The spirit of Deakin and Menzies
Opposition is a time for soul searching, and there is no bigger question for the Liberals today than this: who are we?
At a time of internal division and a declining primary vote, by looking to the founding fathers of Australian liberalism we can find a renewed sense of shared purpose and vision for the country.
Most in our party, when looking to our forebears for inspiration, will go back only as far as Robert Menzies, but there is much more to the story.
The founders of the modern Liberal Party chose the name in direct reference to the Liberal Party of Alfred Deakin, a man who Menzies called our greatest prime minister (and I happen to agree). Deakin is as much a father to our party as Menzies, and Deakin himself was carrying on the British Liberal tradition embodied by men such as William Gladstone (champion of the right to vote). In one speech, Deakin talks about the history of liberalism stretching back as far as ancient Greece and the Roman empire, finding its earliest expression in the resistance of common people to supreme and arbitrary authority.
Menzies’ famous words on the naming of the Liberal party borrow heavily from Deakin:
(Menzies) "A progressive party, willing to make experiments”"
(Deakin) "It was the duty of Liberals… to tread as ever, the paths of progress"(Menzies)"in no sense reactionary"
(Deakin)"anti-liberalism, justifies its existence, not by proposing its own solution of problems, but by politically blocking all proposals of a progressive character."(Menzies)"believing in the individual, his rights, and his enterprise"
(Deakin)"Equality of political rights without reference to creed, and equality of legal rights without consideration of wealth or quality… resistance to and destruction of class privileges"
Clearly, the defining characteristic of liberalism in the mind of both Deakin and Menzies, was a commitment to progress and protecting the rights and freedoms of ordinary people.
It begs the question, where does conservatism fit into this picture?
At face-value, Deakin was ardently opposed to the conservatives of his time. Menzies never used the word 'conservative' to describe the party. Was John Howard wrong to claim that we are the custodians of the Liberal and Conservative traditions? I don't think he was.
It is illustrative to consider the case of Edmund Burke, the so-called father of conservatism, who was himself a member of the Liberal Party (known then as the Whigs). Ironically, his party were opposed to the conservative Tories of the day. How can the father of conservatism be against conservatives?
Clearly, there must be more than one type of conservative. I would suggest that there are broadly two types. One kind is the reactionary conservative, who is opposed to all progress and fights vehemently to protect vested interests and the status quo. Then there is the 'cautious' conservative, in the mould of Edmund Burke, who supports gradual change and the preservation of traditions and institutions that have served society well. Both types find common ground in their opposition to 'revolutionaries' who would seek to upend the social order.
Put another way, 'cautious' conservatives are about building on the solid foundation laid down their our ancestors, 'revolutionaries' are about destroying the foundations and building something new, and 'reactionary' conservatives are about building nothing at all.
Menzies and Deakin were neither reactionaries nor revolutionaries, rather they were cautious conservatives, gradually building on the cultural and institutional foundations that were our British inheritance. Both were opposed to the revolutionaries of Australian politics: the Labor party.
In this sense, Australian liberalism has always been characterised by a progressive optimism and a conservative sensibility.
The modern Liberal Party is at a crossroads: if we are true to our roots as a party, we can become a united and formidable force, attracting the best and brightest to our ranks and winning over voters whose values and attitudes make them natural Liberals but have been turned off in recent years. On the other hand, if we continue to diverge from our roots as a party, we will become the very thing our founders despised: a reactionary party that stands for nothing but power for its own sake and preserving the status quo.
Much of our recent failure as a party can be put down to a single root cause: we have departed from the fundamental commitment to progress and a compelling vision for the future of the nation. We have ceased to be leaders, content with being administrators. We have exchanged substance for slogans and car parks.
Let me be clear: I am not blaming conservatives. Some moderates favour extreme and dogmatic forms of neoliberalism which are equally anti-liberal, opposed as they are to the idea of governments achieving any progress other than progress in dismantling themselves.
One of the benefits of collectively returning to our roots as a party is that both moderates and conservatives can find common ground in a shared commitment to steady progress in accordance with our values.
We are living in challenging times. Our nation is facing a number of major questions, and is in dire need of good leadership. Leadership that is prepared to set a vision and take action. Leadership not driven by polls, but by convictions and bold answers to the questions being asked of us.
Some of these questions include: How do we fend off the scourge of unemployment? How can we grow our economy and export industries? What kind of cities and neighbourhoods are we building? How will we defend ourselves in a multi-polar world with America reverting to isolationism? What do we do about the mental health crisis? How do we manage the energy transition? How do we address a growing generational gap? How do we support an increasing population of renters? How do we reduce indigenous disadvantage? How do we turn around declining school performance?
The purpose of this blog is to explore solutions to these problems and more, and I hope that even among its small readership, it has at least sparked some thoughts and ideas.
In the spirit of Menzies and Deakin, it’s my hope that we can rise above the politics of small targets and fear campaigns, and develop a bold vision for Australia’s future. We owe it to ourselves, our forebears and our country.