market as much as others.  Left Government provided a regulatory framework which backed up the capacity of society to enable equitable access to jobs and job security.

As political discourse increased through the 20th century, the capacity and role of Government became contentious.  In the examples of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany (plus Franco's Spain and Peron's Argentina), it could be seen that the Left-Right spectrum was too simple.  

You can have libertarian lefties (Gandhi) who would role back the capacity for government/the state to interfere on the premise that communal living and economic development is self-regulating in the best needs of the community, and the interference of government reduces the community's democratic nature.  You can have authoritarian lefties (Stalin, possibly Peron) who reduce everything to a command economy to ensure equality of the proletariat and erase class distinctions. But then the power of government officials becomes their own class system.

You can have authoritarian righties who assume control of the economy in order to build upon corporatist interest and actually divest the working classes of equality in the name of 'greater goods', often national interests in a time of constant war (Franco, Hitler).  You can have libertarian righties, who peel back government interference and endorse the capacity of the market as the best judge of value (Ayn Rand.)

Authoritarian generally means stronger government control, regulation and authority over the citizenry, the polis and the systems of business and corporatism. Lefties /tend/ to have /some/ authoritarian instincts as we recognise the capacity and need for government to protect the working and economically disenfranchised classes.  (Also a generalisation).  And righties in theory tend to be libertarian, with a visceral distaste for government regulation. In practice, of course, things are much different.

But a consideration of economic (left-right) and political (authoritarian-libertarian) views is limiting, because it fails to take into account the cultural desires to which government and economic structures will be put.  More recently, a further consideration has been placed into governance and political attitudes: cultural or social beliefs, such as gay marriage, drug usage, and treatment of refugees/free mobility of populations.

We label the poles in this case 'progressive' and 'conservative' and often they've become catch-all descriptions and replacements for Left and Right. In Australia, both the ALP and Greens compete for the 'progressive' label, but when you think about it, the current struggle of the ALP is because many of those in the ALP are economically Left but socially conservative, framing problems simply in terms of the struggle for scarce resources in a capitalist and consumerist society.

Progressivism is about looking to the future and believing that culture and society is an ongoing process of improvement; conservatism is about the language of having 'lost our way' and needing to return, to look back for inspiration. Progressivism makes an ideal that hasn't existed yet; conservatism turns what has existed into its ideal.

So instead of four quadrants, we have many different sectors and a greater understanding of the struggles internal to parties and between parties and affiliated organisations.

Personally, it's one of the reasons I hate the catch-all use of 'progressive' by individuals on the Left, as it says nothing about the whole picture of your political beliefs and stances. It only captures a social or cultural dimension, and its reductive in its suggestion that 'progressivism' is a singular category.

After all, we can have:

Progressive-Left-Authoritarians - those who are socially progressive in part because they identify economic equality with the ways in which minority groups are ultimately excluded from society, and endorse the need for government to Do Things to achieve equality and inclusion (gay marriage, targets for women on boards, use of government to promote acceptance of refugees etc).  Government is used to provide for universal equality.  The Left faction of the ALP could probably be placed here.

These come into conflict with:

Conservative-Left-Authoritarians - those who believe that government should use its regulatory power to enable greater power and economic strength to the 'working class'. They also tend to see social issues (gay marriage) as a distraction from government's core business of helping them, and consider potential actions from this economic lens. Migrants are then seen as a threat and a competitor for increasingly scarce resources in a capitalist society; and green movements threaten the viability of industries and jobs by putting the long-term sustainability of the planet ahead of the short-term consequences to workers.  Government is used to provide targeted support for union and working class interests, especially when they are under threat (manufacturing subsidies for example)  These are often the cohort of former ALP members who have reacted most strongly to the ALP's movement on social issues over the past thirty years and may now vote for the LNP as they see the LNP as providing the most economic security through tax cuts.  They also tend to view the ALP and the country through a cultural lens in which things were better 'back in the old days' as the party simply protected a unified cohort of workers regardless of the environmental or social consequences of their industry.

Then there's Progressive-Right-Libertarians.

These are the Malcolm Turnbull's and David Cameron's of the political world, those who believe social equality is achievable and doable in a world where economic equality is a matter of individual attainment. They view government's place as removing barriers to achievement and opportunity, rather than enabling the polity to achieve and gain access.  They believe in the power of the market and the individual and disdain the need for collective action.

