BEING A LIBERTARIAN IN TODAY'S USA

By MAXWELL EDISON George Mason, for those who may not know, is probably the oft' forgotten "founding father"; his efforts were not only instrumental, but absolutely vital in writing and including what is probably considered the most important part of the U.S. Constitution, the first ten amendments, formally known as the Bill of Rights. George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights was the model for the U.S. Bill of Rights. He not only wrote the aforementioned document, but insisted its contents be included in the new United States Constitution. Without George Mason, who knows how the United States would have progressed? George Mason modeled his Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) on the English Bill of Rights (1689), which was modeled, in part, on the Magna Carta, and perhaps other historical documents as well. The difference, however, at least as I understand it, is that the English Bill of Rights suggested that such individual liberty is endowed to the people by the crown, while the United States Bill of Rights and Constitution suggested that such individual liberty is endowed to the people by the Creator, and that no "man-formed" government or monarchy could ever deny those rights. A person or government, in essence, can't take away that which it does not have the power or the authority to give. The definition that I believe is the closest to defining the true libertarian principle is this: "The libertarian, or 'classical liberal', perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by 'as much liberty as possible' and 'as little government as necessary'." Obviously, the sentiment most debated and/or viewed differently is, as much as possible, and as little as necessary. I wonder if George Mason, himself, or Thomas Jefferson, or James Madison ever uttered such a sentiment? If they didn't say those exact words, their actions (and other words) certainly enforced and emulated them. (See quotes below.) For the first 150 years of its existence, the United States of America dedicated itself to the principles of individual liberty. Even in considering the nation's historical shortcomings, such as slavery and the suppression of women's rights, the underlying principle of individual liberty was the driving force that instituted change. Unfortunately, today, while there are no slaves to individual "masters", we are all slaves, of sorts, to all the other masters. When the fruits of one's labor is taken, by force, only to be given to another who did not labor, that's tantamount to institutionalized slavery. In the very least, it's contrary to the basic principle of individual liberty. Being a true libertarian in today's United States (and today's world, or so it seems) is like being the odd-man out. I've debated the issue on numerous occasions, and have heard things like, no man is an island, or other such sentiments. Or I've heard things like, what will happen if all taxes are abolished? But these retorts only show how being a libertarian is misunderstood. Of course, it goes without saying, greater things can be accomplished together rather than alone; but that's doesn't mean teamwork is synonymous with a collective. In fact, any "collective" society throughout history has either faltered or failed. And any "individualist" society throughout history has excelled -- until, that is, it became a collective. And, of course, no rational libertarian is advancing the abolition of all taxes, but only those that support social programs, not the ones that support the true functions of government and the defense of our nation. And then there's the "caring" argument. People advocate government give-away programs under the guise of "caring". These people don't really "care", however, but instead they only want to maintain the appearance of "caring", or they've been duped into such a false sense of "caring." Any and all collective systems in the United States have either failed or are well on their way to failing. Do you believe, for example, for even a minute, that the current Social Security system is either fair or equitable (not to mention "right")? Have you considered that poverty, in both real numbers and percentages, was in a continual decline, every decade of the country's existence, until the "war on poverty" was created? Have you considered that government dependency only creates more government dependency, not less? A democracy (or republic) is doomed to fail, or so it is said, when the people figure out they can vote themselves favors from the public treasury. And one only has to look at all the "favors" Americans have voted themselves over the past six decades to see how individual liberty in America is doomed. I say it's high time we not only reject the growth of any and all "collective" systems in the United States, but turn them around and strive for their eventual elimination. I sure do feel like the odd-man out, however, and resistance is indeed futile. I will be assimilated, whether I want to be or not. (So much for the concept of individual liberty.) George Mason, we've failed to uphold the principles upon which our great nation was founded. We've failed to honor the sacrifices made by you, your family, and your countrymen. We've failed to continue the true spirit of the great experiment called the United States of America. And to paraphrase Yogi Berra, George Mason would be turning in his grave if he was alive today to see how we've ruined what he (and others) started. If I could ask you one question, Mr. Mason, it would be this. Is it too late to turn back now; and if not, how can we do it? More questions: Why are so many people so afraid to take full advantage of individual liberty? Why are so many people determined to deny others their individual liberty? By what right or authority does one person take the fruits of another's labor? (Any time you vote in favor of ANY social program, that is, in essence, exactly what you are doing.) Who might be the current day "George Mason"? Is it too late to turn back? If not, how could it be done? And consider this. If a person stands up for such a principle, and absolutely refuses to "be assimilated" into the "collective", he will not only be considered an odd-ball, and he will not only have lost his individual liberty, but he will also lose his freedom, as he will be arrested and locked up. (So none dare do it, for fear of the government.) How is it possible we've fallen so far? Quotes: When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny. – [Thomas Jefferson] "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." – [Thomas Jefferson] "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." – [Thomas Jefferson] "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. – [Thomas Jefferson]

