The political terms ‘Left wing’ and ‘Right wing’ were already in serious need to being totally re-defined, if not dropped altogether, given how much they have been twisted, distorted, inverted and conflated over the last few decades.
But that is nothing compared to Kevin Rudd’s latest leaps of logic in his efforts to reinvent terms like “neo-liberal”, “social democrat” and “conservative” in his efforts to use them as political weapons against his opponents. Rarely has there been a better real life example of overnight Orwellian redefinition. Yesterday’s conservative is today’s social democrat, while the Howard government – whose economic policies were amongst the most anti-liberal in our nation’s history – has been relabelled as evil neo-liberals, barely a year after Rudd declared there was not a cigarette paper’s difference between his “unapologetically” conservative economic policies and those of Mr Howard.
Even in industrial relations, the area where Mr Howard most fervently indulged his ideological obsessions, the result was not a freeing up of market forces or individual liberty, but rather an increase in regulation and constraints which reduced freedom to negotiate and bargain – it just did so in a way which massively advantaged Howard’s corporate mates.
Mr Rudd’s rubbish, published in this month’s issue of The Monthly is being widely pilloried by commentators in the media and the blogosphere. But he is unlikely to care much, as long as some of his efforts to define and blame his opponents sinks into the public consciousness.
Paul Keating’s comment on this shows how hollow Rudd’s rhetorical flailings at ‘neo-liberalism’ are when he said “it depends what you call neo-liberalism”. Quite. Presumably in Mr Rudd’s world, it means whatever he wants it to mean on any given day.
None of this makes the Liberal’s response to the current economic mayhem any better. Julie Bishop’s insistence that cutting taxes in the teeth of a recession will “increase the tax base and increase revenue” is being rightly pilloried from all sides.
But all the nonsensical rhetoric does create a sinking feeling that both major parties are more focused on how to get the best political positioning out of the looming recession, rather than how best to assist the community.
As Tony Wright bemoans this morning – “where are the grownups?”
3 Comments
“But all the nonsensical rhetoric does create a sinking feeling that both major parties are more focused on how to get the best political positioning out of the looming recession, rather than how best to assist the community.”
Not sure that follows or even makes sense. Are you saying that the govt is doing nothing to deal with the problem? Or are only doing things that will make the Oppn look bad? Or that the changes in fiscal and monetary policy are wrong or are only designed to win political points? Wouldn’t minimising the effects the current economic problems be the best way to win political points? Are you saying they aren’t trying to do that?
In short, I don’t understand what you mean in suggesting the govt (or oppn) aren’t interested in assisting the community.
Well it’s true that Rudds essay was a bit of a wank, but you can’t say that the Gov’s not actively in the business of assisting the community. They seem to be doing both,(positioning/assisting) and going about in a way I think is quite effective on both fronts. I certainly applaud the measures taken so far in trying to minimise the impact of GFC and have no problem with Rudd also keeping a tight grip on power as long as it’s not done in an evil way.
It is a sad reality that for a government to put in policies it has to remain in power for long enough to make a difference. Inevitably it has to ‘position’ itself politically on most policy. No point in the Rudd government avoiding the political games and implementing policy to have it removed at the next election.
Labor governments have to continually battle a pro liberal media in getting its message and facts/truth across, no wonder they develop political positions with which to combat the opposition and media so as to talk to the people.
If it plays the game well enough it is able to implement more of its plans. If it has to do what it has to do anyway (such as a stimulus package) then there is no problem with the politics, especially if it is trying to win the support of the people to such important things.