They conflict with Progressive-Right-Authoritarians.

I'd say Sarkozy is one in some ways. Wants to get the government out of the economy, but utilise it to achieve socially acceptable (acceptable, not necessarily just) outcomes through regulation and imposition which create a unified culture.  There's a new wave of right-authoritarians in Europe who are progressive on social issues and don't see the need for government to deal with the individual, but do see the need for government to impose identity on the community (Muslims, migrants, etc) in order to maintain order and compliance.

I'd suggest the Australian Democrats were most likely Progressive-Left-Libertarians, in that they had a distrust of government and its institutions ('Keep the bastards honest') which meant they preferred individual responsibility with collective action in order to ensure the best and most equal polity.  I also think this categorisation of them is a bit iffy and doesn't touch on their internal policy divisions.  Some of the Australian Greens are also here, but there's also a healthy recognition of the potential and value of good governance associated with the Greens.  The UK Lib Dems tend to be hazily here, although close to the centre economically, which causes tension (as it did with the Australian Democrats).

Conservative-Right-Authoritarians tend to be the populist lot who want Government to do all it can to preserve existing societal conditions and who venerate their own culture, and therefore disdain government attempts to achieve economic equality or social inclusion.  One Nation, for example.

Conservative-Right-Libertarians are those even crazier mob who tend to exacerbate the potential for Government to do anything wrong and distrust any form of social change. They worship at the altar of the individual and tend to place responsibility for status and wealth on individuals (ie. if you're not employed, it's because you're a bludger.)  Society should be dismantled as a concept as it compels individuals to give up their norms to a larger whole. There was elements of Thatcherism which met this model but she was also Authoritarian in some impulses.  The One World Government conspiracy theorists are at the extreme end of this categorisation: the existence of government as an implicit and existential wrong which threatens individual freedom (see also: Party, The Tea.)

And yes, there are Conservative-Left-Libertarians somewhere, although their wish for economic equality and the removal of government go hand in hand with a halcyon perspective on communal living. They still believe in the need for social boundaries and structures: it's probably a bit Old Labor, really.

This post however, was supposed to be all about why I think 'Progressivism' is an empty suit of a word, and misses most of its point in the current political discourse.  In the US it's gained fashion as opposed to saying 'Liberal'; here it's used to indicate something in opposition to conservatism. It also reveals the split within the Left (in western social democratic tradition) between Left Conservatives and Progressives - but it also parades an individual's social stances  before their economic stance.  It assumes you can enact progressive social change without touching on or explicitly promoting the need for economic equality: that you can be Progressive without having to actually call yourself (or be) Left.

And that, I think, is a mistake.  But that's a post for another time.

Anyway, where does everyone sit on my hideously complex schema?

A nation of True Believers?

Sorry for the lack of blogging - work and study have got me on the floor, crying that I can't get up.  But after the events of the week, I had some things I just had to say...


And look, a few people have commented in this blog to ask me why I'm an ALP voter.  People have asked on Twitter too, and I certainly get some stick from my Greens friends for being one of the few gays left in the ALP village.  It's certainly in a good question, and it's one I hope to fully answer over the next few weeks.


But you will be able to tell some of my basic beliefs through this post, because this post will be musings on some of Labor's troubled (and tortured) self-definitions over the past few days, and some ways in which I return to my theme that the body politic has irrevocably changed.


I'm not going to comment specifically on the Leyy and on the situation in Egypt: a lot of smarter people have covered this ground so I don't need to.  (Go read Pollytics on the Levy if you don't believe me; and the discussion between @Dr_Tad and @jason_a_w on Twitter was especially enlightening today on the Left's fragmented discourse on Egypt.)  But this week there's been some crucial steps along the way by the ALP at various state levels especially, which reveal in some ways the current philosophy of said party, and why I often throw my hands up in shame at it.


First, there was a new Premier in Tasmania.  Huzzah, another woman come to save the ALP from the wilderness.  And/or take the blame.  (See Kirner, Lawrence, Keneally, Gillard.)  I won't waste your time with the overt sexism of the Australian's coverage, or the implicit sexism of the ALP's tendency to 'anoint' chiefly female leaders in dire straits as a breath of fresh air/maternal figure/etc.


But the new Tasmanian Premier, who as Richard Farmer noted is essentially a party apparatchik with no outside experience, did state her case for why Tassie should stick with the ALP and what it stands for.