MULTILATERALISM

Whatever the United States does has global consequences. That cannot be said for most other countries. Given that basic imbalance, there are naturally diverging views about the merits of multilateralism. Our Read My Lips feature examines why many in the global community favor a multilateral world order. What explains the global rift over multilateralism? "Unilateralism, like beauty, often lies in the eye of the beholder. One man's unilateralism is another's determined leadership." (EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, June 2001) Why is multilateralism so important in today’s volatile global situation? "Terrorism and organized crime can only be resolved through international cooperation based upon the principles of multilateralism - and of international law." (Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, January 2003) Is U.S. unilateralism the worst that could happen? "The thing I fear is not American unilateralism, it is actually American isolationism - were it ever to go down that path." (British Prime Minister Tony Blair, November 2003) Is multilateralism merely a way to keep the power-hungry United States under control? "Many in Europe feel that the biggest threat to the global order is not rogue states, but the dominance of America - hence the need to shackle it with treaties and multilateral organizations." (John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, correspondents for The Economist, April 2003) And what does France have to say? "We cannot accept either a politically unipolar world, nor a culturally uniform world, nor the unilateralism of a single hyperpower." (Former French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine, June 2001) How do the world’s religions relate to multilateralism? "People across the world - Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims - are standing up against the imposition of a unilateral world order. It cuts across the simplistic division of the world into Islam vs. Christianity." (M.J. Akbar, editor of Asian Age, March 2003) Does U.S. unilateralism set a bad precedent for the future? "If the United States believes it does not need to respect multilateralism and international rules, how do you get China to respect them?" (Senior European diplomat, July 2002) What flaws does multilateralism possess? "We can no longer take it for granted that our multilateral institutions are strong enough to cope with all these challenges." (UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, September 2003) Yet, why is the international community dependent on cooperation? "In the end, the same rules must apply for the big, middle-sized and small countries." (German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, March 2003) What can save multilateralism? "Most of the world is searching for ways to reinforce a badly bruised multilateralism. The trade agenda provides an opportunity for a show of leadership by Europe - and by the emerging players China, India and Brazil." (Philip Bowring, International Herald Tribune columnist, November 2003) Yet, how may even trade jeopardize multilateralism? "The politicians' lemming-like rush into bilateral agreements poses a deadly threat to the multilateral trading system." (Jagdish Bhagwati, university professor at Columbia University, July 2003) What else could happen on the trade front? "The multilateral trading system could become the battle ground for unsettled geopolitical disputes - with disastrous consequences." (Ernesto Zedillo, former Mexican President, May 2003) What ultimately is the real problem of multilateralism today? "In this game where everyone needs the United States, and the United States needs allies, the problem is this: Can we have a minimum of strength to give value to our own positions and to attract the United States toward a position that is more multilateral and less unilateral?" (Alfredo Valladao, Brazilian academic at Sciences Po university in Paris, February 2004) How did various U.S. allies try to show the Bush Administration the benefits of multilateralism? "Mr. Chirac and Mr. Blair are looking at the world through different ends of the telescope. Mr. Blair wants to demonstrate to the United States the advantages of multilateralism. Mr. Chirac wants to show that it will pay a heavy price for unilateralism." (Philip Stephens, Financial Times columnist, May 2003)

THE HISTORY OF MAY DAY (LABOR DAY)

