Let the “revolution” begin
There are three types of people in Australia.
The first of these are the Radicals that are trying to tear down our institutions and diminish our historical values because these don’t fit with their own view of how the world should function.
The majority are those who are apathetic to the societal changes going on around them until it affects them personally. This second group is characteristic of those who typically strive for a better life for themselves and their families, free of interference.
The third are the Conservatives that seek to protect and defend the structures and values that have allowed our nation to achieve the freedom and prosperity that we enjoy today.
Conservatives are the natural representatives of the aspirations of the majority and the values and structures they protect are based on principles that are under threat from the dominant ideologies of The Radicals and an increasingly secular and opportunistic society. A society in which concepts of right and wrong have been replaced with a moral relativism; where there are no absolutes – only preferences or choices. A society where there is an excuse for everything but responsibility for nothing. A society where the wisdom of the ages is being replaced by fads and quick fixes.
That’s why we need a revolution of sorts in this country. A revolution that will restore the principles and values that have successfully guided mankind and our society since the dawn of time.
We need to restore that which is now routinely ignored in the blind pursuit of new agendas that are remarkable, not for their lack of substance, but because they are built on the economic and moral corpses of previous failure.
We need to reacquaint our citizens with the understanding that there are absolute truths that hold true in all places and at all times.
We need to make a radical departure from the growing and all-pervasive acceptance that critical and discerning moral judgment is somehow unfair and an infringement on human rights.
We need to re-establish the notion that responsibility is just as important as freedom of choice.
We need to reaffirm that the family is the most important building block in any society and that the wellbeing of children is the best investment that any society can make.
We need to recognise that our nation has a role to play in international affairs but her primary responsibility is to her citizens.
In short, we need not just any revolution, we need a conservative revolution. One that will re-establish the family, social and economic virtues that have been neglected for at least two generations, yet are as innate within the human spirit today as they ever have been.
That’s why I’ll be taking a break from my weekly columns over the next six weeks to complete the final chapters of my forthcoming book The Conservative Revolution.
I remain grateful for your interest in my musings and appreciate all the feedback I receive. May you and your families enjoy a happy, holy and safe Christmas and a prosperous year ahead.
Cory Bernardi is a South Australian Liberal senator. His columns and essays are available at his website.
We’ve heard it all before from “neo-cons” in America talking about a “neo-conservative century”. Then the people elected Obama and a Democratic Congress. How many people here are going to vote for someone who says he is a “conservative” outside the blue ribbon Liberal seats like Goldstein, Kooyong and Higgins?
Are conservative policies going to win in Deakin, McEwen, Corangimite and so on where elections are won or lost. I would dearly like to think that Cori Bernardi is right but I don’t think it’s the real world.
I just what Government to leave me alone. Small government is what we demand.
“Social engineering” is a feature of governance including liberal governance. While they have the power of capital and government, Neo-Cons want to fool people into thinking some magic golden rule or invisible force shapes society as it was meant to be shaped; but this is only to further certain ideological interests, or an abject failure of vision and imagination. The Western world is today in the grips of right-wing neo-liberal and neo-conservative social engineering projects. The experimental sell off of revenue raising public property to the wealthy minority, the punitive welfare measures, the systematic destruction and privatisation of public education, the absolute power of the employer in a workplace are all features of right-wing, neo-conservative social engineering efforts. What hypocrites, knowingly or in ignorance, the conservative Right necessarily are.
I don’t know what Frank K is on about. Conservatives want out of serfdom, we want to simply be left alone by Government. What neo-cons? That’s just Leftist labelling in the hope of disguising their own attacks on personal liberty. What we really have today is a society in the grip of socialists, or rather, would-be-communists who are afraid to tell the public the truth about what they really want to do to us as individuals.
They truly believe that ‘Government’ can do a better job of running a citizen’s life than they can.
If you think that’s a good idea, then just pop down to your local RTA, or Post Office, and point out the guy there who can run your life better than you can.
Individuals are at a disadvantage to socialists; individuals want to go their own way, all different, but socialists club together, if only to be able to club individuals.
Go away.
Your are not the boss of me.
All Religion should be banned. I believe all parents who teach religion as fact should have their children taken away from them as the brainwashing is a major problem.
If a child grows up and wants to take on a religious faith, then they should make this decision at an age when they can do so without the influence of brainwashed idiots dictating what one should believe.
My apologies. NOT Banned. It should only be taken as an option for students wanting to take an interest in Pagan studies.
Any parent found guilty of brainwashing should be force to take a parenting class. This should not be taught as fact.