Apparently it's got something to do with Malcolm Fraser the child-killer and holding hands?


I kid you not. I understand the belief in modern-day politics that it's all about 'narratives' that enable people to relate to their representatives, but if you're going to tell a story about how you thought Malcolm Fraser killed children after the Dismissal, at least make it funny.


But the chief quote/'take away' from her speech was the following:

''And to me that sums up why I am a member of the Labor Party. It is about people. It is about helping people across that road.''


I appreciate Gidding's attempts to set the ALP in a narrative of support for the average punter who needs defence from the Powers That Be (that's the 'holding hand' metaphor there), but at the same time, the way she's phrased it comes over as the worst of the ALP Right's Big Nanny Statism of the past few years (net filter, wikileaks response, etc).  Gidding's from the Left faction apparently but like other Left faction members lately when called to power she quickly morphs into a nicer version of Stephen Conroy.


The optics of that vision are all wrong: it portrays Labor as the (potentially nagging) parent-figure, who looks after us and holds our hand and makes sure we Do the Right Thing - protective yes, but also limiting. Who really wants to vote for your Mum and Dad and be treated like a 5 year old?  


There certainly could have been a better way of phrasing the ALP's instincts to side with its 'everyman' base appeal, such as:


"As I grew up, I recognise that our side of politics is about people.  It's about support, help, and simple decency.  We know that most of the time, people stand on their own two feet and manage, but sometimes families and parents across Tassie need a little bit of extra help from Government.  Not a huge amount; just a bit, because they're struggling. And we recognise that when you're struggling it's not your fault, so we put a hand out to help with making sure your kids get a good education to inspire them, that infrastructure and technology are there to future-proof us, and that communities can turn to health services when they need to."


True, it's very small-target and managerial in some ways, but state govt isn't really visionary.  Still, it's more emblematic of 'core Labor values' of social justice, equality and public services than what she actually said.

The final message Giddings was a trial balloon, based on her experience as Treasure (and she's keeping that portfolio, apparently):

But having kept the Treasury portfolio she won only two months ago, she warned that with reduced post-global financial crisis revenue, the state should expect tightened spending.

So basically, neoliberalism wins!  As in federal government, the fiscal dictates of a previous Coalition government (Howard/Costello) have become Labor policy because we're too scared to push back.  Let's consider just how much Howardism has entrenched itself into mainstream political discourse.

Apparently Sydney people shouldn't pay the levy!

Oh Kristina Keneally, every week a little bit more of the ALP's dignity in NSW dies under your decisions.  If you weren't so clearly from the NSW Right, I'd say you were a Lib plant. (Hey, anyone know if Arbib might actually be a US Republican mole?  Would explain a lot.) 

What about the costs for people living in Melbourne, which has the highest property prices in Australia? Admittedly Ted Ballieu was mostly for the levy before he was against it, so that's clarity and leadership for you.  What about Canberra, which has some of the highest rents in the country?  Not a peep from Jon Stanhope or Katy Gallagher, but that might be because the ACT is full of lefty hippies who don't mind paying (a generalisation).

And while Kristina is plumbing the barrel to be on 'Sydney's side', a premier is supposed to be on the side of all her state.  What about the rest of NSW?  Indeed, what about mateship and solidarity?  She's virtually enabling Abbott and co's fear campaign because clearly the most important thing in this world is money.  If she really wants to do something to help costs of living for Sydney-siders, she should have sorted out social housing, affordable rental property and public transport a while ago.  I recognise that Sydney-siders may indeed find that $70,000 is a different sort of income for them as opposed to people making that in Adelaide, Darwin or Hobart.  But we don't tax people differently because of where they live - and Keneally's naked appeal to the hip pocket nerve only emphasises the spending pressures on Sidney families that have everything t do with state government's lack of service and housing provision and nothing to do with macro-economic matters.

And in Victoria, they're parachuting in someone famous to a safe seat!

It's okay though, he used to be a strategist for the Australian Democrats and is the brother of Eddie McGuire, so his political sensibilities and capacity to appeal to Victorians are clearly demonstrated.