By NEALE TOWART [Previously published in Workers Online] 1st May 1890 is claimed as the birth of an international labour movement 1890. It was the first internationally planned day of action by industrial workers seeking an eight-hour work day, equal rights and social justice. The history of May Day is one of great celebration and events of significance for those committed to a vision of a fairer, just and more sustainable world. Labour Day in the Australian colonies was well and truly established by the time May Day became an international day of celebration for the working classes. In Sydney 3rd October 1855 was regarded as Labour Day as some stonemasons at the Garrison Church in the Rocks had walked off for an eight-hour day. Other sites in Sydney did the same. In Melbourne 1856 was seen as the start of the eight-hour working day, beginning with the stonemasons again. New Zealand pushed it back to the 1840s. The skilled trades led the way as the shortages of labour worked in their favour. As a more general right of workers, the eight-hour working day really began to expand in the 1870s and 1880s. This was the international movement for the eight-hour day that culminated in the Haymarket tragedy of 1886 and the establishment of the May Day remembrance and celebration in the USA and Europe from that time. Some US unions already celebrated a Labor Day. In 1884, for example, the Central Labor Union of New York City announced that it "will observe the first Monday of September in each year as Labor Day". Also in that year the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada (the predecessor of the American Federation of Labor) adopted a resolution urging that "the first Monday in September of each year be set aside as laborers' national holiday, and that we recommend its observance, irrespective of sex, calling or nationality." 1885 saw the first national Labor Day in the USA, and by 1899 there were celebrations in over 400 cities. Amos Cummings, anew York congressman and a member of Typographical Union no. 6, introduced a bill to congress to establish the first Monday in September as Labor Day, and President Grover Cleveland signed it into law on 28th June, 1894. By this time, however, 1st May had become THE working class holiday. WHY MAY DAY ? May has long been a spring fertility festival in the Northern Hemisphere, and the pagan rejection of Christianity's' takeover and the peoples rejection of power has been celebrated as May Day for centuries. For more information on these aspects of May Day see HISTORICAL FEATURE and in particular Peter Linebaugh's brilliant piece at MIDNIGHT NOTES Its emergence as a modern working class celebration began in Chicago and the history of these tumultuous days is well explained at CHICAGO HISTORY [Philip S. Foner takes us through the Haymarket events and how May Day has come to be celebrated around the world] Certainly US unions were not united in their campaigns for the eight-hour day but the bombings and judicial murders around the Haymarket events were a great catalyst suppression of union rights, but also for solidarity and campaigning. The American Federation of Labour (AFL) initiated some militant and aggressive campaigning for the eight-hour day from 1889. In Europe, labour organisations hailed the efforts of US workers and began their own campaigns. Internationalism was in the air. 1890 - the start of worldwide agitation and celebration The Second International was founded at the time as a direct result of the increased activity of working class movements, following the founding of the first International Workingmen's Association in London in 1864 and its demise in Philadelphia in 1876. The Second International congress proclaimed the first international May Day as 1st May 1890. Not all were happy and the AFL did not even send a delegate, an indication of the split in ideology between the radicals and those like Gompers from the AFL, who were keen to focus on the achievement of the eight-hour day. Certainly labour movement across the world did take action on 1st May 1890. Many European groups participated, but also workers in Cuba, Australia, Peru and Chile. In Vienna a march of over 100,000 workers took place. In Similarly in Hungary, 80,000 took to the streets carrying flags calling for eight hours work, eight hours rest, eight hours sleep. Strikes broke out and many achieved reductions in the working day from 12-13 hours down to 8-10, without loss of wages. The Hyde Park demonstrations in London were on 4th May, following a march on the 1st May. Karl Marx's daughter was active in the Legal Eight Hours and International Labour League that mobilised eight-hour agitation in the UK. She was a symbol for many British workers in the May Day campaigns. John Burns, a trade union leader was a key speaker at the Hyde Park meeting. He expressed his concern and anger at the thousands who were out of work while thousands of other were prematurely ageing because of the excessive hours that they were forced to work. Burns also read from a telegram he had received from the Melbourne Trade Council. The message said that "the eight-hour system prevailed to a great extent in Australia, and wish[ed] European workers success in their eight-hour campaign." Probably half of Melbourne's workers were on the eight-hour day by then. The eight-hour day was celebrated at another time, as noted, but a public meeting was held at Melbourne Trades Hall in 1890 (anarchists such as Chummy Fleming had been honouring May Day and the memory of the Haymarket martyrs since 1887, with the Social Democratic club being the focal organising group, according to Foner (see also Len ox: Early Australian May Days, Labour History, 1962). In Havana the Circulo de Trabajodores (Workers' Club) issued a May Day Manifesto, calling on all Cuban workers to support the May 1 international demonstration for an eight-hour day. Worker defied police and conducted peaceful demonstrations calling for the eight-hour work day, equal rights for blacks and whites and urged unity and solidarity. Although the day passed peacefully, authorities struck back and arrested the leaders of Circulo de Trabajodores for having issued the May Day Manifesto and for having violated the Penal Code of 1879. They were acquitted and a great demonstration greeted their release. The Viennese Socialist newspaper Arbeiter-Zeitung summed up the May Day events of 1890: “The workers allowed nothing to hinder them from celebrating the 1st of May - not the outburts of fury from the entire bourgeois press of all countries, nor the decrees of governments, nor the threats of dismissal, nor huge military levels. They celebrated everywhere; such an international celebration as the world has not yet experienced; the whole civilized world was on one great May-field where millions and millions of proletarians assembled in order to draw up together the demands they find essential for the further development of society.” [See Philip S. Foner. May Day: a short history of the International Workers' Holiday 1886-1986 (New York; International Publishers, 1986)]

