What happened to the Liberal party of Menzies? They became obsessed with virtue-signalling
Indeed, the Liberal party's external critics can also join in the fun, berating Menzies' heirs and successors for their betrayal of his legacy: home ownership and support for universities have figured prominently. What happened to the Liberal party of Menzies, they ask. I've done it occasionally myself.
Is it fair? Well, yes and no. The Liberal party today is a very different beast to the one Menzies left behind on his retirement in January 1966. In government, he pursued a cautious and conservative pragmatism that did not turn every policy issue or administrative decision into another opportunity for a performance piece displaying one's ideological virtue. In the process, he gained the support of many working-class voters; yet, unlike the apparent inclination of too many Liberal politicians today, he did not need to imagine them as a collection of appetites and prejudices in order to do so.
To be fair to today's Liberals, Menzies ruled in vastly different times – and, put bluntly, they were easier times. His postwar prime ministership of 16 years coincided with, and was nourished by, an extended period of economic growth and personal affluence. Leaders of that time knew that fortune had smiled on them. And they enjoyed their luck, assuring themselves that even if they had not themselves made the good times, they would sure as hell have been blamed in bad times.
It is instructive to read the letters Menzies received from ordinary folk on his retirement, as I did recently, because they tell us much about what people valued in the man and his party.
A Sydney woman, writing on behalf of her family, said: 'All my voting life, you have been Prime Minister, and I have never known any real hardship. Our children are growing up in a secure feeling of a well-respected country in the world where so many countries are in turmoil. For this I thank your wise management over the years.'
'Security' was the word to which the letter-writers kept returning: 'the security we have enjoyed as a family and members of community & nation', as another woman put it. And when they were not talking about 'security', they turned to what they saw as its close sibling, prosperity: 'the sane and sensible government which has been so greatly needed for the growth and prosperity of this country': Menzies' years of service had 'lifted the Australian image to a remarkably high position in the outside world'.
People who could never have imagined that they would ever own a home or a car now found themselves with one of each. There might even be a second car in the driveway for mum to drive to the new shopping centre at Roselands or Chadstone. It all seemed rather miraculous, and it made them happy and proud. Menzies embodied their patriotism, which was often still British as well as Australian, with 'dignity' – another term that kept appearing in their letters.
The new Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, has said a Liberal party is needed that 'respects modern Australia, that reflects modern Australia, and that represents modern Australia. And we have to meet the people where they are.' She might have added (and the Liberals are in the habit of doing so): 'just as Menzies did'.
Menzies understood only too well that people craved security and prosperity, alongside liberty and individuality. He was never so foolish as to imagine that people wanted from their prime minister and government repeated virtue signalling about 'free enterprise' more than they wanted a home in the suburbs, a nice, shiny car, and a better chance for their children than they had enjoyed. Some who voted for Menzies would have supported Labor governments at the state level that gave them benefits such as annual leave – reaching three weeks per year in New South Wales by 1958.
Some Liberals are frank in expressing their dislike of much they find in modern Australia. Its branches and organisation are less representative of middle Australia than they were in Menzies' time. Some who claim to speak for the party seem like the weird neighbour most of us do our best to avoid at the end-of-year street party. The one who last year was button-holing anyone he could find about the 'globalist conspiracy'. This year, he was recently heard mumbling something about 'trans' in an alarming way while watering his dahlias.
'Although I have, because of my upbringing, never voted for the party you have controlled for so long, I want you to know that I am one of your greatest admirers', a Melbourne man wrote in 1966. Menzies understood that he and his party needed to connect with such people. As a mature politician, he had learned not to sneer at or insult them. If Liberals, in their own interests, were to ban the use of the word 'woke' from all party gatherings, they would be on the way to absorbing the wisdom their leading founder has still to offer them.
