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

survey link


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

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Cardinal rebuts commission's 'Get Pell' campaign

COVER STORY Anti-discrimination law validates Safe Schools

U.S. AFFAIRS First Brexit, now Trump: it's the economy, stupid!

INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENT Wikileaks reveals U.S, funding behind anti-coal campaign

COVER STORY QUT discrimination case exposes Human Rights Commission failings

FOREIGN AFFAIRS How the left whitewashed Fidel Castro

ANALYSIS What is possible to a Trump Whitehouse

News and views from around the world

Frequently asked questions about section 18C (Simon Breheny)

Chilean legislators kill explicit sex-ed program (LifeSite News)

France to ban people with Down syndrome from smiling (The Huffington Post)

Child abuse and family structure: What is the evidence telling us (Family First NZ)

Woolworths beats ACCC supplier mistreatment case (Eli Greenblat)

Australia set to ride the quantum computing wave (Science in Public)

Weatherill warns states could introduce carbon prices (Rosie Lewis)

Green-left legerdemain doesn't make religion relevant (Fr James Grant)

Mass murderer Castro dies unpunished (Augusto Zimmermann)

The rise of political correctness (Angelo Codevilla)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
December 2, 2016, 2:36 pm