Andrew Phillips considers the issues of Left-Right politics and places sensible nationalism in the centre of the political spectrum.
With the rapid growth experienced by the Australian Protectionist Party over the last 12 months combined with the increased media attention paid to its spokesmen, there has naturally been a vigorous discussion as to where our Party stands on the political spectrum.
While many of us recognise the whole “left-right spectrum” as being outdated and misleading, it is unfortunately one with which we must continue to deal. A more honest approach to one’s position on the political spectrum would be to address the single question: “How much interference and regulation of a citizen’s life by government is acceptable?”
This single issue is the most appropriate gauge by which one can measure a nation’s level of freedom and respect for the rights of the individual coupled with the needs of the wider community and concern for the national interest.
With this question in mind, the spectrum takes on a whole new perspective. On one side you have those who desire no regulation, no rules and no responsibility to their fellow man save those made between individuals – a situation declared to be true freedom by those describing themselves as Anarchists.
At the opposing end you have those supporting the totalitarian position – a position where individual will is entirely subjugated to the dictates of government and where life is thoroughly regulated by a myriad of laws administered by an overwhelming web of government departments manned by a legion of bureaucrats with no concern for the effects of government decisions on the masses.
Rejecting the left-right dichotomy
Australian Protectionists reject both these extremes. Nevertheless, in today’s political climate we must continue to grapple with the traditional view that one’s organisation and views must be positioned on the left to right spectrum.
Those of us in the Australian Protectionist Party believe such a view stifles both creativity and individualism and indeed, threatens the very democratic ideals on which our nation supposedly prides itself.
How, in a democratic society, can elected members of parliament effectively represent their constituents if they are bound by a rigid political philosophy, whether it be the pursuit of international “democratic” socialism and the global village or championing the cause of economic rationalism?
Never free to think for themselves with one eye on their parliamentary superannuation and the other on the next seat on the front bench, our politicians consign themselves to parroting the accepted doctrine, never considering the possibility that someone else might actually have a good idea that might benefit their own constituents.
In order to consolidate their own positions in the seemingly endless cycle of government/opposition, the major parties continue to feed the traditional class war animosities, venturing out from their bunkers only to woo the vote of minority interests in the hope it will be enough to tip the balance of support their way.
Problems with the “left”
Despite Labor’s rhetoric of being there for “working families”, little has been done to defend the interests of traditional Australia. Programs of social engineering which undermine the foundations of our society continue, manufacturing plants which provided employment to Australians so they could feed and house their families continue to close due to cheap imports, the health sector continues to struggle, and education standards continue to slide. Not much there for working class Australians hoping for a better future for their children.
When one considers the billions added to the national debt so Labor could waste money on the failed roofing insulation scheme, handouts so Australians could buy imported Asian electrical goods, the poor control of finances in the school buildings programs, the misleading advertising assuring us the government is training more nurses for our health sector while importing hundreds of Chinese 3rd year nurses, and the proposed mining sector super tax which appears to be little more than an Emissions Trading Scheme by stealth – it becomes clear that the Labor government is far from governing in the national interest.
Problems with the “right”
However, Australians are not only betrayed by the avowed champions of the working class. The barely socially conservative, economically rationalist obsessed Liberals do little to ensure our future either. They talk tough on issues such as Big Government, fiscal responsibility, border protection, and the defence of small business and farmers – but once in government most of these good intentions seem to fall by the wayside.
Liberal politicians slither around the issues of a reintroduced “work-choices”, climate change, State’s rights, and a myriad of other issues which affect the lives of Australians with a flexibility that would put an eel to shame.
Australian Protectionists shun the tired old notions of “class enmity” – and rightly so. As Australians we have a responsibility to have concern for our fellow citizens and their quality of life. In a society such as ours, what affects and threatens one, threatens all.
A new alternative – one single principle
For too long, the major parties have comfortably ridden on traditional loyalties. Labor continues to assume they will have the support of the working class and the union movement which supposedly represents their interests, while the Liberals assume it is their God-given right to demand support from small businesses, regional Australians and primary producers – all the while both parties have betrayed our entire society and the national interest, never to be held to account.
As a party of the political centre, Protectionists examine all policy positions based on one single principle – is it the best course of action for our nation? Unlike other organisations, the party refuses to be bound by political dogma which would force us to ignore the needs of various sections of our community.
We ask the representatives of the major parties, who gladly capitalise on the tired and age-old class enmities:
Why shouldn’t a factory worker be concerned about the needs of our farmers and the threats faced by cheap imports?
Why shouldn’t young families in the mortgage belt be concerned about the problems faced by struggling small businesses?
For what reason are they not permitted to support the ideals of the traditional family, the very cornerstone of a healthy and cohesive society, and are instead expected to support the social engineering policies espoused by their supposed representatives in the Labor Party who push for acceptance of alternative lifestyles and a demographic change of our entire national identity through unfettered immigration and refugee policies due to some perverse psychological obligation to a United Nations treaty?
Furthermore, for what reason is a traditional conservative looked upon as a political heretic for expressing concern for the job security of a blue collar worker on the production line?
Why can’t a conservative support the ideals of the old age pension, unemployment benefits for those genuinely unable to work, or subsidised health care?
Such is the mindset not understood and therefore rejected by those who can’t see past the divisive notions of class enmity pushed by unscrupulous and self-serving politicians who owe more loyalty to divisive ideologies and overseas interests than the concerns and future of their own people.
The foundation of the Australian Protectionist Party, an organisation supporting traditional socially conservative values yet also fundamentally concerned for the welfare of all sections of Australian society, gives voters from all walks of life the opportunity to be represented in the political arena. APP is a new group that is prepared to make the hard decisions to protect our borders and national future, whilst also protecting our democracy and the individual’s right to free speech and private property.
This is supported by examining the support base of our party – former members of Labor, Liberal, National, Christian Democrat and One Nation parties have joined our ranks, recognising for the first time the creation of an organisation that is there for Australians and Australians alone, regardless of their social or economic background.
Primary producers, businessmen, factory workers – members from diverse backgrounds – have come together, recognising the need to reject the divisive politics of the major parties in favour of accepting policy positions based on the single principle – is it in the interest of the Australian nation?
Australian Protectionists are not insular in their approach to policy issues. The rights and protection for which we call in the interests of our primary producers we would never deny to others in our region. We reject the proposed agreements such as “PACER Plus”* which plan to open up the economies of the Pacific region, economies hopelessly outmatched by more advanced economies.
These nations’ producers will fold under the pressure of imports, traditional societies will collapse, and a host of social problems and increased national debt will be the reward for their acceptance of globalisation.
There is no such thing as a level playing field.
Clearly, the time has come for Australians to place the future of their children first and reject the globalist dogma pushed by both Labor and the Liberal-National Coalition.
What is needed now, more than ever before, is a Party whose sole purpose is to represent the interests of Australians above anything else – a moderate Party of the centre.
That party is the Australian Protectionist Party.
* PACER [Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations] Plus is the proposed free trade agreement between the PICTA (Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement) nations and Australia and New Zealand.