On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:49:30 +0000, David Moss wrote:
> 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.
And that is precisely why I hold you personally responsible for the
current state of the Middle East and the USA, David.
|
