What has happened to the moderates?

People like to know clearly where a politician stands ideologically, writes Chris Doig.
 

They go by many names: moderates, wets, the liberal left, swathes of the media erroneously call them liberals (as opposed to conservatives) and so on. Where are they now?

We have seen that moderates without a consistent message or underlying intellectual theme have not had a great deal of success in recent times. Malcolm Turnbull, who seemed to spend most of his time arguing over the official size of a small business and the inclusion of agricultural emissions in the ETS, was replaced by the loud, great-big-new-tax-opposing Tony Abbott. David Cameron, the man behind the Green Investment Bank and financial taxes, only scraped through the UK elections despite his monumental lead over Brown a year earlier. Moderate Republicans are facing increasing pressure from the Tea Party movement. And regardless of what you think of Ron Paul, there is no doubt that he has energised a great number of people.
 

Despite the common slurs of 'ideologue' and 'dogmatist', we like knowing where a politician stands. Rudd had the courage to outline his stance in 2008 with his (in)famous Monthly essay. And with the remarkable exception of his paid maternity leave scheme, it seems that Abbott is opposed to tax and big government.

But the most telling tale is of the slick operator that is Joe Hockey. Hockey is a man who saw the signs that the man who stands for something commands respect. In the past he has been labelled as a moderate, who shape-shifts with public opinion. Yet over the last six months or so, he has positioned himself as a champion of freedom. His recent speeches, supporting individual liberty, free speech and the free market, have shown a transformation from a day-to-day politician to a man with a long-term vision. While it is difficult to know how much of it he actually believes, and if he would seek to implement it consistently in policy, it shows that he no longer fears a shift to a more grounded image.

For too long, the Right have been afraid of championing the defenders of freedom throughout history. It is all too often that we hear 'I like freedom but that Thatcher lady was crazy!', not to mention that the name of Milton Friedman seems to be taboo in political debate. Yet in his In Defense of Liberty speech, Hockey referenced Mill and Locke. Sure, they don't bear the same anti-libertarian stigma as do Hayek and Friedman, but at least it demonstrates a philosophical grounding in liberty.
 
So amidst this apparent shift in opinion, where does that leave moderates? At the end of the day, they have no terra firma on which to stand. The truth is that I don't know what will happen next. But it is important to recognise that things are changing, and that it is now even more important that intellectual debate and discussion are heard by the political class.
 
Chris Doig is a student at Melbourne University with a keen interest in politics and economics.

Comments

[Angry Conservative]

1.

Please explain what is especially distinctive in Joe Hockey's "long term vision"? How does it differ to that of Tony Abbott? And, to the extent that it does differ, do you believe that a 'moderate' Liberal is a more appealing electoral figure than a 'conservative' Liberal?
I'm just wondering because I watched a decade of very high public support for a (socially) conservative Liberal PM called John Howard and also observed not so much public support for his moderate deputy (Peter Costello).
I think personality and character has as much to do with it as whether a politician is a so-called 'moderate' or 'conservative'.

[Champagne Conservative]

2.

Malcolm Turnbull was a so called "moderate" and we all remember how well our party was doing under him.

[Graham]

3.

I'm not sure moderate is the right description for people like Malcolm Turnbull and Hockey, if your assessment of him is correct. They're more liberal than the conservatives.

I think the confusion arises because of contradictions between conservative philosophy and neoliberal philosophy, which is perhaps indicative of the tension within the party itself. In terms of liberalism the conservatives are the moderates.

Conservatives have been reluctant to champion liberty and freedom because in some areas it clashes with their own philosophy.

I think all signs may point to a breaking away of the more extreme liberal element from the conservatives, which may be a good thing. I would probably vote for someone like Turnbull if he represented a party like the LDP or something similar.

[David]

4.

"Moderates" have the Labor and Greens. Or they could always work for the ABC.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

5.

So Big Joe can talk the talk. Let's see the walk.

Furthermore, Joe was uncomfortable through his budget reply speech because he's not comfortable with budgets that involve cutting spending. He likes being the big cuddly bear who hands out chocolates.

If Joe believes it's good to stand for something he should let his actions show it.

[Anonymous Coward]

6.

Great article Chris!

[Chris]

7.

The problems here are largely semantic, it seems. Angry Conservative, I would argue that principled (and consistent) is better than non-principled, electorally speaking. I personally would take libertarian over conservative or moderate, and I think many people respond to the principles of libertarianism, whether they describe themselves as 'left wing' or 'right wing'.

I refer to people like Turnbull as 'moderate' because of his proposal for cigarette tax increase, support of the ETS, support for fiscal stimulus and general lack of opposition to the Labor's big government policies.

While I think that many of Abbott's policies are 'moderate' (population growth, paid parental leave, immigration), there's no doubt that he has taken a harder line against big government than the 'moderates' or the 'wets'.

The semantic challenge gets harder when the word 'libertarian' gets thrown around. It was used to describe Turnbull but not Minchin, most people would see Minchin (who calls himself a conservative) as a far more libertarian individual than Turnbull, and also much less of a moderate. The semantic muddle is truly awful.

John Hyde's 'Dry: In Defense of Economic Freedom' gives a good distinction between wets and dries, that deliberately overlooks social conservatism/liberalism, leaving the dries as free marketers and the wets as, well, not free marketers.

[Ben]

8.

I’m the only middle-of-the-road moderate on this site. The rest of you are all extremists.

[Senexx]

9.

Here we go again.
In the Liberal Party of Australia, the moderates are the ones frequently shouted down by the Conservatives. They are the classical liberals and possibly the libertarians, the ones without anarchistic views anyhow. It is that simple. That is why the Liberal Party of Australia is a Conservative Party.

The role of a moderate in any party is to curb the excesses of others in the party. This does not seem to be the case in the LPA with only Conservative rhetoric seemingly reaching the public domain.

[Former Liberal voter]

10.

I think it would be very very intersting indeed to see how Malcolm Turnbull would be travelling now if he was the opposition leader. Kevin Rudd was almost unbeatable in his first 2 yrs and both Nelson and Turnbull were on a hiding to nothing because of Rudd's popularity but with the gaffs and errors Rudd's and his government's made in the last 6 to 8 mths, Abbott hasn't exactly stolen the thunder but is closing the gap. Abbott should be a million miles in front, but he's not. Would Turnbull have been able to totally out gun Rudd by now and have an unbeatable lead in the polls? We'll never know will we?

[Former Liberal Voter]

11.

I tend to agree. Joe Hockey is a good local member for his North Sydney electorate but that's about all. He's not leadership material and I'd be rather surprised if he was seriously considered for the leadership other then what was said in media circles. I also had my doubts about him whilst he was a minister and even more so now he's the opposition's treasurer.

[Former Liberal Voter]

12.

Senexx - you bring up a very valid point in describing the role of a moderate within the once great Liberal Party of Australia. Remember Menzies had it from the formation of the Liberal Party that is was to be a progressive political party, not a conservative party. This seems to have been forgotten lately, particularly I might add by the Young Liberals - a generation has been brought up on conservative ideals masquerading as Liberal Party philosophy. Unfortunately in Australia, we no longer have a political party that is truely progressive in nature.

[Graham]

13.

Arguably the Greens could be considered as such.

[Neal]

14.

This writer is nothing but a young leftie with little experience and knowledge. It's inclusion in Menzies is to the detrment of the publication..