The Migration of Catholics to the Liberal Party

Tony Abbott has a fantastic opinion piece in today’s SMH, titled ‘Migration has put the DLP in the Howard camp’. People may remember some previous posts where I talked about the Labor Split, where many Labor Catholics went to the Democratic Labor Party, but over the past few decades have moved onto the Liberal Party. Abbott takes up this issue. I’d suggest reading the whole piece, but below are some excerpts:

The takeover of the Labor Party by secular humanists and the increasing influence of Catholics inside the Liberal Party are among the biggest changes of the past half century. Santamaria resisted the former and doubted the effect of the latter, but was intimately connected with both.

…..

In the mid-1970s, Kim Beazley snr famously said he’d joined a parliamentary Labor Party that was the “cream of the working class” but was leaving one that was the “dregs of the middle class”. In 2004 Lindsay Tanner declared Labor was the “party of the socially progressive secular society”.

At the swearing in of members of the present Parliament, no fewer than 30 of 60 Labor MHRs took an affirmation rather than an oath on the Bible (compared to one from the Coalition). Kevin Rudd has tried to buck the trend by describing himself as a “Christian socialist” but, so far, it’s been a politically correct Christianity.

…

In the mid-’80s, Santamaria declined requests to encourage his supporters to join the political party of their choice and to improve it because, he said, both big parties were beyond redemption. Labor, he thought, was enslaved to the unions and the Liberals captured by business.

…

The Howard Government has overturned euthanasia laws, banned gay marriage, stopped the ACT heroin trial, encouraged independent schools, contracted Job Network services to church organisations, established pregnancy support counselling and improved the absolute and relative financial standing of families with children.

…

A key difference between the Government and many of its opponents is that its senior members think the values of the Ten Commandments are common sense as much as religious dogma.

Santamaria was too sentimental about unions ever to have backed Work Choices but would have fully supported the strengthened alliance with the US. For the last decade of his life, he hoped against hope to see a new conservative movement based on the Nationals, traditionalist Liberals and the mostly Catholic Labor Right. The political migration of so many Catholics suggests the Democratic Labor Party is alive and well, after all, and living inside the Howard Government.

Now, I consider myself quite non-partisan, as there’s a lot I like in both parties. But I find Abbott’s piece very persuasive that the Liberals have become a more natural home, on balance, for Christians. But I think that’s more a case of the ALP becoming secular at a rapid rate, rather than the Liberals becoming especially friendly to Christians.

But as I’ve mentioned before, my ideal outcome would be much that like that desired by Santamaria – a new party for social conservatives who are roughly centre-right on economic policy.

Boomer Rage

Below is a guest post from Phil Anthropis

I saw these Futurists talking on TV on Australia Day.  They were making all these dire predictions about conditions by the year 2020 – fuel $20/litre, milk $10/litre, fruit and vegetable prices on par with prices in Japan and other landless countries, average national house price about $1.6 million.  Not much wages growth, if I recall correctly. And predictions of water shortages, and climate problems leading to people along the coasts to move inland. 

While making these types of extrapolations is probably very problematic, there is one thing they said that I can relate to:  Boomer Rage. They predict that younger people are going to get more and more fed up with looking after the baby boomers, a generation of squanderers. And medical technological improvements is going to help ensure this rage builds – because now the Baby Boomers just won’t die! 

Not only have the baby boomers had all the best breaks and conditions in their youthful years, but they have created a society and culture that is materially based, where the young have very little incentive to bear their own offspring.  And now the young are going to be expected to look after these masses of senior citizens in return for an income that won’t give the workers the same benefits that the boomers enjoy.  OK, I know any one of these arguments could be examined in detail and potentially found to be flawed.  However, Boomer Rage has not yet bubbled up within me – but Boomer Resentment has.

The university dilemma

One of my Course Co-ordinators sent this article through the week to all the tutors of this subject. I found it quite interesting as I hope you do too. It’s by Gerard Noonan from the Herald Sun (who is incidently a former editor of the Australian Financial Review).

I thought that I’d just post the best parts of the article and supply a bit of my thoughts at the end.

