‘Combat the nutters’: Crikey readers on remaking the Liberals and US hegemony
G Mac writes: Kudos to Crikey for giving Falinski the opportunity to write about the Liberal Party. What it has done is very clearly show how even so-called moderates in the LNP don’t seem to understand the Australian people. Keep in mind how long the LNP has been in government compared to Labor; since Menzies, the Coalition has held government twice as long as Labor.
Falinski’s article fails to convince me, a former Liberal voter (largely having lived in a super-safe ALP seat for 20 years in the vain hope of turning it into a marginal seat), of his views. To suggest the Texas approach to governing to that of California is just one of the reasons why Falinski’s argument lacks credibility in the Australian context. I agree we don’t want concealed weapons, but we don’t want open-carry weapons either; we want healthcare for all, we don’t want to criminalise doctors for giving abortions to those who need them; we want healthcare, such as vaccines, to prevent diseases, such as measles. The list could go on and on.
Ironically, this would be a return to liberal principles and values. It would mean reframing so many of the debates we are currently having, and instead advocating for policies, principles and values that expand opportunity for all Australians.
Yes, how ironical [sic]! The Liberal Party seems to be wanting to “reframe so many of the debates” to sound like they are “advocating for policies, principles and values that expand opportunity for all Austalians” while using culture wars in an effort to win elections to benefit the few.
Wayne Perkins writes: Isn’t this just another take on “trickle down economics” and the dangerous fetish and fallacy of “growth” as the solution to everything?
Donna Churchland writes: Unless and until the Liberal Party drags itself into the twenty-first century and stops letting the “gnat” tail wag the Liberal dog, the Libs will be confined to the dustbin of history. They must be constructive rather than confrontational. They must develop policies that improve the lives of Australians. Suggesting that they should use Texas as a blueprint is gobsmackingly stupid. Let’s build a wall, arrest migrants, treat women as lesser beings and forget about the existential threat of climate change. Yep, that will work a treat.
Mork writes: [Falinksi] makes some interesting points. But in terms of the Liberal Party adopting that agenda, well, it’s all a bit of fan-fic unless the Liberal moderates find a way to combat the nutters who want to turn everything into a culture war.
There’s not much point in having a brilliant plan to storm King’s Landing when the Army of the Dead is about to turn you all into zombies.
Nick Thurn writes: The order was always selective and always favoured the developed world. What we are seeing now is America, led by a rapacious CEO, determined to screw over everyone in pursuit of total dominance and ultimate profit and damn the consequences.
That’s just the mask slipping — the behaviour of Trump isn’t new, it’s just out in the open with all the quiet bits screamed out loud. But ignoring consequences is new. Shitting in the nest at home is new. We are seeing the difference between nice, quiet organised crime and chaotic banditry.
The global south has never been under the illusion that the rules would be applied fairly when it came to them. Africa and South America are actively suppressed economically, even by the relatively benign EU.
Jennifer Green writes: Remember when Rumsfeld called the Geneva Convention “quaint” and then proceeded to sanction torture? Yeah. They’ve been at it for a while.
John Queripel writes: And so the Australian government, supine to the US as usual, after deferring, now announces support for the US bombings in Iran, actions clearly contrary to international law.
International law clearly states in Article 2(4) of the 1945 UN Charter: “Prohibition of Force: Members must refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the UN’s purposes”.
Evidence for Iran developing nuclear weaponry is very weak. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been making the charge that such development is imminent since 1992. Iran has declared no intention of it developing such, and indeed has placed a fatwa on their possession. The recent IAEA inspection was a long way short of saying that they were doing so. The only nuclear weaponry held in the Middle East is that held illegally, therefore not subject to IAEA inspections, by Israel.
Australia — from Vietnam to Iraq and now to Iran — in supporting the actions of the US, has consistently abrogated its responsibility to stand consistently for international law. The alternative is the “law of the jungle”, or as Thucydides put it, “the strong do what they wish, the weak suffer what they must”. Hardly hopeful for the global community.
The next time our government, in criticising the actions of China, invokes the “rules-based international order”, the sound you will hear will be me guffawing.
Lou Jordan writes: Definitely more scared of the US. Russia is a long way away, and currently busy. China is closer and has more capacity for harm than we do, but has not done much beyond tariffs, as far as I can tell. The US, however, does whatever it likes and expects support. In addition, we have a lot of intertwined connections with the US that make it hard for us to see where the line is between our interests and theirs. And so much content comes out of the US. We are all drowning in their point of view and can’t get far enough away from it to see it.