Sati,
Who is going to be decision maker on whether the child is in a balanced home environment? Government?
There are societies where religion is banned i.e. North Korea and Cuba. The most murderous regimes known to man were totalitarian Stalinists states where children were not taught about God and theology.
Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot could possible engineer and oversee your vision of grandeur?
There is nothing wrong with maintaining a belief and faith in God.
This has left me both bewildered and very worried.
First a few direct questions on what has been written;
You said, Cory: “The first of these are the Radicals”
I said; Radicals? Like who? And what have they done that is so ‘radical’?
The Greens could be called audacious and foolish, but not radical – they are confined to redundant left overs of the political arena. The next election will either see agreement on civil liberties issues and thus continued support or just a natural and slow decrease in their support as the major parties get their wits about them. Economically they are totally backward, but the major parties have exhibited no ability to act progressively to counter this.
You said; that are trying to tear down our institutions
I said; Which institutions? Social institutions, legal or political or economic – what?
and diminish our historical values because these don’t fit with their own view of how the world should function.”
Ok, but which ‘values’ are these? You continually state we need to ‘defend the traditions that made us great’ – yet it has been precisely the progressive development, not conservative entrenchment of such ideas and practices that has made us great. Australia was once one of the most protectionist countries ever – now we aspire to uphold a free market – even our so called Labor Party espouses free market capitalism! It has been progress that has made us great not conservatism.
One big point you harp on about is the family. Sorry but that also has not been some 1950s doll set scene – we have legislation for single mothers since the turn of the century! Clearly this type of thinking then leads to bigoted statements that are essentially homophobic and absurdly ignorant – defence of children and the protection of the right to raise and foster a family is an agenda I wholeheartedly support, but that in no way requires government extension and the deprivation of rights for others, namely gays and others who seek to live as they choose.
BTW Conservatism has its own internal ‘revolution’ every 10 years, which is why it is essentially a joke of a philosophy. If you want to improve Australia – to make her great, you should be pulling apart our criminally overgrown government – cutting spending, cutting intrusive systems of taxation and regulation, whilst giving back people’s civil liberties and restoring true freedom for the nation.
So far this “revolution” seems more like a childish rant, designed to stir up ignorant but valid rage with which you seek not to empower us but enlarge the state and further erode the civil liberties we have. As this seems quite clearly to be the revolution you are having you can quite clearly point me out as a counter-revolutionary!
The Greens are radicals. Have a look at their policies. Have a close look. Read what they have on their website. Think about how it is going to affect people.
How about the institution of marriage? Seems to me that agree with it or not, allowing same sex marriage is a major departure from the traditional norm.
What values? The values that have been destroyed by short sighted fools, things like:
Doing a days work to earn a days pay. Something that is dying rather rapidly in this country.
How about respect for the elderly? Going, going, gone.
How about an impartial media? Dead.
Freedom of speech? Murdered by political correctness.
Law and order? Slaughtered by snivel libertrians, bottom feeding lawyers and bleeding heart judges.
Australian made goods? Strangled by one way “free trade” agreements.
Owning your own home? Drowning in waves of foreign investment.
Free health care? Not if you earn more than the minimum wage.
Education? Sure, unless you want to learn to read, write or count.
These traditional values mean anything to you? They should do, because without them none of us would be sitting here.
Now you dont like nuclear families either. Why? Whats wrong with a family? And while we are on the subject, starting to get awfully sick of this continual bombardment about homosexuals getting married, homosexuals obtaining children. 5% of the population. Thats it. Thats all homosexuals are. 5%. 1.1 million people. The homosexual lobby groups have had their 15 minutes. We’ve heard all about it. Now sit down and shut up. The other 21 million Australians would like some attention as well and people are tired of your selfishness.
The conservative movement has its own revolution every 10 years? The Labor Party has one every Caucus. Your point is?
You response to me seems to be the written equivalent of bus stop grafitti. I fail to see why you have taken a dislike to the author, when he is at least trrying to address the decay this country has lapsed into. It appears to me that your opposition to his writings has more to do with your left wing bias and anti conservatism stance than a considered opinion on what was actually written.
You obviously don’t fit into any of the groups nominated in this article Ricardo.
So, what are you doing still living in Australia?
Ricardo,
The Greens are radical. They are not simply audacious and foolish. They desire and lobby for the end of our power industry and coal-based export businesses. This would destroy the economy overnight. That is radical.
Homosexuals already have equal rights under our laws. Marriage between homosexuals is fallacious. Research the definition of marriage. There can never be any such Act as ‘Gay Marriage’.
