 |
12 February 2002
|
OPINION
Mark Latham: It's the culture, stupid
By Mark Latham
February 12, 2002
IN the conventional wisdom of
Australian politics, the main source of division in our
society is economic. It is argued that globalisation has split
the electorate into two groups, the haves and have-nots, and
that the gap between the two is growing day by day.
Although this argument dominates the
public debate, I have never been convinced by it. In my
experience as an MP and resident of Sydney's western suburbs,
the political divide is best understood in terms of social and
cultural values.
The powerful centre of our society, concentrated in the
cosmopolitan heart of our main cities, talks a different
language to suburban Australia. In lifestyle and political
culture, they are poles apart.
At the gentrified centre, people tend to take a tourist's
view of the world: they travel extensively, eat out and buy in
domestic help. This abstract lifestyle has produced an
abstract style of politics. Symbolic and ideological issues
are given top priority.
Consider the republican debate. One group of powerful
elites (Australians for Constitutional Monarchy) engages
another group of powerful elites (the Australian Republican
Movement) in a symbolic debate about Australia's head of
state.
In the suburbs, politics is more pragmatic. People do not
have the resources to distance themselves from neighbourhood
problems. This has given them a resident's view of society.
Questions of public decency and service delivery are
all-important.
This is a political world without symbolism or dogma.
People want to know what politicians can do for them in a
tangible and constructive way. Politicians who define
themselves in ideological terms are seen as irrelevant.
In suburban Australia, economic issues still matter, but
without a sharp sense of division. When Paul Keating opened up
the Australian economy in the 1980s, he also opened up a new
world of economic mobility. Families have been climbing the
ladder of ownership and opportunity ever since.
In terms of values, economic aspiration forms a bridge
between the winners and losers from globalisation. While the
media debate concentrates on the haves and have-nots, suburban
voters are more interested in what they will have tomorrow.
Our economic values are converging while our social values are
moving apart.
In the US, this divide is known as the culture war. It is
now a potent part of Australian politics, as the most recent
federal election demonstrated. Just as Robert Menzies turned
to the communist bogy to get his government out of trouble in
the '50s, today's Tories have turned to the culture war for
political salvation.
Like clockwork, John Howard and Tony Abbott are rolling
out controversies on social values, inviting criticism from
the liberal Left. This is a deliberate strategy: provoking
debate and defining themselves through their weakest
opponents. In effect, our national leaders are prepared to
tear the nation in two, as long as they can pick up the larger
part politically.
Last month, for instance, in a speech to the Young
Liberals, Abbott set out to rekindle controversy over the
three Rs: refugees, reconciliation and the republic. As
expected, the usual suspects took the bait, mainly through
this page.
This represents a new kind of reactionary politics in
Australia. It is deliberately negative, nasty and provocative.
This is both its strength and its weakness. If the debate is
confined to Howard and Abbott on one side and the likes of
Phillip Adams and Anne Summers on the other, the Coalition
cannot lose.
In practice, however, the Government's agenda is
self-serving and superficial. It ignores the interests of the
great majority of Australians, who feel marginalised by both
the reactionary Right and the gentrified, liberal Left.
Suburban Australia has nothing to gain from this debate.
While the politically correct and incorrect berate each other
in the media, the bread and butter issues are overlooked. The
culture war can never fix the problems of unemployment, crime
and youth suicide in our community.
In fact, I see little difference between Abbott and Adams.
From a suburban point of view, they are both pompous and out
of touch.
Stripped of their political rhetoric, the similarities
between Abbott and Adams are striking. Neither talks about the
practical reform of bad schools, public housing or the health
system. Neither writes about the importance of community and
social capital. These issues are external to their personal
interests and lifestyle.
When Abbott talks about the elites, he might as well be
talking about himself. The son of a medical specialist on
Sydney's north shore, an expensive school education, a career
in journalism and now a federal cabinet minister – this is
the CV of a rolled-gold elite. Along the way, he even managed
to run the ACM.
Abbott and Adams both prefer an abstract style of debate,
conducted through a series of symbols. One backs the symbolism
of the British monarchy, the other the symbolism of an
Aboriginal treaty. Each denigrates the other's politics
without offering positive solutions for suburban Australia.
At its core, this is the politics of pettiness. Just as
the Howard Government is without a third-term agenda, the
liberal Left is an anti-movement: anti-globalisation,
anti-economics and anti-punishment. Both sides know what they
oppose in public policy but not what they favour.
Recently my Labor colleague Wayne Swan spoke of the
"missing middle" of Australian politics. Indeed, the
suburbs have gone missing – missing in the debate between
the reactionary Right and the liberal Left.
As the ALP rebuilds after a third federal election loss,
our job is to fill this gap. We need to redefine the debate
and reclaim our heartland. The suburbs are crying out for
positive policies and tangible results. Beyond Abbott and
Adams lies a new political agenda – a suburban Labor agenda.
Mark Latham is the federal Opposition spokesman for
economic ownership, housing and urban development.
|
|
|
PRINT-FRIENDLY
VERSION
