"Has the Australian Liberal Party moved too far left or too far right? This framing misses the real story: the forgotten Y axis of the political compass."
"Pundits and lackeys [have framed the Australian Liberal Party election] rout in the tired left versus right narrative – a progressive swing, a rejection of conservatism, too right-wing, not right-wing enough. In my view, this framing misses the real story: the forgotten Y axis of the political compass, the one that plots authoritarian versus libertarian. In 2025, liberty and small government was almost completely absent from the lower house ballot paper. ...
"At this election voters had a choice between Big Government in red, or Big Government in blue.
"Unfortunately, most of our media treats ideology as a one-dimensional line – or horizontal axis – from left to right, typically referring to either economic or social policy positions. They’ve over-simplified it. A more accurate analysis would consider the vertical axis, which typically refers to government control at one end, and political freedom on the other. The simple left-right frame ensures people don’t see, hear or consider the alternative. We’ve got our blinkers on, and now both major Australian political parties sit in the upper quadrants – favouring authority over liberty.
"By ignoring the authoritarian-libertarian spectrum, we’re holding open the gates to barbarians who seek to seize control of an all-powerful state and use it to impose their top-down vision of how we should live our lives. Big Government proponents can hide behind labels like “moderate” or “centrist” if we fail to measure them against the Y axis to determine where they truly sit. ...
"Increasingly, both major parties subscribe to the view that more government is the solution to every problem. It’s become the default, it’s reflexive; if there’s a problem, the solution is a new law, a new tax or a new, bureaucratic department. Australia’s political class is united in expanding Canberra’s reach, regardless of the colour of the flag they fly. The result? Uniparty.
"No Liberal Party frontbencher stood up in 2025 to argue that maybe, just maybe, government should do less, spend less, control less.
"We must demand that the authoritarian-libertarian axis be part of the conversation."
~ Steve Holland from his post 'Liberty Can’t Win If It’s Not on the Ballot'
6 comments:
True.
So why have the Objectivists and Libertarians been so utterly useless in stopping this over the last 80-90-100 years?
Have you missed something in the human soul?
@Tom, you've lost me: It hasn't been either Objectivists or Libertarians driving the decline of smaller-government options. That's mostly been the work of conservatives.
And who knows what goes on in *their* souls.
Just about to comment something similar PC. Those who claimed to be libertarian were garden variety conservatives all along who wanted a “strong man” authoritarian leader. Talk of “souls”just confirms that.
Ok then. Let's put it another way, since the use of a perfectly secular English expression about "souls" has apparently kicked off an anti-religious knee jerk.
Why have the arguments of Objectivists and Libertarians - those ""hippies of the right" - failed to win over more than tiny portions of the people we think of as "Conservative", of whatever shade, in the Liberal Party (and National, GOP, ....)?
Are they a lost cause, in which case where will Objectivists/Libertarians ever get the numbers of votes required to start getting small government options.
In my lifetime here in NZ it's only been Douglas and Richardson who even tried, and as we all know their approaches were flawed. Is there something deep in people (whatever shade of traditional voting block they are) that you're missing in trying to persuade them to your views? Shouldn't that possibility be considered?
Must re-watch Problems with Libertarianism
I don't follow Aussie politics. Was Dutton a "strong man" authoritarian leader?
Here's my short answer for you Tom, which essentially integrates Objectivism with evolutionary psychology, not something I'm aware of any other Objectivist doing.
Animals have an evolved predisposition to follow the herd and stick with the pack because it maximises their chances of survival and reproduction. Humans are the most advanced species where that trait has evolved to be less pronounced than any other species. In modern society our survival often depends on NOT following the herd and thinking for themselves. At least it depends on a minority of humans who don't follow the herd when it counts.
Most people these days want both connection with others, and autonomy - to varying degrees. In an evolutionary sense we're a work in progress, a mixture of the two, and sometimes bouncing back and forth between them.
Animals generally don't want and can't have autonomy. But there's a thing called evolutionary mismatch where cultural change and the survival requirements for our environment occurs quicker than evolution can adapt for. We still have, to varying degree these animal traits. it's still easiest for most to accept authority figures and follow the herd. At least until disaster strikes, then the general populace are motivated for a while to move closer to the limited government ideal, as they were in the Douglas/Richardson reforms however imperfect they were, and as they now are in Argentina.
Change requires two things. 'Purists' advocating for the ideal, that even if not accepted by the vast majority at least moves the Overton Window towards that ideal, combined with more practical politicians prepared to get policy change that although not ideal, at least moves us in the right direction (arguably what ACT are doing, or at least trying to do). Objectivists and Libertarians generally fall into the first camp. Their success is not measured by how many people would vote for their ideals, but whether they've helped move things in the right direction. Taking the long term view, I'd say they definitely have to varying degrees, depending on who exactly we're talking about.
Post a Comment