This contentious matter should go before the people in a democracy and the democratic majority would decide the matter. It would radically change our notion of marriage and family over time if instituted. Family is still the foundation of our communities and society in general. It provides the society with new generations of taxpayers, remember. Marriage and family are not simply quaint, outdated stereotypes, they provide our economic foundations. Any government would be foolish to tinker with requisite, established avenues of revenue provision. That would be courageous, indeed.
Conservatism provides stability in an uncertain world and reflects values such as committment, honesty, benevolence, respect and tenacity. The rights of the individual are important but so are individual responsibilities. It is the will of the majority that rules in our democracy not individual rights. Otherwise we should have descended into anarchy a long time ago. ‘Rights’ and ‘freedoms’ are great but they are almost never coupled with their equally significant ‘responsibilities’ by ‘equality’ advocates, especially not those of the left persuasion.
Deference to the majority view has afforded us significant stability over time. Social institutions like ‘Marriage’ are not the property of each individual or ‘loving couple’ to do with as they please. It belongs to and reflects the will of the majority through the ages. The population of this country has endorsed equality at every opportunity but does not seek to surrender its cherished and ancient fundamental institutions and values to satisfy the petulant whims of such minorites. It’s called respecting the accepted view.
The heterosexual majority has not moved to shut down annual iconic gay insitutions such as Mardis Gras, why then should the vast heterosexual majority radically change such a fundamental, generational institution as marriage in order to suit your minority agenda?
I suggest you relocate if you feel this society does not reflect your view. You need not feel bewildered, you choose it.
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
Alexander Tyler, Scottish Professor
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin, American Statesman
James,
You need help.
“After all, Jesus told us, when we see somebody lying on the road in trouble, to turn away and keep on walking. I think that’s how it goes, right? Been a while since I’ve read the bible, I might be a bit rusty”.
You have never read the Bible if you believe Jesus carried out his minsitry work shunning people in need. Go and read the gospel and you will find the most sincere, gentle and compassionate man who every walked on terra firma.
Jesus never went into battle, stole or preached “xenophobia” unlike the prophetless Mohammad who fought 78 battles, took bounty, brought submission by the sword and took 18 wives, sex slaves and concubines.
What is conservatism but one appeal to tradition or faith after another? That is the fallacious basis for Corey’s call for revolution. What values do you refer to? What would Australia be like after the conservative revolution? “Values” and “virtues” are little more than abstract dog-whistle words to dress up some claim as being part of the conservative agenda. What, precisely, do you mean when you talk about values and virtues?
What would be the key idea that people would buy to instigate this “revolution”? What idea would be so powerful that it would overturn our views of the world?
How do you contend with some of the disasters of neoconservatism and market fundamentalism such as: Iraq debacle, GFC, the managed democracy which is little more than a corporate plutocracy, AGW and other environmental issues?
And aren’t the conservatives being diced apart? The US Tea Party were unified in their opposition to Obama’s presidency, but now Wikileaks comes along and really destroys any semblance of unity that the Tea Party had. The global rise of conservative irrationalism was the desperate defence of an ideology in tatters post-Bush administration, but now that inflexible worldview is being turned against itself. Is conservatism more brittle or is it more irrational, able to keep living in a fantasy realms of denying reality?
It is those of the left that cannot accept reality, prefering to dwell in the unreal, irrational parallel universe of absolutes. They fear and loathe themselves along with all the selective attributes of mankind. The greatest ideological monsters the world has ever produced have ALL been creatures of the left. Read some Orwell. Re-read if necessary.
Politics is no different from biology. Same lessons. Evolution favours and so produces diversity. Life spreads out from the evolutionary centre down the ages. Ever-extending biological branches multiply giving rise to new and different forms, better genetically adapted than their predecessors. This does not occur by chance. Divergence from the centre matters. Convergence to the ancestral, more primitive centre results in extinction as it requires regression or natural de-selection.
Politically speaking, the same laws apply. Political ideologies espousing central control or enhanced, generic centrist control are doomed. Mankind favours individual diversity and human endeavour with respect to social evolution and success. Adaptation forces natural selection and this creates opportunity and development of the species Keeping to the natural order ensures survival and, ultimately, prosperity. Any other approach is delusional, irrational and a defiance of nature, especially our own. When we are permitted the opportunity to be our best, we are, and that includes an evolved benevolence toward our fellow human beings.
