Activism for Conservatives? CANdo

There is now a conservative alternative to GetUp!, writes Senator Cory Bernardi.

For several years now I have heard right leaning political types ask "Where is our version of GetUp?"

Many of you will know that GetUp! is a lefty activist organisation that runs campaigns under the guise of independence. While they claim to be independent, they receive massive funding from the union movement and somehow always favour the Labor Party and the Greens when it comes to elections.

Indeed, their very notion of independence has now been raised with the electoral commission by Senate Opposition Leader Eric Abetz. He has asked the AEC to have GetUp! declared an 'associated entity' of the Greens and/or Labor which, if upheld, would remove the independence label.

However, whatever criticisms may be levelled at them, one has to admit they have been effective in gaining hundreds of thousands of supporters and raising millions of dollars for their campaigns.

Despite the years of voicing their concerns it appears that the Conservatives are still at the starting blocks. We continue to rely on the strength and correctness of our arguments to persuade the general public that our position is the right one. Having met with considerable success in countering the left agenda with this approach, one could be forgiven for expecting continued success.

Unfortunately the battle ground has changed. The left activists are extremely well coordinated in putting their case and dominating the media, punching way above their level of public support.

The fact that the country is taking a rapid lurch to the left as a result of the Labor/Green alliance suggests that the Conservatives need a fresh approach.

That's why I created CANdo - Australia's first Conservative Action Network.

CANdo takes the campaign theme pioneered by the left and combines it with the free ranging grassroots activism of the American Tea Party Movement.

It is built around a social networking platform that will be familiar to many readers. CANdo even links in with other social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

Within CANdo, each member receives their own personal page as part of the CANdo network. Members can also create groups built around an issue they feel strongly about or a campaign they would like other members to support.

Thus like minded people can get together, swap ideas and information and take coordinated action.

While CANdo was only launched on Wednesday 13 October, it has already attracted hundreds of members and has established a strong platform for future growth.

CANdo is entirely driven by grassroots volunteers who are committed to making a difference to the future direction of Australia. Clearly its ultimate success will remain to be seen but no longer can Conservatives ask “where is our online grassroots answer to the left?”

If you haven't already done so please check out CANdo. It's your voice - the voice of mainstream Australia.

Senator Cory Bernardi is the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition and a Senator for South Australia. This article is courtesy of his personal blog which can be found at http://www.corybernardi.com.

Comments

[Ben]

1.

Great website btw, it is focused on practical issues, and gives grassroots conservatism a greater voice.

[Andy's RANT!]

2.

Good Work, Senator. What a fantastic initiative and can I also say, About God Damn Time! :)
So when will you seek a house of reps seat so you can become the future alternative PM? No long I hope.
Well done on keeping the dream alive.

[Clinton Mead]

3.

Looks great Senator.

It doesn't have the GetUp "support what we tell you to support" attitude.

If it stays that way, I see this being much more effective than GetUp will ever be.

It's also good to see an MP such as yourself not being afraid of interacting with the public. I know it should be self evident, but to many MPs seemed to be so worried about "oh no, what happens if a dirty member of the public posts something on my website that my party doesn't 100% approve of".

It's great you don't share this sterile approach to politics.

[TerjeP]

4.

I think it's a good idea. It's a pity it is ham strung by the "conservative" banner but that probably suits the agenda of those that founded it. Not everybody that opposes the left and the likes of GetUp is a conservative.

[Dan Nolan]

5.

To be honest though, I think it is slightly overly-focused in terms of conservative views. The word conservative has been as denigrated as the concept of being 'discriminating' in regards to being informed of choice.

Further, from at least a psychological and marketing perspective "CANdo" implies that the good work of conservatives is in the future which is clearly both antithetical to the movement and a denial of reality.

Whether it was the record of Menzies, Howard, Reagan and others, this is not something that could be achieved, but something that is displayed time and time again in the historical record. A movement that is steeped entirely in values and concerns that motivate rigorous action. The brand exists, use it for your benefit.

[Jason]

6.

I thought the Liberal party was a conservative network. Is there just no action? If you want a real alternative, where freedom is not used as a buzzword to sell conservative socialism, join the 'Eureka Freedom March'. We aren't politicians - just average citizens trying to raise a voice for freedom. No nationalistic hatred - just freedom. Proudly Australian and defending what is great about our country, but could be lost if the socialist control freaks on the right or left have their way. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=133826266660502&v=info

[oldskool74]

7.

I checked out this site- SORRY bernardi- it is not "GRASSROOTS CONSERVATIVE"
the very few groups had anti ISLAMIC content and RIGHT TO BARE ARMS

it looked much like a meeting of red neck minds rather than conservatism

[oldskool74]

8.

ps. I agree that get up is misleading- so how do you justify that this group is not conservative but in part right wing extremism- clean it up or I suggest a very poor future and reputation for this site

[Michael Sutcliffe]

9.

