True believers of nothing

During the 90s, one of my favourite television shows was Seinfeld, the so called “show about nothing”. A central tenet of all of my blogs posts has been that the Australian Labor Party, and the Right faction in particular, is fast becoming a party which is “about nothing”. Gone are the days where the blue collar worker can sit his son down and say “Liberals are for the bosses, Labor is for the workers”. While I have been harping on about this loss of ideology for some time, this week I received an ally in the great 90s ALP Prime Minister Paul “Placido” Keating. Placido, in response to the Rudd betrayal of Morris Iemma, said the following;
I think the problem with Centre Unity in NSW (the Right) is that it lacks now an ideology. When I say an ideology, it lacks an ideology other than the sheer pursuit of power, Mr Keating says. It's clear enough about that, but power for what? And to do what? This is where the national party always depended on Centre Unity, its processes, its real-world touch. When the motivation of the machinery of the party is unfurnished as to policy purpose, it has nothing more to offer than to focus on marketing and polls. After a while the public becomes aware of this and they realise that marketing and spin have no basis. That is more the rule these days than the exception. This is not a winning formula.
So when I say that the ALP is now about nothing, I am being slightly inaccurate. The one thing they are about is power for power’s sake. The corporate boxes, the ministerial drivers, the prestige of sitting on the Government side of the Parliamentary floor. Gone of the days of Whitlam, Dunstan and Keating, where a Government was willing to risk its office by taking unpopular or risky decisions based upon ideology. I remember Senator Don Farrell belittling the Whitlam Government for its short term of office. He went on to say that following that Government, he decided to never allow ALP Governments to get booted out prematurely again. The ascendency of the right faction, led in SA by Don Farrell, has resulted in the abandonment of Whitlamesque reforming zeal, replaced by a reliance on governing through opinion poll. As Keating says, however, a reliance on marketing and polls will only work.
It is true that the Whitlam Government lasted for only 3 years. During that time, however, a substantial amount of ideological reforms were pushed through. While these reforms were unpopular, a high percentage of them are still in place today. The political cycle inevitably flitters between conservative and progressive Governments. The important thing for both sides of politics is to reform as much as possible according to their ideology during the years when they are in ascendency. Clinging to power by doing as little as possible will not work forever. The public tires of the faces as easily as they tire of policies. Spinning promises only work if you follow through on them. Not even the world’s greatest PR team can convince a member of the public that their personal experience of the world around them has changed for the better when it has worsened. When the “it’s time” factor arrives, and a new Government is elected, they will dismantle a proportion of the previous Government’s program and begin implementing their own. It is the duty of every progressive Government to reform in such a way that makes it difficult for future conservative Governments to roll back their achievements. By adopting a “no ideological” approach to governing, the ALP is ensuring the predominance of conservative ideology.
A useful example of the ALP’s abandonment of ideology is the Adelaide Oval debacle plaguing Kevin “Hugh Hefner” Foley. For a period of time before the last election, the ALP was espousing an ideological belief that a hospital was better than a stadium. The unpopularity of this position, partially due to the Marj naming balls up, had the Government reeling in the opinion polls. Instead of holding steadfastly to their original position, they abandoned ideology and cobbled together an ill-thought out proposal aimed at pleasing everyone. This policy was a clear example of an attempt to retain power. As time goes on, it is clear that the scheme proposed is not the best use of taxpayer’s money, nor is it the best way to build a stadium. While the short term spin of the announcement was enough to ensure the Rann Government’s re-election, the public is beginning to realise that “the spin and marketing has no basis”. While Foley and Rann will be the losers in the short term, the long term losers are the public and the supporters (former and present) of a once proud political party.