I really don’t think you understand the left at all, evolvo. You say they dwell in absolutes, but it’s the right that are terrified of moral relativism. It’s the right that would push us towards an orwellian society by advocating an erosion of personal freedoms in the name of cultural conformity. The right supported the Patriot Act in America. The right advocates greater censorship, especially on the internet. That’s orwellian.
“Divergence from the centre matters. Convergence to the ancestral, more primitive centre results in extinction as it requires regression or natural de-selection.”
So, you’re saying we should keep adapting to a changing world rather than clinging to primitive values? Hm, that sounds an awful like what the left tries to do, doesn’t it!
Benevolence to our fellow human beings? I guess that rules out being anti-gay and xenophobic, doesn’t it. What a shame – the right seemed to be having so much fun with those.
James,
You’re obviously seeking confrontation.
A leftist mind-set is delusional at best. Left-wing ideology seeks control over others; total control because they ‘always know what’s best for all’. Cognitive dissonance, moral relativism and PC dictats (moral superiority) all fit the picture. Social engineering has typified the left in power; this includes the re-writing of history, the celebration of mediocrity (keeping the peasant populace in place) and propaganda (another opiate for the people). The left seek to reduce all to the lowest common denominator (a sameness) and perpetuate dependency on government (them). They seek to remain in power, to return to primitive centrist control, usually by a corrupt, exploitative, elitest few. You’re another “useful idiot” as Stalin would say. You remind me of Clover from Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’.
Your argument is predictably fallacious. Moral relativism is not a celebration of a natural diversity (natural selection); ‘personal freedoms’ require attention to instincts and personal & civic responsibilites else we degenerate into anarchy, violence and the end of the species. Individuals seeking to exist in complete ‘personal freedom’ from fundamental natural laws always perish in natural populations. To avoid this outcome, nature has supplied living forms with instinct (fundamental inherited behaviours such as communal living). It is these instincts to survive and prosper that have accelerated the development of homo sapiens and our societies.
You suggest the left’s view sits comfortably with the natural order. I disagree. If so, then all ’special groups’ enjoying ’special attention’ (funding) from government should be set adrift to find their way in keeping with the drive for social and political renewal. If they are a natural fit they should survive and thrive without assistance or dependence. If they fail to adapt then extinction would result. Only the ‘fittest’ would survive. It is inconsistent for such a few (minority group) to set the agenda for the majority existing without significant dependence on government. It is unnatural and does not occur in the vast natural world. It weakens the species.
Individual strengths have produced our wonderful modern technologies; they have not originated from or because of government. We develop, often, in spite of government. Our developed (out-bred) human capacities have also facilitated our caring instincts and produced a benevolent approach to those less fortunate than ourselves (survival of community) and a desire to protect our own gains. Democratic, free-market societies are the usual immigrant targets as a result. Individual achievement based on merit rather than agenda is the hallmark of right not left politics.
Be careful what you wish for. Nature is merciless, Clover.
evolvo .
excellent.
the lowest common denominator idea was espoused by a well known u.s. female communist,who after visiting Stalin’s Russia,said,
i love Russia because everyone is equally poor.
i believe there are laws of nature we are meant to live by,and when interfered with,cause much suffering.
look at the countries that progressed and their view on individualism,then look at the countries with tribal views.
Evolvo, I don’t subscribe blindly to all of the left’s beliefs. I’d consider myself very far left on social issues, but I’d agree with you that excessive government control is a bad thing, and that capitalist enterprise is the best mechanism for progress. I’d never advocate communism – it simply doesn’t work, no question about it. Political correctness bugs me too – the fundamental freedom to speak your mind should never, ever be limited.
However, the inherent contradiction in the conservative mindset is that they claim they fear governmental control, something we can agree on, but then they advocate greater censorship and vice laws (such as the criminalisation of recreational drugs) which is nothing but governmental control! How one could possibly claim that the government has too much power and then petition them to make laws on personal issues like marriage, media, art and drug use is beyond me – the hypocrisy is too much to fathom.
James
However, the inherent contradiction in the conservative mindset is that they claim they fear governmental control, something we can agree on, but then they advocate greater censorship and vice laws (such as the criminalization of recreational drugs) which is nothing but governmental control””””
i do not use recreational drugs(maybe a beer) but agree with your view.
James, two points;
- re: censorship – There is only one politician who is mad keen on seeing this happen in Australia, his name is Stephen Conroy. Guess which side of politics he hails from? The left are obsessed with control, censoring the net is just one example.