Universities are supposed to be places of ideas. For more than six centuries they have nurtured great minds and channelled the intellectual aspirations of society’s thinkers. A striking feature of Australian universities over the past two decades is how unimpressive their collective leadership has been, as it has been unwilling, or unprepared, to take the fight over the way universities are funded – and thus effectively run – to the real culprit in what has emerged as a national disgrace.
The announcement this week by the Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, that education is to become his party’s most important economic issue at the federal election suggests he has sniffed the wind and realised the Government is vulnerable on the issue. The statistics tell a sorry story.
Over the past decade, while spending by the rich nations’ club, the OECD, has risen by close to 50 per cent in real terms, Australian Government spending on higher education has fallen. In some countries, notably in Scandinavia, parts of Europe and Singapore, Malaysia and China, investment in universities as the focus of ideas and growth has far outstripped the average. Academic visitors to China are regularly astonished at the sophistication of the Chinese higher education sector, which has systematically sought to reverse the Chinese diaspora and pays top-flight, Chinese-background professors from Cambridge, Yale, Harvard, Berlin and the Sorbonne handsomely to return to the Middle Kingdom and educate a new generation of Chinese thinkers.

—

It was the Labor education minister John Dawkins who was the political architect of the university campus inflation to 38 and the funding system called HECS, the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, in 1988.
Perhaps Dawkins could not have anticipated how perverted would become his purpose of forcing students to bear more of the cost of running universities. But even he should have seen that targeting students to substantially fund their tertiary studies through HECS, effectively a delayed payment scheme, would encourage a parsimonious and myopic future federal government to find ways of avoiding its responsibilities.

The original idea had some philosophical merit: students were usually beneficiaries in the wages race after they finished their studies, so repayment of the HECS loan through a slightly higher tax rate for the first few years of work on higher salaries seemed fair. The university leadership, with some reluctance, went along and also acceded to the accompanying rhetoric of “user pays”.

Gifted academics some of them may have been, but with a couple of notable exceptions they seemed unable to fend off the heavy hand of government.

—-

With a divide and conquer approach, the government was always on a winner.
The screws were really turned in the late 1990s, in budget after budget after budget, as federal education ministers presided over increasingly tougher government cuts to direct university grants. The vice-chancellors were told bluntly to get on their bikes and find other sources of income – and don’t come begging to Canberra.

At one point the vice-chancellors employed as a lobbyist a former Liberal Party director who was waiting to secure a safe seat in the present Government.
As they realised the folly of how they dealt with the Government – essentially to grumble and complain and lobby to blunt the effect of the changes, instead of taking their predicament to the streets – they were forced to put up a “For Sale” sign and go after full fee-paying students, mostly from offshore.

So, just as state governments have become addicted to gambling taxes, universities have become hostage to the foreign student dollar, despite the problems facing university teaching staff who must manage large numbers of students with widely ranging but often limited English skills. In some large universities up to 30 per cent of students are from abroad.

The universities had a chance in 2003 to draw a line in the sand with the Government on the indexation of federal payments to the sector, but effectively squibbed it. Now, as a new round of negotiations begins, it appears the only way universities will meet funding shortfalls is to become partners in the Government’s ideological push to have students meet the ever-increasing cost. It is as if the university leadership’s earlier timidity has led to a weakening of the very institutions that should stand against such anti-intellectual behaviour. Instead of using their intellectual rigour to fight for a culture of academic freedom and institutional independence, they have been manoeuvred into expending energy in a narrow, penny-pinching spat over who should pay.

The dumbening of our universities is a problem. What I mean by that is, most of the schools in the country are now catered for overseas students, especially in the major cities. Programs such as Humanities, Arts, and other disciplines find themselves short changed by bureaucracy that is hell bent on getting the overseas dollar. But as one AFR writer once posed, where is the future policy makers of this country going to emerge from? You can’t teach an Engineer to be a Social Scientist, nor can you teach a Management consultant to be an Economist. But these are the areas where universities receive most funding. And so we face a dillema. Should Universities receive more funding? I believe the answer is yes. But I am indeed interested to hear our bloggers thoughts.

The Mormon Way of Doing Business

I’ve just come across a newly released book, called The Mormon Way of Doing Business. It appears to profile some prominent LDS businessmen. For those interested, an excerpt of the book can be accessed here.

The city with no soul?

A few years ago my wife and I took our baby girl for a walk along the Bronte-Bondi path. The scenery was simply stunning, but what defined the experience for us was the people that we saw there. Almost without exception, they appeared to be people in their late 20s/early 30s, career-oriented, childless and materialist. The clothing, gadgets and general attitude just screamed to us “it’s all about me!!!” It put us off so much that we don’t plan on returning. In this context, I found an article in today’s SMH very interesting. It’s not particularly long, so I’ve reproduced it below:

Could Sydney be the saddest of cities – intellectually bereft, spiritually empty? Are its residents T.S. Eliot’s Hollow Men – heads together but whispering nothing except deadening conversations about the latest movement of the property market or fad diet?

