The terms left-wing and right-wing define opposite ends of the political spectrum. Yet, there is no firm consensus about their meaning. Over time, these labels have become blurred. Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, once argued that the distinction between the two had melted away into meaninglessness.
The genesis of the terms “left” and “right” date back to eighteenth century France and the French Revolution. Members of the First General Assembly were seated according to their political orientation. Supporters of the king sat to the right of the Assembly president with supporters of the revolution to his left.
In line with this historic division, contemporary left-wingers are said to be anti-royalists who favour interventionist and regulated market economic policies. Right-wingers, on the other hand, are said to be monarchists who favour laissez-faire, free market economic policies.
In Australia, the Labor Party has traditionally been seen as left-wing (socialist) with historic ties to the union movement. The Liberal Party has customarily been considered as right-wing (capitalist) with long-standing ties to the business community. Many see these labels as outdated in describing Australia’s modern political landscape.
Take, for example, the issue of Australia becoming a republic. Based on traditional ideology, you would expect this cause to be championed by the “anti-royalist” Labor Party. Yet the push for a republic has been spearheaded by a member of the “monarchist” Liberal Party.
Liberal frontbencher, Malcolm Turnbull, is a Liberal blue-blood. (Note: Left-wing parties are typically associated with red, the colour of revolution, while right-wing parties are often associated with conservative blue.) Turnbull is a millionaire former investment banker who, uncharacteristically for a conservative politician, is also a staunch supporter of the Australian Republican Movement.
In trying to discard the monarchy, Turnbull was seen to take a left-wing stance which caused some right-wing hardliners to label him a turncoat. But he is not the only politician to be off course in a strict ideological sense. Former Labor Treasurer, Paul Keating, lurched to the right economically.
Keating’s laudable economic reforms included deregulating the financial system, floating the dollar, reducing import tariffs and introducing compulsory superannuation – things that a Labor Treasurer was not expected to do. It is said tongue-in-cheek that Keating was Australia’s best “Liberal” treasurer and the architect of neo-liberalism in Australia.
Many of Keating’s reforms were based on the 1981 Campbell Inquiry Report into Australia’s financial system. John Howard commissioned the inquiry when he was Liberal Treasurer. But Howard disappointed his traditional supporters – capitalists – by implementing only one of Campbell’s 260 recommendations.
Ironically, it was Keating, post-1983, who introduced many of the Campbell recommendations. He implemented a globalisation agenda which made Australia internationally competitive and opened our economy to the rest of the world. Not surprisingly, big business embraced Keating – even though the Labor Party and corporate Australia are supposed to be adversaries.
So, how left-wing was Keating as a left-wing politician? The reality is that he moved the Labor Party to the right of centre. The message is clear: While academics may argue that ideological differences are reflected in the policies of each party, this is not always the case. Voting purely along traditional party lines is now not a guarantee that you will get policies that are classic left or classic right. I believe that we need to shun this binary thinking since it represents an obsolete linear paradigm. Whether you swing left, lean right or aim dead centre, it’s incumbent on all of us to keep abreast of the workings of our political system.
Posting Date: 16 September 2013
The media politician
In the lead up to the 1960 US presidential election, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon squared off in the first televised presidential debate in American history. The viewing public gleaned little about the policies of each candidate but learned a great deal about their looks and presentation. Kennedy came across as calm and confident while Nixon appeared sickly and sweaty.
As the story goes, those who listened to the debate on the radio thought that Nixon had won while those who watched the debate on TV believed Kennedy came out on top. Nixon’s problem was not his debating skills but his staid image compared with the young, charismatic and handsome Kennedy. It is said that Americans were asked to vote “for glamour or ugliness”.
The new medium of television caused citizens to focus on image as well as issues which changed the political landscape forever. The movie-star-looking JFK is credited with sparking the political shift from policy to personality. Many believe this shift has gone too far with contemporary politicians seemingly focussed more on likeability than substance.
There’s no doubt that modern day politicians need to be media savvy and able to work a crowd. But has the politics of style over substance gone too far? Like many, I believe it has but as I opined in an earlier blog post about political leadership that it’s largely our fault since we (as citizens) get the government we deserve.
Many citizens of democracies around the world now vote for the personality more than the policies. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard people say they like or dislike a given politician without offering any coherent and rational argument. Political parties have responded by manufacturing images at the expense of providing authentic leadership.
Being a political media darling is one thing but having the ability to truly articulate a clear vision of the future is something quite different. My view is that political leaders can drive change in the face of opposition if they have the courage of their convictions. Regrettably, such bold leadership is increasingly difficult to find in politics.
Politicians have become scared of upsetting the electorate (that’s us!) and let opinion polls and minority groups unduly influence policy formulation. This often results in long-term economic credibility being sacrificed for short-term populist reforms. The end outcome is a public which gets policies that are against their own best interests.
An example is our obsession in Australia with national public debt. We have been conditioned to believe that debt is bad and so any political leader who does not pledge to lower our national debt is not worthy of our vote. However, it’s a sweeping generalisation to say that debt is inherently bad. Frankly, I would welcome more national debt as long as it is “good debt”.
In a previous post, I explained the difference between good debt and bad debt. Public debt which fuels economic growth is good debt. Why then are we as a nation so afraid to borrow to invest in our future? Currently, we need to borrow to build and upgrade essential public infrastructure like roads, airports, sewerage plants, hospitals and schools.
One prominent Australian banker believes, quite rightly, that Australia has a debt problem – we don’t have enough to fund desperately needed infrastructure! Nobel Laureate and leading global economist, Joseph Stiglitz, agrees. In an article about Australia’s irrational attitude to public debt he wrote:
Instead of focusing mindlessly on (budget) cuts, Australia should instead seize the opportunity afforded by low global interest rates to make prudent public investments in education, infrastructure and technology that will deliver a high rate of return, stimulate private investment and allow businesses to flourish.
Most economists agree that the actual amount of national debt is less important than the percentage of debt to GDP. Japan’s debt-to-GDP-ratio is 214.3 per cent, the USA’s is 73.6 per cent while Australia sits at a low 26.9 per cent. The reality is that we are not heavily indebted, so our politicians should stop whipping up public panic. In Australia, no one needs to be afraid of the Big Bad Debt!