- re: legslising “recreational” drugs – this is just common sense! Ok, if they were legal it might remove the criminals from the equation and might even make the taking of said drugs safer but there is no question that having more psychos charging around amped up on legal meth could be a good thing!! And before you say you only mean Marijuana, it has been medically proven to cause psychosis – again something I think we can both agree is a bad thing.
NSS: What Conservatism is about is protecting, cherishing and making use of what has stood the test of time. Conservatism is building upon the work and experience of the generations that went before us, taking values, knwoledge and ethics forward to our children from the shoulders of our kith and kin we now stand on. Valueing the experience and being proud and thankful for the work and achievements of the generations that build our civilisation. I could go on for a little while, but perhaps I’m just pissing in the wind.
No it’s not Ralf. Conservatism is about clinging to those values of previous generations, not building upon them. Building upon them would be destroying an institution that has served us for generations, remember!
Thanks for the ‘correction’, James. But you’re out of your water here. Better keep with the GBLTXYZ issues were you seem to be an expert of sorts. You lecturing about Conservatism is akin to the school captain of an Iranian madrases talking about human rights, equality and freedom of thought.
You’re implying that conservatives are willing to make improvements to the structure of society – ‘building upon’ what is already there. This is clearly not the case, as conservatives consistently opposite such changes.
Well said Ralf.
The left have no idea at all. Wasn’t it Marx who espoused force and violence to achieve a totalitarian society?
Through observation of history we can see the left wing regimes as being the most restrictive, violent and undemocratic. That’s a fact.
No, it wasn’t. Marx espoused a violent revolution, but his vision was not totalitarian. The leaders that brought it about corrupted it into a totalitarian regime.
What Rubbish James.
Marx did espouse totalitarian rule.
You are so naive. All ideologies get corrupted esp. Communism.
As long as the LNP embraces socialism, globalisation and multiculturalism we are doomed as a nation.
There is no doubt that Abbott would make a much better leader than ‘leaky boats’ Gillard but Abbott supports multiculturalism and high immigration numbers even though he has stated a reuduction in migrant numbers would be made if he made it to office before the last election.
This nation needs genuine reform in taxation, welfare and infrastructure.
Nice thoughts from Cory. I just wonder whether this is indeed about kicking off a real Conservative ‘(r)evolution of sorts’ – or more a sort of spruiking for the next book.
The LNP, in principle, is conservative and knows that fixing our problems involves LESS Government and more individual responsibility.
Our public on the other hand does not understand this.
Simply saying we need better politicians will not fix anything, we just need the LNP to focus on better PR and presentable leadership.
Sounds silly, but media & PR is their only shortfall in my opinion.
The problem is this obnoxious “L” – doesn’t mix with a C at all.
Let’s go Conservative Australia
The following paragraphs are from salim.mansur:
The obvious 800-pound gorilla in Canadian politics — as it is in most of the western democracies — is the ideology of Islamism dressed as religion and its adherents skilfully exploiting multiculturalism to advance their agenda, whether it be importing Shariah (Islamic laws) or undermining Canada’s support for Israel.
Multiculturalism as a doctrine stipulates all cultures are of equal merit and deserve equal treatment. What remain unspecified — perhaps deliberately — in this formula are the criteria by which the equality of cultures is assessed.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/salim_mansur/2010/04/30/13777901.html
viva la revolucion
Let the games begin. Another brilliant by piece by Cory.
We conservatives need a conservative party; we do not have such a thing in the current LNP. Perhaps Cory Bernandi (the only conservative in the Coalition since Nick Minchin left) could think about forming one – without that silly word ‘Liberal’ in it.
What about Family First or the Christian Democrats? They seem pretty conservative to me!
CDP and FF are Conservative in most areas but they are full of the bleeding hearts brigade. They are both wishy washy on immigration and believe Australia should accept more UNHCR refugees.
Don’t forget that Steve Fielding crossed the Senate floor in 2008 with Judith Troeth (Liberal) and Steve Xenophon to abolish detention debt. Since then our border protection is a joke.
In my opinion the only true Conservative and Patriotic political parties in Australia are the DLP and APP. There are many elected officials and political parties masquerading as Conservatives but their actions speak otherwise.
Of course, how terrible of them to forget those crucial, good old fashioned Christian values: xenophobia and cruelty. After all, Jesus told us, when we see somebody lying on the road in trouble, to turn away and keep on walking. I think that’s how it goes, right? Been a while since I’ve read the bible, I might be a bit rusty.
the Americans had one.
the french had one.
the Russians had one.
now it’s our turn.
maybe a good way to sort the wheat out from the chaff.
Steven, Cory Bernardi refers to a revolution “of sorts”. But not that sort.