I have been
a bit tough
on conservatism recently, I don't want that to be construed as conservatism being without value, which is untrue. Conservatism's 'steady as she goes' and empirical view of history are both good methods in determining the adoption of constitutional and statutory technologies. Neither of those are incompatible with republicanism, though republicanism does allow for the liberal rationalistic leap, the best example of this being the American Republic. As long as conservatism places its foundation as individual-centric it finds agreeance with Australian Republicanism. An example of this is the American Goldwater Conservatives.
Barnaby Joyce is an Australian Senator for Queensland and a member of the Nationals. The platform for the Nationals places them as conservative with occasional statist tendencies toward their natural special interest groups - rurals and agriculturalists.
Barnaby Joyce recently said in a speech
;
The purpose of politics is to deliver to you the highest level of freedom that does not impinge on the rights of others.I don't really mind, or care, how Barnaby Joyce defines himself politically, as the sentiment in that statement is entirely consistent with Australian Republicanism's view of liberty. Barry Goldwater wrote;
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order, the conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximising freedom.This style of conservatism is entirely compatible with Australian Republicanism too. For the simple reason that it places the individual as the dominant political entity over the state. The conservatives and nationalists that believe the state has that dominant position over the individual are not only limiting freedom by giving the state too great an authority, they are also entrenching tyranny and arbitrary governance as it enables the state to 'cut-out' minorities that interfere with the mono-culturalism or mono-nationalist inherent in such a structure. Republican government is predicated on the minority accepting the will of the majority through representative government, but doing so, secure in their rights from tyranny of the mob or majority. It is the only just relationship that is sustainable. Often what is called cultural conservatism and political nationalism is probably best described as authoritarian statism dressed in conservative and nationalist clothing. One of the problems of elevating the state over the individual is that political equality is the first thing out of the window as authoritarian statism takes over and starts creating 'camps'. The mono-culturalist assimilative policies Australia maintained from the 1880s in Western Australia through to the 1960s at the federal level where highly destructive to the families of aboriginal people. It was perpetuated against a politically weak, and disenfranchised minority, in order to glorify the state as mono-ethnic. This policy produced the 'camps' of kidnapped Aboriginal children. It was a misguided policy which should not happen again. Nationalism, if elevated to the highest political entity, can be just as destructive. The nation-state as a collective decision making entity has had a good run since the Treaty of Westphalia, providing sufficient security and order for a globalised economic system to appear and with minimal breakdowns into total war. Globalisation and the increasing mobility of capital and labor flows are putting pressure on it though. Again a highly nationalist approach has seen 'camps' appear outside of the judicature's jurisdiction. The pacific solution created camps on Nauru, Papua New Guinea and Christmas Island. As with mono-culturalism is a disenfranchised politically weak minority that is picked on - basically non-citizens. This does not mean that bringing the aboriginal people from what western society considered poverty to modern living standards was not a worthy goal, nor does it mean that Australia should let any refugee or immigrant into the country; it does mean that when these policies are taken from a stand point of the individual being a dominant political entity the policy would not produce camps, and would not be inherently discriminative and arbitrary. The fact is that when the state is elevated above the individual in the political hierarchy then tyranny and arbitrariness become entrenched, discriminative and destructive with political inequality becoming impossible. Harpurian Republicanism and Deniehy Democratism espouses that the biggest inhibitor to an individual acting morally and ethically is the imposition of tyranny from the state. Consequently maximum liberty, which Joyce and Goldwater are both quoted as seeing the goal of politics being, is the only assurance from tyranny and arbitrary governance such that an individual can express themselves fully; morally, ethically, socially, culturally and economically. cam