And because the seat is safe, even after the Tao of Ted swept the state, he's a shoo-in.  In some ways, this is even a positive: McGuire is supported by a faction of the Right (the Shorten/Conroy faction) and the Socialist Left.  The main Right's candidate is someone who has been investigated so many times for branch-stacking you think he'd have gotten the message.  Certainly branch-stacking is pervasive in parts of the Victorian ALP, and those who are tainted by it need to be shunned. But the fact that someone with that sort of suspicion and record could still be considered a possible candidate (and MP!) says a lot about the party machine. (Cf, not just a ALP problem - look at the new member for Dawson, plz.)

And Frank's already giving platitudes about lifelong learning and multiculturalism and jobs in his electorate, as you can see in the article linked above.

The problem with the 'small-target' strategy and principles is that it's based essentially on a political strategy whose horizons are limited to sandbagging.  By nature, it sets itself up into us-and-them paradigms: those who want their hands held against those who don't; the needs of Sydney versus the needs of everyone else; the needs of my electorate come first and the rest of you can get stuffed.  At the same time, there's always been a core defensiveness to the ALP's appeal: this was a party that supported the White Australia policy, and attentive to the needs of its working class base if asked to choose between job creation and climate action will choose jobs every time.

But it does say something about the lack of grand vision when the ALP is reduced to a series of petty kingdoms and base appeals.  It's also interesting considering the man who epitomised 'us-and-them' style wedging was John Howard.  His victory in 1996 was a classic example of peeling off voters from Keating by casting the issues as a struggle between 'sensible economic mainstream concerns' and 'the cultural elites' who cared more about Aboriginals, gays, the arts, etc than Ordinary Australians.

The us-and-them discourse continued under Howard, who claimed majority support mostly by redefining the majority at every turn. He was the sole arbiter for 10+ years of what was, and wasn't 'UnAustralian', and in doing so, the Coalition was masterfully able to turn most issues into a discussion about what it meant to be a 'Real Australian' with them occupying the higher ground.

In doing so, they managed very successfully and cleverly to capture the discourse for ten years, and to change it. Those who disagreed with Howard's socially conservative agenda were called UnAustralian, or the black armband mob, etc; and middle-class economic issues were placed as core to Australianness as opposed to broader social justice concerns for women, Indigenous, asylum seekers, gays, etc.  And honestly, the majority of Australians could better relate to someone who was a middle aged white bloke who liked the cricket and said he was helping with their mortgages and tossing them middle-class welfare.  The ALP didn't try to mount a counteracting social justice argument until WorkChoices, and then it was only about the just treatment of our own workers.

As the centre has been shifted to the Right - without much protest, so the Right has become the new Centre. We can see it in the way in which Tony Abbott is somehow treated like a mainstream conservative, despite the fact his opinions on abortion, gay rights and environmental policy would probably make him a fascist in most of continental Europe.  Conversely, the ALP has bought into Howard's legacy by playing up the patriotic game of trying to define 'Australian' for its own benefit - 'mateship tax' etc - but it's a failing game.  As the ALP continues to trying to debate on the Coalition's own terms, it can't help but lose.  And in appealing to the often individualistic right-ish hip-pocket nerve that it has of late (where's my job, my rebate, my handout?) it ends up refuting its own calls to solidarity and mateship that are typically hallmarks of what little true Leftist philosophy that remains.

If all that matters is your conditions, your family, your own bank balance, then why the hell do the flood victims count in the longer run?  For all the talk of mateship, it's undeniable that over the past couple of decades Australian society has moved to a more right-wing, consumerist paradigm in which individuals are encouraged to fall and succeed on their own merits and with government support for groups that need it increasingly withdrawn.  And the country's response to the Queensland floods was great, in terms of volunteering and donations.  But if you really wanted to help, what matters a few extra dollars more that's targeted to rebuilding?

And if you really wanted to be mates with all Australians, and help them out, where's the volunteering on weekends?  Where's the helping out in soup kitchens?  Where's the donating to mental health organisations, asylum seeker groups, the homeless, the disabled?  Why not become an aged care nurse or a teacher rather than a small-business owner, accountant or lawyer and truly see yourself helping generations adjust to the future?

In the 1980s, certain unions and student movements carried out broad, largely supported activism towards green bans and anti-apartheid.

It's funny how in 2011 we largely volunteer for people who most remind us of ourselves.

If the ALP wants to win back the debate, it needs to be prepared to lose on its own terms - and change the conversation.  Howard lost in 2007; now make sure his way of politics stays dead, buried, cremated - and relegated to the Tony Abbott way of counselling government.