I once had a polite discussion with a climate change denier from the Coalition, an MP who helped force the repeal of the eminently sensible national energy guarantee by threatening to bring down his own government.
It wasn’t a deep conversation. I suggested that if climate scientists were wrong then we would have wasted time and money. But if climate change sceptics were wrong we would be in big trouble with millions of deaths and a bleak future. His answer was simply: “God will not let the planet die.”
I was astounded and responded: “If your god made the planet, shouldn’t we treat it with respect?” He had no reply and the discussion ceased.
I understand some things about religion, and what he said was either blasphemy or close to it. He was telling his god what he expects of his god. Not OK.
There is a lesson in this for the Liberal Party, one that comes from a study of Australia’s political history.
From 1949 until 1972, Labor was kept out of office in many ways by an internal schism created by a right-wing religious section of the party. The creation of the (very Catholic) Democratic Labor Party (DLP) helped keep the ALP in opposition for longer than would be typical in a normal political cycle. It arguably divided the party along religious grounds.
The Liberal Party now faces the same situation and needs to react to ensure it doesn’t end up in opposition for a long period. It has divided into two groups: the true Menzies Libs and the right-wing religious groups. This may appear simplistic, but it is what I hear from many people not aligned with any political party.
This “far right” will do all it can to take over institutions such as the Liberals for the benefit of a few over the interests of the many. I note there are those in the party who believe they lost the election because they were not far right enough — which is as bizarre as suggesting that God will save the planet from climate change.
Bob Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party, in his oft-quoted “The Forgotten People” speech in 1942, condemned fascism, socialism, communism and also laissez-faire economics:
Individual enterprise must drive us forward. That does not mean we are to return to the old and selfish notions of laissez-faire. The functions of the state will be much more than merely keeping the ring within which the competitors will fight. Our social and industrial laws will be increased. There will be more law, not less; more control, not less.
Those Liberals who claim the party should go back to “its conservative roots” need to read that speech because such roots do not grow in the soil of the far right. Far from it.
The far left is a different story. There we have historically seen the extremes of Stalin and Mao Zedong, who between them caused the deaths of tens of millions of their own people. These leaders of communist countries were nothing more than far-left dictators in a budyonovka instead of a black fez.
Is there a similar far left in Australia? There are some crazies out there but the call for violent revolution seems to be almost — currently — non-existent.
Some would argue it could be Extinction Rebellion that confronts the issue of climate action through disruption and civil disobedience, but it is neither violent nor does it want to control society. It is focused on climate action. There are some in it who criticised individual politicians personally and unfairly, which is not OK. Yet for the others, it is the only way they can respond to the blackmail activity undertaken by the Coalition climate deniers in Parliament. Extinction Rebellion is not a manifest danger to society; the greater danger is from those who deny science.
For the left, just as the Liberals struggled with climate deniers, Labor needs to be careful that its climate change policies are not led by extremists who believe that severe economic and social costs of unbridled climate change action are just “collateral damage” that must be tolerated.
Are the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and unions the extreme left? There are things they have said and done over time that I have strongly disagreed with or challenged. Yet I’ve always said there is no real democracy without unions. Indeed, state-run unions in non-democratic countries such as China are next to useless and do nothing to protect the bona fide rights of workers.
The ACTU was also a major part of the great reforms in the Hawke-Keating period, changes that set our economy up to be one of the best in the world.
There are other unions who should hang their heads in shame. The retail union, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA), for example, worked with big business to cut Sunday penalty rates and then cried foul when the Fair Work Commission did the same for small business. That is straight out dishonesty, hypocrisy and self-interest — based on maintaining membership. It is similar to the duplicity practised by the big business it supports.
The other reality is also that we have seen some unions over the years that were just a front for criminals and fascists. The Painters and Dockers union of the 1970s and ’80s and the Builders Labourers Federation were noted for their violence, for murders and for a lack of respect for the law. Unions need to be regulated like the rest of us.
The violent part of the far left is in hibernation but can be woken easily and quickly. Having said that, the greater political risk to Australia comes from the very far right, including science deniers, “sovereign citizens”, anti-vaxxers and the right-libertarians. This includes hate groups that have links to far-right terrorism.
The main political parties, love them or hate them, are basically good. However, they must confront extreme issues within their parties every now and then. And that is something the Libs have not done well recently.
All of us, the major parties in particular, should beware of extremists. Long-term opposition belongs to those who let them into their ranks.
