The English speaking peoples tend to move in a sort of partial political sync with one another
By Jerry Bowyer
By Jerry Bowyer
With
the victory of the Tony Abbott led conservatives in Australia, we can see that
the Anglosphere is now post progressive. The English speaking nations of the
world: England, New Zealand, Canada and now Australia are governed by
conservatives. America stands apart from them as the sole remaining major
leftist-governed power in the Anglo world.
If you’d like to throw India into the mix
too, you find Manmohan Singh, who is pushing to deregulate foreign
investment markets and has just appointed a monetary hawk, Raghuram Rajan, as
the new head of the Reserve Bank of India. Canada entirely skipped the recent
wave of progressivism which swept the Anglosphere, and under PM Stephen Harper
has surpassed the United States in economic freedom. Our northern neighbor is
now listed by both the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom and the
Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World as the most economically free
nation in North America. Harper has been particularly diligent in cutting
corporate taxes while the U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rates in the
developed world.
England rejected the hard-core labourite
policies of Gordon Brown, putting the Tory David Cameron in
power. New Zealand has a center right government in power as well. The English
speaking peoples (to borrow Winston’s Churchill’s evocative phrase) tend to
move in a sort of partial political sync with one another. Thatcher paved the
way for Reagan, preceding him, anticipating him and inspiring him. Then we see
the near simultaneous rise of Blair and Clinton, then the later hawkish Blair
corresponds with Bush. Brown and Obama moved both their countries hard left in
step with one another. And as of last year, England moved right under Cameron.
In Australia, John Howard allied with and paralleled with his friend Bush,
Russ/Gilliard tracked with Obama.
And in what could herald yet another
political shift, this time back to the right, Australia just handed a decisive
victory to the Liberal National Party (the Australian conservative party), and
a decisive defeat to the incumbent Labour Party under Kevin Rudd. Why?
We shouldn’t over-emphasize the
ideological side of this election. The incumbent party was deeply divided over
a personality contest between Julia Gillard, and Rudd. Gillard was a member of Rudd’s
cabinet who ousted him in a coup. Rudd then staged a counter-coup in which he
came back and ousted her. On the other hand, the counter-coup helped Labor’s
prospects given that Gillard had become deeply unpopular, and perceived as
overly ambitious and disloyal to the likable Rudd. They party was perceived as
chaotic and incompetent.
But it wasn’t all personalities, the
philosophical differences were sharp. Green policies were front and center. Tax
policy was important too: Abbott promised to cut business taxes. Monetary
policy: Abbott argued against debasement of the Australian dollar in order to
promote growth, and against competitive devaluation in foreign exchange
markets. Social policy: Abbott, a practicing Roman Catholic (and former
seminarian), opposed calls for same sex marriage, while Rudd argued for it,
with awkward attempts to link the Bible’s opposition to homosexuality with its
alleged support for slavery.
In short, their issues and our issues are
quite similar and Australia may well be a portent of political change in the
U.S. If not, as the U.S. lags the rest of the English speaking world in
freedom, it will gradually lag the rest of that world in wealth and power.
No comments:
Post a Comment