Joe Fretzel <jfretzel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:e0547e6995362e83360c11e86e8d940b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> bren...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Brendan Jones) writes:
>>David Moss (d-m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) wrote:
>>> [List of beliefs]
>>> In a constitutional monarchy
>>You said earlier that the Liberal Party would accept a passionate
>>republican as a member. So does that mean:
>> a) Members are not required to believe in all the principles
>> outlined
>>or
>> b) The Liberal Party should not in fact accept republicans as
>> members
>>Just curious.
>
>
> The answer is, of course, a.
> Just as the Liberals views in homo***uality have ****fted with time
> (People in single-*** relation****ps were publicly encouraged to join
> the party in 1995), Party views on the Republican debate are
> influenced by the grassroots member****p.
>
> Brendan will be thrilled to know that I successfully spoke _against_
> an anti-republican motion at the NSW State Convention late last year.
>
>
> The most recent issue of the member****p form from which I took the
> "We Believe" tract does not include the reference to the
> constitutional monarchy. I will get around to re-keying it soon.
>
>
> David Moss,
> personal opinion only.
>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.politics/browse_thread/thread/135
> e56da551cf4ec/1d7451a91fffe7dd?hl=en
While I am flattered that you read my every word, I am at a loss as to
why you are posting old aqrticles of mine back into aus.politics.
When I joined the Liberal Party of Australia it was a liberal party. I
tried hard to make it more so.
"Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of
government that consider individual liberty to be the most im****tant
political goal. Liberalism has its roots in the Middle Ages and Age of
Enlightenment."(Wikipedia)
Wikipedia concentrates too much on one aspect of liberalism, favouring an
economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets. Modern
liberalism has a more human character however. A few more definitions of
liberalism that bring it closer to my own interpretation, and that of the
Liberal Party of the 90s are as follows:
* broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political
stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper";
"tolerant ...
* having political or social views favoring reform and progress
tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or
tradition
* a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and
the protection of civil liberties
The Liberal Party of the 90s was successful precisely because it was a
liberal Party. It took steps to include people that rusted on
conservatives rejected and listened to what they had to say.
Including people and listening to them does not mean you have to adopt
their ideas and morals as your own however. Consequently the Libs were
able to encourage homo***uals to join, but still retain their pro-family
values and policies.
One of the weaknesses of the Liberal Party is its division into the
organisational and parliamentary wings. Some people see this as a
strength because once MPs had been elected, they no longer have to do
what the ordinary Party members decide should be done. This leads to the
situation where good, solid, conservative older generation men and women
may be elected through the efforts of younger and much more liberal
Parety members. The MPs are then free to raise their middle finger to the
Party itself and set their own agenda through the MP only Party Room.
I couldn't understand why the organisational members let them get away
with this until I read a book called "The Authoritarians" by Bob
Altemeyer. Then I knew why my efforts to move the Liberal Party closer to
the ideals of its organisational members failed.
http://sunnybar.dynip.com/pub/authoritarians.pdf
So, in 2008 I can add to the views expressed in the quote above.
Not only are Liberal Party members are not required to believe in all the
principles outlined in the "We Believe" do***ent, but elected Liberal MPs
are not required to uphold them in the parliament.
The first part is part of liberal philosophy, but had I managed to do
something about the second, Australia, and perhaps even the Middle East
and the USA, may have been far better off today.
--
David Moss
Personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
|