Well, if we're attracting people like you we're obviously doing something wrong. You can always just stay away, y'know; I don't think you'd be missed.

[oldskool74]

10.

well michael sutcliff-

what a highly articulate, intellectual and mature response, how can I compete with such well considered comments from you?

Conservatism is not right winged extremism- this site is therefore not "GRASSROOTS CONSERVATIVE" as it claims to be, by all means- claim it is right wing and there is no problem

GET UP also fools people into becoming members.

i think you might need to invest in a dictionary to find the definition of "CONSERVATIVE" (not my label for cando)

You read the above article and tell me that anti religion fits into the described site. i didn't write the article either.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

11.

It's obvious you can't compete with 'well considered comments', otherwise you would have made some in your original post.

What's your gripe about 'anti religion'?

[oldskool74]

12.

by golly michael- you've got me all worked out- how can i compete

I've said what I've said - read my posts that you have already replied to- i'm sure you can work out my "gripe"

i obviously hit a sensitive note on this one-

I ASSUME I MIGHT JUST BE SPOT ON WITH MY CONCERNS

if you wanted to hide this- you'd be better ignoring my posts rather than increasing the spotlight with your childish replies

[Michael Sutcliffe]

13.

Hide what exactly? Just come out and make your point (if you have one).

[oldskool74]

14.

I believe my position is crystal clear.

you can even read it

I think it is you who is avoiding

But since you may need a refresher,
Oxford ductionary defintion of "CONSERVATIVE" states "MODERATE, AVOIDING EXTREMES"

are anti Islamic chat groups and Gun ownership now considered conservative?

it all looked very red neck to me

[Clinton Mead]

15.

oldskool: An extreme position would be the following:

(1) Not allowing people to keep guns for self defence.
(2) Allowing people to keep rocket launchers/grenades for self defence.

What the site does is suggest a moderate position.

(3) That citizens can keep reasonable arms for self defence.

That is a moderate position. It was the position in much of Australia for more that 200 years, until the extreme reactionism of Howard to the Port Arthur massacre. This wasn't a moderate change, it was a change towards the extremes.

Just because something is the case in Australia now doesn't mean it's moderate.

And just because something is popular doesn't mean it is moderate.

Our obsession with relying on the state solely for our protection is extreme, only recent, and relatively unprecedented.

[oldskool74]

16.

I can accept your comments on gun control could be argued as such. however when you combine it with another anti islamic group it begins to look very extreme right.

don't take my word for it- look it the conversations and make your own call as to its "CONSERVATIVE" leaning or not.

To me it looks very red neck

just as centre left can be hijcked by the far left- so to can the centre right be hijacked by extremism-

[Michael Sutcliffe]

17.

I can accept your comments on gun control could be argued as such.

That didn't take long. Let's move along to Islam then.

- Do you believe having one law for all is a conservative principle? Do you think the introduction of sharia law could violate this?

- Do you believe the separation of church and state is a conservative principle? Do you think calls for an Islamic caliphate have a place in Australia?

- Do you believe Islam teaches a constructive value system?

[oldskool74]

18.

michael

firstly you did not make the point of gun control and my acceptance of is is qualified- you may need to read more clearly- seems to be a problem for you

as per your questions

Q1- one law for all is in most cases conservative, however not always- conservative is also compassionate

Q2-sharia law would violate the one law for all principle that i mostly agree with

Q3- separation of church and state is a misunderstood concept- its origins come from the point of view of freedom of religion- this is to say the state has no right to dictate religious worship by individuals- rather than the modern misunderstanding that religious institutions should not comment on governmental decisions, this misunderstanding is a contemporary spin usually propagated by the left - in the correct understanding- separation of church and state is a conservative principle

Q4- if that is a goal of the Muslims- so be it- they can try to convert all -but individuals have the freedom to not convert to Islam.

Q5- Mostly- i personally think it does not appeal to me but it whether i think it is constructive is irrelevant- Muslims have a right to choose - Islam obviously has extremists which is regrettable but far from mainstream

I hope that clears it up for you-

my views on Islam are irrelevant to my argument that "CONSERVATIVE" is not ANTI ISLAM or other red neck hobby horses neither is it xenophibia

[oldskool74]

19.

