Liberal Party of Australia - Broad Church or Unholy Alliance?

One party with two ideologies. What could go wrong? 

We're used to thinking in terms of a left / right political spectrum which fits in nicely with a two-party system where you have a government and an opposition. The problem with trying to fit everyone onto a left / right spectrum though is that there are actually three main political ideologies:

• Liberalism (progressives)
• Conservatism (don't like change)
• Collectivism (radicals)

In Australia, liberals are associated with the right, whereas in the US, liberals are associated with the left. Obviously, they can't be both left and right. In fact, liberalism has nothing to do with either the left or the right.

These ideologies are more correctly represented on a triangle:

Liberals are the progressives. From overthrowing absolute monarchies, to tearing down the class system and declaring all men to be equal (centuries before Marx came along), to freeing the slaves, to giving women the vote, liberalism has always been a force for change. All of these changes however, were opposed by conservatives. Traditionally, liberals and conservatives are political adversaries.

A recent example of this conflict was the marriage equality debate. Liberals in the party wanted change because it would have led to increased equality - in keeping with liberal values, whereas conservatives in the party wanted to keep the traditional concept of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman. Interestingly, the Labor Party used an extremely weak argument to try to block the marriage equality plebiscite in the high court. Despite their claims of being progressive, the traditional Irish/Catholic base of the Labor Party is actually quite conservative and has always opposed marriage equality.

Compare this though to the Voice, where both liberals and conservatives in the party were in agreement in opposing it. Why would traditional adversaries be in agreement? Why would progressives oppose change? Why would I say that liberals in the party opposed the Voice when so-called liberals such as Leeser, Bragg and Archer supported it?

Can progressives and conservatives agree on anything?

Conservatism isn't really a political philosophy like liberalism or collectivism. They just don't like change. A conservative in China would be a communist, whereas in Australia - which is traditionally a liberal democracy - conservatives are liberal democrats.

Liberals have basically achieved their goals. There isn't much (if anything) left for liberals to do - other than defend the gains already made. Whilst initially opposing change, once that change becomes established, conservatives adopt it. If the same sex marriage debate was to somehow come up again now, there would be much less opposition to it in the Liberal Party. This is why liberals and conservatives actually agree on most things. Jason Falinski once told me: "Liberals and conservatives end up in the same place. Conservatives just take longer to get there."

Why would progressives oppose change?

Not all change is progressive. Change can also be regressive. Progressive liberals fought long and hard to get to where we are now. Obviously they would oppose any change which undid that progress. 

The civil rights movement conducted a long and hard-fought battle for political equality. The Menzies/Liberal government achieved political equality for Indigenous Australians with the passage of The Commonwealth Electoral Act, 1962 which gave Indigenous Australians full suffrage. Political equality is more than just "one person - one vote" though.

Political equality refers to the extent to which citizens have "an equal voice" over governmental decisions. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament obviously creates political inequality by giving some citizens more of a say over governmental decisions than the rest of the population and would therefore be opposed by liberals.

Liberals supported SSM because it increased equality and opposed the Voice because it would have decreased equality. Liberalism however is a philosophy of compromise. Competing rights can present a problem for liberalism. In cases where there are competing rights, generally the "greatest good" principle applies. Whilst some bakers might not like the idea of making wedding cakes for gay couples, this is fairly inconsequential compared to the vast number of gay couples wanting to marry. Whilst some might argue (incorrectly) that trans women should have the right to compete in women's sport, the greater good would be to uphold the right of all biological women to compete on an even playing field. 

Why did liberals like Leeser, Bragg and Archer support the voice?

I hate to break it to them, but Leeser, Bragg and Archer are not liberals. As outlined above, political equality is one of the bedrock principles of liberal democracy. Those that seek to destroy liberal democracy do not belong in the party whose job it is to defend it.

There is no such thing as a "small-l liberal". Liberals are not "centrists" or "moderates". And don't dare ever call liberals "wets" within earshot of a real liberal! Liberals overthrew kings and re-shaped the world whilst conservatives tried, but failed to stop them.

Look again at the triangle diagram above. Being somewhere on the political spectrum between collectivism and conservatism does not make you a liberal. "Liberals for Yes" is an oxymoron.

Same-same, but different

Liberals and conservatives are different, but agree on most things. It's just that the few things we disagree on get all the attention. The important thing is that we both oppose the radical left. Just as we joined forces to fight communism in the 50's, we need to remain united to fight the new war on woke.

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with traditional Labor Party members who just want fair pay and decent conditions for workers. They are in fact usually good blokes and fun to hang out with during long stints on polling booths (at least here in a traditionally Liberal electorate where they have no chance of winning and don't take things too seriously - YMMV). The crazy Teal volunteers are the ones you really have to watch out for. 

It's the fake liberals in the Liberal Party that are the problem. Just as the Labor Party has been taken over by woke zealots who don't actually give a toss about Aussie workers, the Liberal Party also has a problem with woke members who don't hold liberal or conservative values. These people are effectively white-anting liberalism and the Liberal Party and need to be weeded out. Do that and the real liberals and conservatives will get along just fine. Well... most of the time.