Sydney’s culture of the relentless pursuit of property, perfect bodies and status has the British psychologist and author Oliver James worried. For his recently released book Affluenza, he travelled to seven countries to research the effect that consumerism has on happiness.

He found that the obsessive pursuit of money and possessions was not buying happiness. But the affluenza virus was worst in Sydney, where he found interviewing locals a depressing experience. It was, he said, “the most vacuous of cities. The Dolly Parton of cities in Australia”. Adelaide and Melbourne had a “different vibe” and didn’t strike James as being so materialistic.

James had not been to Sydney before and expected a “philistine nation” of “jolly, uncomplicated fun seekers”. Instead he found a city in thrall to American values and a puritan work ethic that robbed life of joy and real meaning. Middle-class Sydney, he writes, is “packed with career-obsessed workaholics”.

When they are not working the longest hours in the developed world, they pursue perfect bodies through joyless fitness regimes, or obsess about property prices. Always they are looking around anxiously, in the hope that others aren’t doing better. “[It was] full of people who place a high value on money, professional status and appearance,” he said. The result? Sydneysiders have a greater risk of suffering from depression and anxiety.

“They were like the Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz. They had no idea of the point of their lives other than to get rich.” Sydney’s already weak intellectual culture has been further eroded by the pursuit of money and possessions, he writes.

While Britain has “its Posh and Becks” cultural differences including a more entrenched class system has put the brakes on the spread of consumerism in Britain. “The British compared to the US or Aussies are less easily convinced that money will get you further. The British elite have been around for an awfully long time and there is not the crassness of the Australian rich.”

This crassness was particularly virulent in the Sydney property market. He noted figures highlighting a rise in depression that coincided with a bullish property market which caused stress and anxiety, particularly among young Australians.

While he despaired about Sydney, he found the “affluenza virus” was not as prevalent outside the Western world. His advice to Sydneysiders caught on the treadmill?

“Start reading”.

The Australian Flag

I came across a great post on the Australian flag on a blog by Andrew Leigh, an economist at the ANU.* (He’s actually quoting from a book he wrote called Imagining Australia: Ideas for our Future).

The Australian flag has outlived its utility to the nation. Our blue ensign flag, with the Union Jack occupying the canton, continues to designate Australia as a dominion of the British Empire. Of the more than 50 nations in the Commonwealth only Australia, New Zealand and Fiji have yet to change their flag to properly symbolise their independence. The Australian flag also fails to sufficiently identify Australia. Who can forget when the Canadians flew the New Zealand flag for Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s visit in 1985?

Some argue that the current Australian flag is sacred, our soldiers having fought and died under it during wartime. Yet in the Boer War and both world wars, Australians fought mostly under either the Union Jack or the Australian red ensign flag; the Australian blue ensign only became the official national flag with the passing of the Flags Act of 1954.

We strongly believe that Australia should adopt the Eureka flag as our new national flag. Described by the Age in the 1850s as the ‘Australian Flag of Independence’, the Eureka flag is uniquely Australian, aesthetically beautiful and rich in symbolism. It conveys the spirit of the Ballarat Reform League and the Eureka uprising—republicanism, democracy, egalitarianism and mateship. Adopting the Eureka flag as the national flag would powerfully connect Australians with our past and with our national values. It would also enhance our sense of being part of a larger ongoing Australian project, with a rich and exciting past. Reclaiming the Eureka flag—standing as it also does as a symbol of fairness and tolerance—would, if handled carefully, have great resonance among Australia’s Indigenous and immigrant communities. Australia should reclaim the Eureka flag and fly it high on Capitol Hill.

I strongly agree that something needs to be done about the flag. I don’t like having the union jack in the corner. Leigh’s point about the flags under which Australians have fought, which I previously wasn’t aware of, only makes my feelings stronger. As for the suggestion to use the Eureka flag, I’m more open-minded. But it’d be an improvement on the current flag, in my view.

* Leigh is still pretty early into his academic career, but has done some fascinating research, much of which has been reported on in the mainstream press. See his academic website for details.

Is the ‘War on Terror’ a war?

Below is a guest post from Brucifer:

There was an article in yesterday’s Guardian (UK), titled ‘There is no war on terror’, that I think is worthy of our consideration. The British Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken MacDonald cautions for “legislative restraint” in passing laws to deal with terrorism. Some excerpts:

The director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, put himself at odds with the home secretary and Downing Street last night by denying that Britain is caught up in a “war on terror” and calling for a “culture of legislative restraint” in passing laws to deal with terrorism. Sir Ken warned of the pernicious risk that a “fear-driven and inappropriate” response to the threat could lead Britain to abandon respect for fair trials and the due process of law.

