Before blogospheric barristers open the cross-examination, this is an information item, not a quiz. In an arresting article in the current Arena titled “Goodbye to all that”, Guy Rundle rings the bell on Australia’s adventure in left-liberalism. For mine, Rundle is our brightest essayist, by which I mean best read, not necessarily agreement. Sorry, it’s not online. To interpret, Australia’s left-liberalism was an invention of the Howard government, imported from the US, and the whole thing has become deeply embarrassing. “The formation I’ve described as liberal-left is the one that effectively stands for the left in much of the mainstream media – the absolute outer limits of where editors and others will take a debate.” He has examples, and names names, if you like. However you understand the present, the question is interesting. My memory says the term “liberal left” was small currency pre-Howard. Yet there are many approaches to this territory, others of which can lead to the same conclusion, which is, perhaps, startling. “There is no excuse to not be as unsparing in criticism of a dead and self-indulgent tradition that happens to hail from the Left, as of the reactionary and corrupted Right that has dominated political life in the country for the past decade.”
Club Troppo
Fearlessly dispensing political, legal and economic analysis (and some whimsy) since 2002
So did Howard invent the term or import it?
Invented it in Australia, by importing it from the US, where the concept has its distinct heritage. First and last answer. People can comment, or read the article for themselves.
For long term bloggers, there is an odd, if not exact, Jack Strochie (sp) resonance in the story.
I plan to invent the 1967 Corvette Stingray in Australia by importing one from the US.
(By the way, I recall tedious debates over the definition of left-liberalism – as it applied in Australia – in the late 80s.)
Actually, I think the term ‘small “l” liberal’ has been given a pretty good workout by commentators over the Howard years.
Pretty much the way the Hills Hoist was invented tim – Mr Hills had seen similar devices in English back yards (from the windows of a train) and when he returned to Oz, gave us an Aussie icon.
McAuley used the term ‘Left-liberal’ in his application letter to be editor of Quadrant – in 1955:
http://www.the-rathouse.com/McAuley_20quadrants.html
Since the war, the Sydney monthly Voice, devoted principally to political comment, but with some general cultural features, has followed a confused and na
I’ve struggled mightily with this post, but ultimately, I Didn’t Get It. Can someone summarise for a peon like yours truly? :)
Summary: Guy Rundle has an interesting article in the current Arena and you should buy a copy if you want to know more.
Righto. I think I’m getting dumber as Generation AA comes up behind me.
TimT said:
Chris didn’t say it didn’t exist, he said it had small currency. The change since that time is that thanks to Fox News the term has become something of an epithet rather than a useful description of a political standpoint, which is a major shift in language use (thanks Mr Murdoch).
It has a small currency now: let’s not be fooled by the illusion that many Australians are interested in such petty quibbling over terms.
Who cares what “many Australians are interested in”? Many Australians watch Funniest Home Videos. Are you an aspiring television programmer, or running for political office, or looking for some other thread?
Who cares what many Australians are interested in?
John Howard, presumably…
Perhaps it’s the term’s implicit (and actual) disconnect between collectivist objectives and the ideology of individualism, between “left” politics and organisation, whether its form be party political or social movement or trade union, that are the most successful aspects of its appropriation by Howard and his media.
To be clear, the observation on the recent history of the term “liberal left” in Australia is mine, based merely on my memory. Guy Rundle’s essay is on the political formation itself. I think it is worth reading, if you happen to be interested in that sort of thing, which some Troppo readers are, regardless of what many other Australians and John Howard are interested in. Otherwise, I have no wish to be the defence attorney for the article.
TimT wrote:
Ah, see there’s the problem. John Howard doesn’t care, he just presumes to know what Australians are interested in. It’s been over twelve months since his presumptions had any connect with anybody.
Ah, see theres the problem. John Howard doesnt care, he just presumes to know what Australians are interested in. Its been over twelve months since his presumptions had any connect with anybody.
So, if I’ve got this right, his ‘presumptions had a connect’ with what Australians were interested in during the 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2004 elections, over a period of some 10 years, but now he doesn’t.
Say! We could plot the results on a curve and pinpoint the exact moment when John Howard lost connection with what the public think! With such a curve, we could rule the world!
Rule the world? Too late, I’m already doing it (Muhahahah!)
Bastard! Couldn’t you have waited until the morning? :p
I think the puzzlement expressed by lots of commenters here is that the post starts by imputing to Rundle the view that the “left-liberal” formation is a bogus concept imported from the US, as with “political correctness”, but the extract from the conclusion suggests that left-liberalism is (or maybe was) a real body of thought, self-indulgent and now dead. I guess we’ll have to read the article to find out.
John, the puzzlement is no doubt my fault. I really don’t have time for blogging, and especially don’t have time for answering questions and debating stuff with all comers, let alone indulging flame wars – the tendency toward which can be somewhat predictable on some topics. This was just a quick post to alert interested parties to an arresting article by a fine writer, which comes to a conclusion that is similar to one that I have come to through other routes.
It is misleading to suggest that Rundle says that the movement was imported from the US. On the contrary, he acknowledges the long “alliance between between the labour movement and a sub-class of left-liberal cultural professionals” that reaches from the late 60s and was partly responsible for the Whitlam and Hawke/Keating ALP victories. In the 1990s, he suggests, the value systems holding the alliance began to come into conflict, as left-liberalism continued to develop and transform and take on a life of its own. It ruptured following the election of Howard, which is the more accurate sense in which it was “an invention of the Howard government”, within a context where it was also projected by the Murdoch press through the importation of the counter-attack on ‘political correctness’. There is more to it, but I don’t want to get into the debates that such a critique can obviously provoke.
Got it. Don’t bother posting.
Well, I did as I was told and went and got Arena and read the Rundle. And indeed I thought it was very good, indeed I enjoyed it and I think there is a fair bit of interest to Troppodillians of all stripes. My knowledge is far less detailed than cs’ so the left-liberal thing didn’t jump out, so let me bring it down to my intellectual level. GR starts out talking about the film Jindabyne which he elegantly slices into wee bits, discusses its heavy handed political symbolism, patronising portrait of the Aboriginal chracaters and general moral lameness. Then a discussion of the Raymond Carver (which reminded me: must read Carver!) short story the film was based on — exceedingly interesting. Then the larger question of the left’s largely unsatisfactory artistic reponses to the “nation changing” conservatism of the Howard era. The swipe at David Marr, I think would be cheered by many at Club T. And on, some discussion of the Blair Govt and what it might mean for a Rudd victory and what a Rudd victory might mean for the lef-liberals.
So to sum up, all the issues that crop up at CT and in other blogospheric parts about eleventy times a day. Readable and provocative and yeah, you should try to read it if you get the chance.
(OTOH, the only other full article from this ed. I’ve read so far, the one of “technosciences” by Geoff Sharp is pretty much wholly foolish.)