November 4th 2000

  Buy Issue 2595

Articles from this issue:

United States: Clinton’s legacy to determine U.S. presidential poll

Editorial: Telstra’s infrastructure - public service

Agriculture: Apples - who’s fooling whom?

Canberra Observed: Whitlam's apologia on East Timor role

National Affairs: Economic conversion for Democrats' leader?

Taxation: Why the attack on family trusts?

Telecommunications Inquiry: Telstra's country services deficient - TSI report

The Media


Straws in the Wind

The courts and commercialised medicine

Drugs: Needle exchange programs - the shocking reality

Family: Medical professor endorses the condom culture

Society: Markets and morals

Books promotion page

National Affairs: Economic conversion for Democrats' leader?

by Colin Teese

News Weekly, November 4, 2000
It would be tempting to rejoice in what appears to be the sudden conversion of the Leader of the Democrats, Meg Lees, to the path of righteousness and away from economic rationalism. But the hardnosed will be more cautious.

Some will be tempted to believe that her conversion is motivated more by politics than enlightenment. Is she, one might ask, with an eye to the next election, trying to ride a rising tide of objection to an idea (economic rationalism) ahead of any change of direction of the main parties. Doing so could settle the Democrats on morally higher ground, while, at the same time, differentiating them from the main parties. The big question is, however, whether the electorate will take Meg Lees' conversion seriously.

Certainly, her party needs a new kick-start. Having, since the last election, taken up a position of de facto member of the Coalition, the Democrats are in desperate need of a new, divergent, identity - particularly in the country. To an outsider at least, the Greens seem to have taken the ground which the Democrats once held.

Another factor calling into question the Democrats' commitment to the new conversion is the fact that Meg Lees, in particular, and ultimately the party in general, supported the Coalition on a GST, even though much of the vote the party attracted at the last election was on the assumption that Democrats would join Labor and oppose that measure.

Whether voter disenchantment has dissipated sufficiently to give the party another chance is a matter for conjecture. At the very least they will want to see more of the colour of the Democrats' money. Does the party, and Meg Lees, know that a consumption tax is a central pillar of the economic rationalist position? Its purpose is not, as the Democrats were apparently persuaded, to improve the tax structure, but to support globalisation by shifting the tax burden from big business to small business and to consumers.

To this extent at least, the Democrats' leader is, to put it mildly, compromised, and perhaps confused on economics. She has come late to the idea that we have a current account deficit, and we are entitled to ask why.

Concern over the current account has a long and distinguished history going back to Bob Santamaria's time. He was rightly lamenting our appetite for foreign debt, when current orthodoxy was consigning him, and his opinion, to the dust-bin of economic Ludditism.

The question that the Democrats must answer, and convincingly, is this: fine, so you now oppose economic rationalism - what are you going to do about it?

Let's see your proposals for reversing what has been done and how you intend to give effect to them. It's not enough to lamely proclaim that we have done everything the international markets wanted and it hasn't worked, so now we must try a different tack.

More important still: how durable is the party's conversion? At this stage we must take it on trust. The Democrats leader is not well informed on the true impact of economic rationalism - she has been notably silent on its impact on unemployment, on manufacturing industry, and on country people.

The states of both the current account and the dollar, which appear to be the basis of Meg Lees' conversion, are merely the more obvious manifestations of these wider considerations.

Those who oppose the application of neo-classical economic policy prescriptions (i.e., economic rationalism) are not opposed to the idea of conversions. All new supporters are welcomed, but only if they fully understand the implications of what they are supporting, and where it might lead them.

The Democrats may turn out to be effective supporters of those in favour of a turn-around in economic policy, but they are not there yet.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am