I criticise this site because I want it to work but am disappointed by the extreme right mentality it appears to be creating a forum for- by all means clean it up before it's too late rather than attcking me for my plain as daylight observations,

i am reminded of the story of "the emperors new clothes" with the backslapping of bernardi in earlier posts and his attack dogs belittling my comments for pointing out the plain simple fact of the matter.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

20.

firstly you did not make the point of gun control and my acceptance of is is qualified- you may need to read more clearly- seems to be a problem for you

1. Never said I did. 2. Never questioned what you qualified. Just pointing out that after one post by Clinton you said 'I can accept your comments on gun control could be argued as such.'

Q1- one law for all is in most cases conservative, however not always- conservative is also compassionate

So you're saying that it is a conservative principle to have different laws for different people in some cases? Can you give an example?

rather than the modern misunderstanding that religious institutions should not comment on governmental decisions, this misunderstanding is a contemporary spin usually propagated by the left

So, from a conservative perspective, separation of church and state is not stating that theocracies are not compatible with liberal democracy?

if that is a goal of the Muslims- so be it- they can try to convert all -but individuals have the freedom to not convert to Islam.

But according to Islam the individuals that do not convert live as 'dhimini', or a guest of muslims. Is this attitude in line with conservative principles?

my views on Islam are irrelevant to my argument that "CONSERVATIVE" is not ANTI ISLAM or other red neck hobby horses neither is it xenophibia

I think you'll find that everyone here supports freedom of religion (as a conservative principle, even!) but they criticise certain destructive aspects of Islam. No one here is racist, but you may find people believe in protecting their culture. But you're a conservative, isn't that a conservative principle? (I've looked the definition up in the dictionary, just like you've recommended, but I was wondering if you could help me out?)

[oldskool74]

21.

Q1- tribal law for remote indigenous Australians is one such example
Q2- religions adherents have every right to influence/lobby/encourage government- as previously stated this is compatible with separation of church and state. a healthy democracy should encourage religious interference rather than hiding behind the separation of church and state misrepresentation and dismissing religious opinion (as bob brown did)
Q3 that is their business
Q4 already given a definition

i think you miss the point i am making- bernardi may get a gig with one nation with putting his name to this site -

CLEAN UP CANDO OR STATE IT IS FOR THE RIGHT WING RATHER THAN CONSERVATIVE

[Michael Sutcliffe]

22.

Q1- tribal law for remote indigenous Australians is one such example

So it is OK to have separate laws for a sub-section of society? For example, if such tribal law didn't believe domestic violence was a crime then there would be no need for prosecution of this act in those societies?

religions adherents have every right to influence/lobby/encourage government- as previously stated this is compatible with separation of church and state.

Everyone has as right to 'influence/lobby/encourage government', religious or not. That wasn't the question.

The question was: from a conservative perspective, separation of church and state is not stating that theocracies are incompatible with liberal democracy?

Q3 that is their business

So you don't think any limitations should be put on immigration with people who do not believe in democracy or equality under law?

Q4 already given a definition

Of what? That wasn't the question. And you're accusing me of not reading what's on the page?!! The question was: is protecting a society's culture a conservative principle? Shouldn't be a hard one for a conservative, should it now?

CLEAN UP CANDO OR STATE IT IS FOR THE RIGHT WING RATHER THAN CONSERVATIVE

Or what? What are you going to do? Write another poorly written paragraph with maximum application OF CAPS LOCK!? Take it to the media and expose Menzies House as a redneck haven? Defeat us with your blinding wisdom, eloquent writing and lightning quips? Get the conservative mafia onto us to give us concrete boots? What?

[oldskool74]

23.

I don't see your point- you appear to be changing the issue-

to make a clarification, I never have said anything of Menzies house- all my concerns have been directed at the misrepresentation of CanDo calling itself "GRASSROOTS CONSERVATIVE" when infact it has a distinct stench of right winged extremism

As for consequences for Cando- if I think this way, i can imagine many others have felt the same way i have. I think even you can see that my comments as to the right wing extremism of this site (CANDO) is misleading

[Clinton Mead]

24.

oldskool74:

Whilst I personally find all of this talk about burka banning a bit silly, I am continually surprised at how many people I talk to that either support, or not opposed to the idea. And more often than not these people are on the left, and oppose it on liberal, often feminist grounds.

Indeed, if you look at the states that have been "anti-islam" recently (the quotes are intentional), it's countries like France, and you can't get more left wing than the French.

It's not a redneck issue, even the U.S. isn't considering something as "extreme" (IMHO) as banning the burka. This is an issue pushed by socialist states primarily, not conservative ones.

[oldskool74]

25.

Clinton- to your credit you make alot of sense. I understand what you are saying, however i still maintain that gun, anti islam do not look awfully "conservative" I would be appalled with a group set up to oppsose my religion, no matter how offensive they may find it

[conserned citizan]

26.

gutup are clearly badlly wrong lets suicide bom thereoff ice