WHAT THE TERM "LIBERAL" MEANS

By JOHN A. WILLS "liberal" comes from the latin word for "free". A liberal education fits one for something other than a slave's work; a liberal man is free with his goods, i.e. generous, etc. In the late 18th Century Adam Smith added the economic touches to a theory of policy which had been originated earlier in the Century by John Locke. These two were not the only people involved by a long shot. Liberals in this meaning were in favour of free trade and individual liberty, opposed to mercantilism, protectionism, socialism, nationalism. The mercantilists etc. reacted: "The American intellectual class from the mid-19th century onward has disliked liberalism (the original version: individualism, private property and limited government) precisely because liberal society has no overarching goal. Individuals are free to use their freedom and property to pursue their own ends, which usually center on family, work, friends and community. Collectivists and nationalists disdain these concerns as 'trivial pursuits.' The modern U.S. meaning of "liberalism" has three combined origins. 1. In the 19th Century the U.S. liberals gradually won: slavery was abolished, the suffrage was extended to the non-rich, industry and commerce were largely unregulated, and the Sherman anti-trust law, when it came, was for the preservation of commercial freedom, not for its restriction. 2. There arose a division among the liberals: what should be done for those down on their luck? Was there such a thing as an excess of commercial freedom? For those down on their luck there arose the idea of "welfare", i.e. public support of the poor. Those who espoused this idea were called "welfare liberals". 3. Their opponents did not have a distinguishing epithet until the second half of the 20th Century, when the word "libertarian" came in for non-welfare liberals; this lack of an opposing liberal consciousness, with the less welfare-inclined tending to coalesce with other, conservative movements, meant that "welfare liberal" could be truncated to "liberal" as opposed to "conservative". Those who approve of public support of the poor are being generous, albeit not with their own money. But generous people are liberal, so all those who approved of welfare, including some better called socialists, could be classed as liberal. Communists and their enemies sometimes call communists "socialist"; this is really an abuse of language, though it can be defended. But if we call communists "socialist", what are we going to call socialists? In Europe the answer was often to call the socialists "social democrat". In some political systems liberals had become a kind of middle between socialism and aristocratic conservatism, and in the U.S. socialists came to be called "liberal" – but "liberal" does not mean exactly socialist, just something like it. Having called socialists "liberal", the problem arises of what to call liberals, and the approximate U.S. answer has been "moderate." 4. Believing in individual freedom, liberals in the original sense tended to countenance forms of behaviour which other-inclined politicians might condemn. They thus licensed divorce, and made it ever easier; eventually they stopped adultery being a ground for divorce, because that condemns the adulterer. They did similar things quite broadly over a wide range of human activities, especially those condemned by traditional morality. 5. Although this was a somewhat snobbish trend - J. B. S. Haldane wanted contraception to be made widely available because only mean and nasty people would use it and in the next generation there would thus be fewer mean and nasty people - it was taken up by left-wingers, who thus had a new reason to be called "liberal". For the evolution of U.S. ideas there is a pair of Avon books published in 1968 I can recommend: Milton Viorst: Liberalism: A Guide to its Past, Present and Future in American Politics; and Dean Smith: Conservatism: ditto. Each is about 200 pp. I hate people recommending books to me, but obviously I am not trying to convert you this time. I myself do not use these classifications in deciding how to vote.