Frank Bongiorno is a professor of history at the Australian National University
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
TARRIC BROOKER: How AI will affect YOUR job - whether you're a tradie or an office worker - and the ripple effects it will have on the property market and the careers of a generation
As the promise of a future defined by AI increasingly fills the airwaves and the debates within the halls of power around the globe, it is striking how different the perspectives are on what this future will look like, even just a few short years from now. At one end of the spectrum, there is the hopeful view that AI will help to dramatically improve productivity and act to kickstart broad-based growth in living standards. At the other, there is concern that AI could be the catalyst for one of the most challenging shifts for societies and economies in modern history. One of the figures taking the latter view is Ford CEO Jim Farley. 'AI is going to replace literally half of all white collar workers,' Mr Farley said in a recent conference address. 'I believe that AI and new technology have an asymmetric impact on our economy. That means a lot of things are helped a lot, and a lot of things are hurt,' Farley said. However, the Albanese government has spoken in positive terms about the potential impact of AI on the economy. In an address to the 'Australia's Economic Outlook 2025' conference in Sydney last week, the Prime Minister said artificial intelligence will deliver 'secure and fulfilling jobs' - not threaten them. That follows comments by Treasurer Jim Chalmers backing the minimal regulation of AI, arguing that the Albanese government's focus was on how technological progress can boost productivity, rather than implementing limits on its use. Aussie industries exposed to AI When it comes to the impact of AI by industry, it can vary considerably. According to an analysis by investment bank Goldman Sachs, over the next decade, 46 per cent of jobs in office and administrative support are exposed to AI. At the other end of the spectrum, in one of Australia's largest industries, the construction and resource extraction sector, just six per cent of jobs are exposed to AI. The rest of industries fall somewhere in the middle, with hands-on, blue collar roles significantly less likely to be impacted by the rise of AI. Overall, Goldman Sachs estimates that 300 million jobs could be diminished or lost over the next decade. Comparison with the Industrial Revolution As concern continues to build over the impact of AI on jobs and our society more broadly, parallels have been drawn with the impact of the Industrial Revolution - considered the period from the 19th century onwards where technologies such as mass production brought massive growth. Unfortunately, when one assesses the history of the Industrial Revolution and contrasts it with the promise of AI, it is clear they are two very different developments. The major difference between the Industrial Revolution and the promise of the AI is that one is hardware, the other is software. During that era, replacing a human with a machine was an expensive and time-consuming process. For example, to replace the farm workers separating grain from the husks and stems of crops with a steam powered threshing machine in the mid-19th century, it cost the equivalent of between five and ten times an average farmer's annual wage. Given the availability of loans and business finance more broadly in that era, the capital-intensive nature of the shift towards mechanised operations was gradual. This is illustrated in the relatively gradual shift in the proportion of people employed in agriculture over time. In 1820, 73 per cent of the American workforce was employed in agriculture. By 1855, the figure had fallen to 53 per cent of the workforce and to 40 per cent by the turn of the 20th century. Meanwhile, the cost of implementing an AI like ChatGPT in a business setting is as little as $46 per user per month. For a small fraction of an office's monthly budget for takeaway coffees, tools could be implemented that could have a transformative effect on the way we work and the way our labour is demanded. This could scarcely be more different to the world of the Industrial Revolution, where implementing new technologies was an extremely expensive and time consuming endeavour. The impact of AI on the nation's property market will likely be directly proportional to the impact on the labour market. If a sizeable proportion of people are left effectively unemployable by the rapid evolution of technology in the workplace, then it's challenging to see how property prices don't take a hit without some form of policymaker intervention. But it's not the early 1990s anymore. Back then, banks were far less forgiving of mortgage holders in difficulty and thousands of people lost their homes. During the pandemic the banks, government and RBA adopted a strategy called 'Extend and Pretend'. It allowed mortgage holders to defer their payments. The normal rules were effectively suspended, rather than the usual arrears process being pursued. It's therefore not hard to imagine an equally unprecedented strategy being pursued to prevent people from losing their homes and the housing market from crashing, if the downside scenarios for the labour market were to be realised. Joke proposals about policies such as YouTube personality Florian Heisse's 'Mortgage Keeper' - which entails the federal government paying your mortgage, similar to JobKeeper - may switch from the realm of the somewhat amusing to that of reality. To what degree an intervention could be successful depends very much on the scale of the impact of AI on the ranks of the nation's workers and how businesses collectively adapt to that. AI revolution's effect on Gen Z There are some signs that the impact on the labour market has already begun to be felt in the United States, as the unemployment rate for recent college graduates rises. A recent report from research firm Oxford Economics concluded: 'There are signs that entry-level positions are being displaced by artificial intelligence at higher rates.' Molly Kinder, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, which studies the impact of AI, said: 'Employers are saying, 'These tools are so good that I no longer need marketing analysts, finance analysts and research assistants'.' The early reports from within US industry suggest that the immediate impact will be felt by Gen Z, as employers seek to automate largely entry level tasks that don't require a great deal of in-depth training. If the downside scenario were to be realised, this leaves the impacted members of Gen Z at something of an impasse. If they can't get their foot in the door because businesses are focused on entry level jobs being performed by AI, how can they get the work experience needed in order to get a more senior level role? On the potential upside for Gen Z, of all the generations, they are the most accustomed to the usage of AI and may have an advantage in adapting to the new employment roles of managing, refining and directing AI software. The impact on other generations and even older members of Gen Z who are more established in their careers is more uncertain, with a great deal more variation depending on what sort of role they are employed in. The positive scenario for workers The upside scenario of the proliferation of AI in the workplace