The article continues:

He said: “London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, ’soldiers’. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a ‘war on terror’, just as there can be no such thing as a ‘war on drugs’. “The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.”

I can see Sir Ken’s point - if new legislation were to lead to erosion of the rights of the accused, it could be a very slippery slope. It would be very easy for a corrupt government or police to ban ’subversives’ or label opposition as ‘terror suspects’.  My folks came to Australia from Chile, fleeing a military state (BTW the coup was sponsored by the CIA) where all kinds of amoral and oppressive means were used to justify the ends of ‘national unity’. 

Regarding the phrase ‘war on terror’, I think that it is incorrect to use the term ‘war’ when there is no state to declare war on.Alternatively, special laws dealing with acts of terror could be justified as they are not your run-of-the-mill crimes, and we are indeed engaged in a war on terror.

Fellow bloggers, your thoughts?

A New Clinton

And so it begins. I’ve made it my goal this year to follow US politics more closely than I have in the past. Whilst I’ve never really been a big fan of the pomp and the hype of the presidential race, I’ve become increasingly interested in Senator Hillary Clinton’s move to run as candidate for the Dems. The push towards a newly elected female President has the whole media a buzz over the world. But most people assumed not too long ago that the first possible lady in the White House would be republican Rice. However, the introduction of Senator Clinton into the Candidate race provides another train to the first Woman President.

I’ve been fond of Senator Clinton for a number of reasons. The most impressive feature of her policy and recent work (notwithstanding Iraq), has been her tireless efforts to confront, examine and analyse the effects of mass media sensationalising violence and sex on children and society in general. She suggests that left unchecked, it could grow into an ‘epidemic’. I find this most refreshing. So many politicians would be unwilling to stand up for moral issues like this whilst coming from the Left side of politics. Her policies seem, however, to be a healthy mix of the two. She, as far as I can see, sits on the centre left approach. Medical care is a priority, whilst endorsing the family is another.

Whilst I believe that she is a good candidate, the Dems face the dilemma of whether the country is ready for a Left Woman president. Do they run with her? Is it safe? As I said, I made it one of my goals this year to follow US politics a closer than in times past. Mainly due to the lack of hope I found in the previous years for a President with the morals I desired. But perhaps Hillary is the one. But I wonder if Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel in the middle of the US is thinking, ‘A Woman President in my day, over me dead body that tis’.

Perhaps the Dems would be taking a chance on Hillary. Perhaps she is a risk they can ill afford at this time when they can take back the White House. I’m interested to hear what you all feel. As usual, Utah will remain Republican……

“… seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom…”

Justin suggests a discussion on the best books we’ve read. He suggests we all give one mainstream and one LDS (and obviously exclude scripture).

Justin’s answers:

For me, the best LDS book is a tie between Jesus the Christ and Believing Christ. Talmage provides incredible knowledge ABOUT the Saviour, but Robinson adds UNDERSTANDING to the knowledge Talmage offers.

As for secular, the book that has had the greatest influence is Punished By Rewards by Alfie Kohn (www.alfiekohn.org) but my favourite is an exceptional piece of work entitled, The Happiness Hypothesis by Jon Haidt. Again, superb work about how to achieve change in life and what actually makes for greatest happiness.

My answers:

As with Justin, I loved ‘Jesus the Christ’ and ‘Believing Christ’. In addition, the ‘Work and the Glory’ and ‘Kingdom and the Crown’ series by Elder Lund did a lot for me (both series are historical fiction, the former about the restoration, the latter about Jesus’ time. I also really like ‘By the Hand of Mormon’ by Terryl Givens, and ‘Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling’ by Richard Bushman.

As for mainstream books, once again I can’t choose one. I loved ‘Growth Fetish’ by Clive Hamilton, ‘Recollections of a Bleeding Heart: Paul Keating PM’ by Don Watson, ’God’s Politics’ by Jim Wallis, ’The Latham Diaries’, ‘Education of a Young Liberal’ by John Hyde Page and ’Freakonomics’ by Levitt and Dubner.

Looking forward to hearing everyone’s responses.

Learning to be good parents & spouses

A frequent commenter on this blog, Justin, has a business called ‘Happy Families Family Education’ . He also as a blog that contains lots of great information. It seems to me that some people believe that ‘all you need is love’, and that you can rely on intuition to be successful in your relationships. While those things are no doubt important, I’m a big believer that there are many skills and lessons that can be learnt that will help us be more effective parents and spouses. As a parent and husband, me ignoring all the information that has been gathered by relationship experts is little different to ignoring financial advice from finance professionals, or to ignoring health advice from doctors.