REFERENDUMS -- THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE

By JULIAN HANCOCK Whilst we are at the mercy of the decisions made in Parliament regarding the introduction of new legislation (or amendments to existing legislation), only the people of Australia can change the actual constitution which defines the powers available to governments. This can be done through a referendum, and here is a brief account of the rules regarding, and history of, Australian referendums (or referenda). To quote from the original Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1900: “This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner . If in a majority of States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor General for the Queen’s assent.” Thus were the rules (abbreviated) in the original Constitution, and thus they stand today, unaltered. There is quite a complex process which has to take place at the Parliamentary level before a referendum can be put to the people. Space does not allow me to describe this process, but anyone interested in this, or any other matter relating to the Australian electoral process, will find a wealth of information at the Australian Electoral Commission’s website: AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION Governments can also hold Advisory Referendums to test whether people either support or oppose a proposed action on any issue. The Government is not bound by the result of an Advisory Referendum as it is by the result of a Constitutional Referendum. Australian Governments, Federal, State and Territory, have held advisory referendums on various issues. Between 1906 and 1999, a total of 44 proposed changes to the Constitution have been put to the people of Australia in the form of Referendums. In some instances, several individual matters have been presented at a single Referendum, but as quite separate issues. Of these 44 referendum questions, only eight have been passed by the required majority of voters. Speaking generally, those proposals which were not accepted related to putting more power in the hands of the Federal Government. Referendums that were passed “unanimously,” (that is, by a majority of voters in ALL States) have included: “To give the Commonwealth power to legislate on a wide range of social services” (1946); “To enable the Commonwealth to enact laws for Aborigines. To recognise the Aboriginal people as Australian citizens” (1967); “To ensure, as far as practicable, that a casual vacancy in the Senate is filled by a person of the same political party as the Senator chosen by the people, and that the person shall hold the seat for the balance of the term” (1977). The most recent referendum, held in 1999, “To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic ..” was rejected by a majority of electors in all States. However I consider it quite likely that John Howard deliberately worded the referendum in a way that would ensure that it was rejected. Should Labor win the upcoming election, contender for the Prime Ministership, Mark Latham, has proposed a three stage process that would allow for discussion and input from the electorate, before wording and presenting such a referendum question.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN US and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

By KAY ROUSE, Former Republican Candidate, Wisconsin, USA You made the statement that American politics is different than that in Australia, yet many of your comments so far have only shown similarities. I have begun to think there is nothing new under the sun. We too in the USA have a suffering economy because so many people have two parent working families, and live in big houses and drive newer model cars while working half of the year just to pay the taxes to support those who are either on welfare, disability, or other entitlement programs paid for by either state or federal government. With the advancement of technology, we have also seen a shift from blue collar workers and craftsmen, to the service industry and technology support. Many factories have been closing down completely, and others are downsizing, causing a lot of unemployment, and the highest bankruptcy rates ever. As I see it, one of the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Democrats think that the way to solve the problem is to have still higher taxes in order to better take care of all of those who are not or can not taking care of themselves, and the Republicans think that we should lower taxes and allow those working and paying the taxes to be able to decide what to do with their own money. History has borne out the fact that the more taxes go up and the better the entitlement services become, the fewer people will work, but will seek out ways in which to also get government handouts, and whenever we are given a tax cut, people will spend more money, thus putting money back into the economy. When people buy, other people have to make and sell the products that are being purchased. There will be more jobs for more people, and those people will then also have money to spend. Democrats frown at this simple economic fact, and call it "trickle down economics". Whatever they call it, it gets more people working and, yes, it will also put more money into the hands of those who own the companies, which is a big NO NO to the Democrats. They really hate it when somebody who is already rich gets richer, even if that same person puts hundreds of more people back to work in jobs with living wages and good insurance.

WHITHER GOEST THE THIRD WAY?