hinges on the idea that it will either have a minimal net impact on overall employment, or will end up creating more jobs than it eliminates in net terms. The theory is that the impact on the labour market will be a net positive, due to the combination of new jobs focused on the burgeoning AI sector and the productivity increases that are expected to come with the widespread adoption of AI. At an individual business level, it is hoped that this will allow workers to focus on higher value and more vital tasks, while routine work is largely automated and allowed to run in the background. Regardless, while the outlook for the impact of AI remains highly uncertain, the world may soon be finding itself at a major crossroads, the type of shift that only comes up maybe once a generation. If AI fulfils even half its promised capabilities, it will be a turning point in history, for better or for worse. If AI fulfils even half its promised capabilities, it will be a turning point in history, writes commentator Tarric Brooker (above) On the other hand, it's possible that AI's impact may be more limited than anticipated in the remaining years of this decade. Business owners will soon determine whether or not the level of capability and accuracy provided by these new tools is right for their businesses. Despite the parallels that have been drawn with all manner of other technological leaps in the modern history of humanity, this could mark a rapid evolution in our history. Steam engines, flight, the personal computer and the internet all found a place in our societies and our lives gradually over time, with each one seeing a faster adoption than the last. But this time is different. This time, the overwhelming majority of us already hold the necessary hardware to use an AI agent in the palm of our hands.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘Gross over-reach': Labor group urges Albanese to reject key parts of antisemitism envoy plan
A 'groundswell' of Labor rank-and-file members are urging the government to reject key recommendations from the federal antisemitism envoy, according to an internal lobby group, urging a focus on anti-racism education rather than more contentious ideas such as stripping funding from universities and arts bodies. Labor Friends of Palestine, an internal campaign group of members and politicians, said it was concerned about anti-Jewish hatred, but would be troubled about wider adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's contested definition of antisemitism, as recommended by Jillian Segal in a wide-ranging plan last week. Three co-convenors of the group have written to the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, saying they were 'deeply concerned' about parts of Segal's recommendations, describing her ideas about amending immigration law, changing school curriculums or potentially terminating funding to academics and artists as 'gross over-reach'. The group is also planning a campaign to gather further support from more Labor party branches. 'There is a groundswell of outrage among rank-and-file Labor members,' Peter Moss, a co-convener of Labor Friends of Palestine, told Guardian Australia. 'There is deep concern about the use of the IHRA definition which has been deployed to stifle criticism of the State of Israel.' Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Albanese is currently mulling a response to envoy Segal's 49 recommendations to stamp out anti-Jewish hate. It is widely expected the government could focus its response on the education and prevention measures in Segal's plan. More complex recommendations, such as defunding universities or academic grants, would face more significant debate. Guardian Australia reported on Friday that Segal's push for the federal government to 'require' the IHRA definition 'to be used across all levels of government and public institutions' will face pushback from some concerned Labor MPs and party members. That definition is contested in some quarters, with concerns it was increasingly being used to conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel. Other Labor voices believed some criticism of Segal's report had been an overreaction, noting attacks on synagogues as an issue that required action. Albanese in 2021 committed federal Labor to the IHRA definition, as did then-prime minister Scott Morrison, and then-Labor premier Daniel Andrews in 2022. However it's understood that any federal push to codify or more widely embed the definition into various sectors would face internal pushback from some federal MPs. Albanese and Segal have both said legitimate criticism of the Israeli government, including its military actions in Gaza, would not be forbidden. Moss and his co-conveners told Albanese in their letter that many Labor members would reject the wider adoption of the IHRA definition, claiming it had been 'been deployed to stifle criticism of the policies and practices of the State of Israel and undermine the capacity of the Palestinian people to assert their rights under international law'. The group noted a 2023 open letter from more than 100 Israeli and international civil society organisations – including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union – which asked the United Nations to reject the IHRA definition because it is being 'misused' to protect Israel from legitimate criticism. Moss and the group's other co-conveners also wrote to the prime minister of their concerns about some of Segal's recommendations. 'Proposals for amendments to immigration law, changes to school curriculum or reform of funding arrangements for universities and cultural institutions are beyond the scope or expertise of the Envoy and should be rejected,' they wrote. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Segal said on Friday that stripping funding would be a 'last resort', downplaying the potential for such a power to be used. Labor friends of Palestine said they 'share the Government's concerns about increased reports of antisemitic behaviour – just as we share concerns about increased rates of Islamophobia'. 'However the Plan makes some very broad claims that seem to be designed to create a sense of crisis rather than to foster social cohesion,' they wrote. Instead they said the government should focus on cultural and educational programs 'that promote and celebrate the full diversity of our multicultural society.' Moss and his co-conveners also urged Albanese to review the antisemitism envoy position itself, suggesting instead a broader-based program to combat all forms of racism. The Labor government also instituted an envoy to combat Islamophobia, Aftab Malik, who said last week his report would be sent to government in August. 'More than 100 members from around Australia have reached out to Labor Friends of Palestine in the past 24 hours asking us to speak out urgently on this issue,' Moss said. 'Labor members want the prime minister to reject the envoy's plan and review the envoy's position.'
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Australia to 'support status quo' on Taiwan, amid US defense push
Australia will not commit troops in advance to any conflict, Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said on Sunday (July 13), responding to a report that the Pentagon has pressed its ally to clarify what role it would play if the U.S. and China went to war over Taiwan. Diane To reports.