Some classic false-equivalence doing plenty of heavy lifting in this attempt.
“Labor needs to be careful that its climate change policies are not led by extremists who believe that severe economic and social costs of unbridled climate change action are just “collateral damage” that must be tolerated.
You mean what is outlined by the scientific consensus that is required to avoid societal collapse. Unbridled climate change action. FMD. This is embarrassing. I am embarrassed for you Crikey. Let’s get some hot takes from the IPA next on reasonableness.
Yeah, I’ve yet to see anything that tries to talk about the “extreme left” which isn’t somehow drawing equivalence between actual, genuine Nazis who actually /call themselves/ Nazis and often openly talk about genocide, and people who are trying to stop the destruction of a livable environment. There’s just a massive disconnect between the reality of the two “extremes”, and anyone who tries to position themselves somewhere in the middle of them clearly hasn’t given very careful consideration to what these “extremes” actually want to achieve from their activism. Genocide versus the survival of humanity and the environment we depend on? Yeah, very clearly equivalent . . .
Thank you @simon, I came here with that same text on my clipboard and you’ve saved me the effort of typing the rest.
Me three.
Fourthed
Yes, this line drew my attention also. What does he mean by unbridled? Stopping more coal mines and fossil fuel generators? Removing fossil fuel subsidies? Increased standards on vehicle emissions? Electrifying transport? Implement changes to the power grid? Build more storage? Plant more trees and stop land clearing?
And, does he not concede that global warming will create severe economic and social costs?
I have no problem with Crickey publishing the occasional article that comes from someone that seems to fall on the “Liberal Moderate” part of politics. He has a perspective that has fallen out of political favor, but has a position that allows him to chat with a wide variety of people.
So he can speak to blasphemous far right wingers & unionists alike. He doesn’t even conclude that XR people are far leftists.
His position on AGW/ CC seems to point to a compromise with the FF industry. Not something I believe is scientifically or economically justifiable, but the fact is a majority of Australians (or at least a majority of those on power) still think this way.
I could pick on other issues in it, but I have made my point – it is a somewhat flawed article letting us know what many Aussies think. So ok to be published in my book.
BTW, is it a little artificial to separate people believing in a pseudo (or real) theocracy into “left” and “right”? The main distinctions at the moment seem to be do they want to pervert versus break the political system; and whether they are “Christianists”, “Islamic Statists”, and so on.
This last election of 151 seats the Greens have secured just 4. That is an improvement on the last election where they secured just 1. Frankly that is an embarrassing result for the people representing action on climate change. They used to get my vote because like so many I believed they would deliver for the environment. They don’t. They never have. The reason is they simply cannot get a more popular vote. Peter Strong expresses the fear of so many that has been exploited so well by the right wing over the last two decades. Now people who place climate change and the environment high up on their list of priorities vote for Labor or the Teals or The Greens but it is Labor who can deliver the changes. The Greens and the Teals can have some influence but they do not have and will never have “the grunt”.
Don’t be so pessimistic. Let’s see how they go in this parliament, which hasn’t even started yet. Don’t forget the Greens and David Pocock have the balance of power in the Senate. You might see some grunt there.
Fifthed.
There isn’t much ‘left’ left in Labor, they are straight up liberal in ideology, whilst the Liberals are speeding towards the cliff on their right.
There’s an old story on the “God will not let the planet die” imprecation. Man climbs in the roof of his house as the floodwaters rise. He waves away the dinghy, inflatable canoe and helicopter which call by over the course of the day with the phrase “God will provide”. Eventually he drowns and in due course confronts God indignantly, “How could you?” To which God says “We provided as promised, specifically a dinghy and canoe and helicopter. Your touching faith has been your undoing.”
“Call on God, but row away from the rocks.” Old but appropriate in the situation, I think.
Or the old military saw – “trust in god but keep your powder dry.”
Peter Strong is the former chief executive of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, and therefore very well qualified to make learned and unbiased comments on the BLF and other unions.
Is this a joke?
He’s as well-qualified to make comments as any taxi driver, solicitor or celebrity chef. If any comments are made “below the line” they’re almost certainly biased. Presumably the ones above the line too.
Interesting piece.
Worth baring in mind that in a large democracy a few thousand miles across the pacific, a bunch of religious extremists control a major party and the Supreme Court.
The local fruitcakes here in Oz haven’t missed this.