Liberal soul searching needs future focus

Thursday, March 10, 2016

A political eon ago, in 2013, Tony Abbott promised to end the soap opera.  But the show goes on, viewers both entranced and appalled, into its umpteenth season.

 Then it was Labor that lay in ruins, convulsed with division, confusion and rancour.  Today the fallout from the Abbott ascendancy and subsequent meltdown continues to shake the Liberal Party.

 This is like a car crash that we would rather not see yet we can't bring ourselves to look away.  Betrayal, intrigue, grudge and payback make a heady mix with vaulting ambition, a penchant for risk and hubris aplenty.  Such ingredients have always made for great theatre.

 Yet in focusing on the tragedy and comedy that make up day-to-day Australian politics, we are missing the wood for the trees. Specifically we are mistaking the game of politics for the substance and purpose of politics.

 At the heart of the current act is what looks like a struggle for the soul of the Liberal Party, though the struggle might be just for the spoils of office.

 What is certain is that the major parties are caught in an existential dilemma about their fundamental purpose and character.  Labor's navel-gazing search for a modern iteration of its cause has stretched over many decades.  But the Liberal Party also can't avoid this kind of self-reflection if it wants to prosper and be of use to the country. 

John Howard has described the Liberal Party as a broad church, custodian of two great traditions - social conservatism and economic liberalism.  Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?  It positions himself as the essence and touchstone of what the party is for.  But it ignores the progressive liberalism that has also been so important to the party's success and its ability to connect to an evolving Australian society.  To say nothing of the many pragmatists, progressive nationalists, and the odd agrarian socialist, as well as a sprinkling of contrarians, chancers, chameleons and conmen.

Edmund Burke, more praised than read among modern conservatives, defined party as a body of men (it was the eighteenth century) pursuing the national interest according to a particular principle. 

But a party that is too broad a church might lack a ‘particular principle’ to give it coherence and direction.  Yet too narrow and it becomes the vehicle only for sectional interests, not the national interest.  The party certainly risks being seen as captive to sectional interests given its surrender to mining, property development, gambling and financial advice lobbies, to name a few.

Back in 1908 the Liberal Party’s ancestor formed when free traders and protectionists realised their differences were less important than their common interest in resisting Labor.  For about 70 years anti-socialism gave coherence – until Labor became firmly entrenched as a pragmatic, unideological party of the modernising centre.

When Malcolm Turnbull declared he would lead a "thoroughly liberal" government he hinted that we might see a party that combined a discernible philosophical heart with an inclusive and modernising agenda.  But things are rarely so easy.

Since becoming Prime Minister he has faced plenty of resistance from the right, both overt and of the more subtle, passive-aggressive sort.  Some of the dissenters label themselves conservatives, but they are reactionary rather than philosophical conservatives in the Burkean mould. They bitterly resent the coup against Abbott, and their own loss of position.  But their histrionic, attention-seeking strand of right-wing crankiness is an Aussie-accented echo of its US counterpart, and they might rightly be labelled the billy-tea party.

The point is that it looks like there are two Liberal parties, and they don't much like each other.  To get past this choppiness Turnbull needs to reach back to the Liberals' great antecedents, like Deakin and Menzies, and implement a centrist, pragmatic, modernising and inclusive program.

This extends also to Australia’s position in the world.  The recent Defence white paper foreshadowed spending in the hundreds of billions on Australia’s military capacity.  Opinion is divided, even among defence commentators, about whether the plans are sufficient, or good enough value, or grounded in adequate analysis of regional dynamics.

But should we expect total certainty about future scenarios?  Real foresight lies not in trying to predict details, but in understanding the processes at work and being ready for the several ways they might play out.

The Menzies era saw a curious mix of looking back and looking forward, of hanging on to the structures of empire and anticipating an Asian century.  But Liberals like Spender and Casey made great contributions to regional architecture and the liberal international order.

Menzies’ cloying sentimentality for Queen and empire irks modern Australians, but his was also the government that drove the Colombo Plan, the most ambitious development partnership seen up to that time.  It also signed up to the trade treaty with post-war Japan, a bold initiative that underpinned decades of prosperity for both countries.

The essence of progressive liberalism is not obsessive pursuit of free markets, but rather the belief that free individuals and free societies can improve themselves. The role of government is to create the conditions that make this more likely and secure the future.

Regardless of the merits of spending billions on weapons, at least the defence white paper has the intention of securing the future, and adopts a 20-year forward frame.

I would love to see such foresight applied more broadly in Australia’s international thinking, including the diplomatic and development arms of our foreign policy.

Australia would be well served if we could transform our partnerships with our immediate neighbours and help drive the development of the Pacific into a stable, peaceful, prosperous and healthy region.

The Abbott government unfortunately took a wrecking ball to Australia’s aid commitments, largely based on the misconception that aid is charity, an optional extra for good times only, rather than one of the most powerful tools we have to shape a better future for our neighbours and ourselves.

Since Abbott’s demise, the government has been caught between trying to reset and rebalance its policy approach, and a strange timorousness in setting meaningful new directions.

As a professional optimist I never give up on political leaders.  So I still look forward to some future-focused visionary thinking to prepare us for the decades ahead.

Tim Costello is the CEO of World Vision

Opinion Pieces, Tim Costello

Back to all Results