In 1963, Arthur Calwell released a 190-page document titled Labor's Role in Modern Society, which discussed his political party and the landscape of Australian politics.
In that document, he outlined what we observe occurring in society today.
This is not meant to present Calwell as a visionary. This former immigration minister and head of the Labor Party, recognized as the creator of Australia's immigration policies after the war, held racist beliefs. He had prejudiced opinions concerning Asians and other racial minorities, sought to prolong the White Australia policy for as long as possible, and even post-politics, he continued to express outrage against non-European immigration and individuals.
One thing Calwell did grasp quite thoroughly was structural power and the associated political dynamics. He characterized the Labor Party as embodying a “duality”:
It functions as a political entity in the conventional sense; however irrespective of being in power or not it also serves as a mass movement. It consistently acts as a propagandist entity aiming to reshape society based on its agenda. This aspect provides the Labor Party with a continuity that no other political group possesses, a sustained sense of purpose whether in power or otherwise. For conservative parties, attaining power is an objective in itself, as they have never regarded it as their role to initiate substantial changes in society. ”
Regarding Robert Menzies, whom Calwell had closely watched from the start of his political career, he remarked, "Menzies was sufficiently pragmatic to adopt socialism when the situation called for it."
Within the ranks of the Menzies administration a continual struggle exists between the true blue Liberals and what could be described as the paternalists with Sir Robert Menzies being the most notable among them there is a divide between those who fundamentally trust in the power of unrestricted competition and those aware that their political future hinges on preserving and even expanding the welfare state. "
"Following the electoral setback in 1961, some urged the government to go back to 'Liberal principles,' presumably referring to the tenets outlined in Menzies' manifestos from 1946 and 1949. Sir Robert Menzies, however, dismissed this counsel, recognizing that agreeing with it would lead to his political demise and spell disaster for his creation. Nonetheless, the traditional conservatives are powerful enough to hinder his complete acquiescence to reason, resulting in Australia’s advancement being sacrificed at the feet of the long-extinct – indeed, the preserved – deity of laissez-faire capitalism. "
Currently, in the year 2025, we have observed the inescapable conclusions of the compromises made by the two primary political parties.
Labor, in its pursuit to become what Anthony Albanese refers to as the "natural party of government," has relinquished its dual identity. This party has become distinct from the movement that originally supported its foundation.
What other explanation could there be for Labor's political leadership's refusal to embrace the platform put forth by its own members, as well as its alignment with traditional Liberal Party views regarding welfare, climate issues, the economy, and relations with the United States?
In their quest for power, those still affected by the Rudd-Gillard years have concluded that the strategy to avoid a repeat of those experiences is to avoid any challenging reforms that might encounter resistance from established influential groups. Recently, the only indication of courage from this contemporary Labor party emerged during the last parliamentary session when they undertook industrial relations reform, where suddenly "bipartisan support" from their so-called ideological adversaries was deemed unnecessary, confronting business and neoliberal opposition directly.
However, having enjoyed extended power, this version of the Labor Party now seems focused on retaining control for its own sake, no longer driven by the desire to transform society fundamentally but rather by the pursuit of power as an ultimate goal.
And from the Liberals, who were previously astute enough to realize when socialist policies were essential for political endurance and when to overlook the conservatives, we now witness the outcome of recent indulgence towards the whims of conservative factions. The tail not only leads the dog but has entirely consumed it, creating a self-sabotaging cycle.
To grasp the conclusion, it is usually beneficial to revisit the start.
We have arrived at the finale of the political year with Labor advancing environmental legislation that aids the mining sector, dismissing changes to gambling advertisements but prohibiting minors from using social media, firing scientists, forming alliances with authoritarian leaders, negatively impacting the unemployed, restricting public health expenditure while funneling money into questionable defense deals, criticizing and denouncing demonstrators against genocide, while showing empathy towards white supremacist gatherings. And what about the Liberals?
The most Sussan Ley’s group could manage is a boast about the number of interviews Ley has conducted to assert that her role is secure, as if the undead are known for their chatter.
The only query left is, where does this development conclude?
0 Comments