By ANDREW LEIGH In 1998, a new term hit the political scene. According to two of the most powerful leaders in the developed world, US President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the "Third Way" was the ideology of the future. Their declarations, and a series of subsequent Third Way summits, evoked strong responses from political parties in all parts of the ideological spectrum. For a while, momentum began to build behind the phrase. But five years on, the Third Way movement seems largely to have lapsed, at least as measured by media and academic interest in the past three years. It is possible to distil five ideas that encapsulate the core of Third Way thinking: transcending the distinction between left and right; advancing equality of opportunity; employing mutual responsibility; strengthening communities; and embracing globalisation. Both favour a renewal of liberalism, and are unabashedly modernist. Which way did the Third Way go? If one accepts that the theory of the Third Way was relevant to modern social democratic parties, then there are two possible reasons why it might have slipped from prominence in recent years. One is that it explained too much - and has now been accepted by the majority of social democratic parties in the developed world. The alternative is that it explained too little, and has declined because policymakers have realised that it does not provide guidance on the most difficult choices to be made in government. First, the more optimistic approach. One theory that might be put forward for the drop-off is that the theory has now dominated the field. In 1992, Francis Fukuyama contended that the success of liberal democracy had ensured that all serious political discussion would take place within its cultural horizons. Does the Third Way now define the horizons of serious political discussion within social democratic parties? Perhaps the strongest evidence for such a proposition is the shift towards more market-oriented policies that took place in most OECD nations between 1980 and 2000. To this should be added the fact that few social democratic governments have retreated from globalisation to autarky in the face of strong protests from their citizenry. Large-scale demonstrations against international institutions such as the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank have resulted in greater transparency, but no major policy shifts. Yet it is difficult to distinguish correlation from causation. Well before the advent of the Third Way, its core principles - transcending left and right, redefining equality, rediscovering liberalism, responsibility, community, globalisation and modernism - had gained widespread acceptance among centre-left policymakers in the developed world. In Britain, the most significant evolution of policy took place in the early-1990s, before Labour won office. In the US, President Clinton's mantra of "opportunity, responsibility, community" emerged from the 1995, 1996 and 1997 State of the Union addresses. In Australia, the fiercest debates over the Labor Party's shift towards more market-driven policies took place in the late-1980s (and arguably helped influence policies elsewhere - particularly in the UK). The mere fact that the Third Way arose in the late-1990s makes it difficult to see how it could have affected the move to the right by many social democratic parties over the previous two decades. Indeed, it seems more likely that the electoral success of conservative political parties in Britain, the US and Germany during the 1980s was a much more significant factor in a transition that had begun even before the collapse of Eastern European state socialism in 1989-90. But likewise, critics of the left are wrong to say that the Third Way has declined because of its rejection of their values. Most mainstream policymakers in social democratic parties today sit comfortably within the scope of the Third Way. Yet so would many conservative policymakers, and therein lies the rub. For many policymakers, the very generality of the Third Way has meant that it does little to help them choose between competing proposals. As Ralf Dahrendorf, Director of the London School of Economics, has argued, the Third Way is a politics that speaks of the need for hard choices but then avoids them by trying to please everybody. Dahrendorf's critique is particularly apposite when applied to contemporary policy challenges. Take for example some of the toughest questions currently confronting the US Democrats: What level of immigration is appropriate for the US to accept? How can the quality of education for poor inner city children be improved? Are more curbs on civil liberties appropriate in order to increase chances of preventing future terrorist attacks? It is difficult to see how the broad nostrums of the Third Way provide guidance one way or another. Likewise in Britain. How might the pensions system be reformed? Is reform of the health system likely to require inducing greater competition with the private health system? Should Britain adopt the Euro? While it offers a view on some of these issues, there is nothing in the broad Third Way principles that answers the questions. Finally, the same is true in Australia. Contentious debates within the Labor Party over recent years have included questions of whether trade sanctions are an effective tool to improve labour standards, how paid maternity leave might be implemented, to what extent welfare resources should be geographically targeted, and whether refugees should be detained. The Third Way offers little by way of guidance to those looking for the best solution. Indeed, while Mark Latham (the strongest advocate for an Australian Third Way) has put forward a variety of policy initiatives in recent years - including banning trade in goods produced with child labour, providing tax incentives for first share purchases, and using the community sector to deliver employment services; one could well imagine Third Way counter-arguments to each of his proposals. One reason that the Third Way provides so little guidance on such issues is that its very status as a political ideology is tenuous. In his introduction to Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell defines a political ideology as: ... a relatively coherent set of empirical and normative beliefs and thought, focusing on the problems of human nature, the process of history, and socio-political arrangements. … Political ideologies are essentially the product of collective thought. They are 'ideal types', not to be confused with specific movements, parties or regimes which may bear their name. Among bona fide political ideologies, Eatwell lists socialism, nationalism, liberalism and conservatism. Against these, he distinguishes propaganda (deliberate attempts to gain political influence), socialisation (the process by which values are transmitted), and culture (the value structure of a society). While Eatwell does not deal with the Third Way in particular, there are three bases on which his definition could be used to suggest that it does not constitute a political ideology. First, it lacks coherence, due in part to the fact that it is often defined in opposition to other ideologies. Secondly, it is often defined around identification with particular political parties (eg. the British Labour Party), ginger groups (eg. the Democratic Leadership Council) or individuals (eg. Mark Latham). Thirdly, the Third Way verges on a form of culture, since it tends to centre around values such as responsibility, community, and modernism. Third Way Out Ultimately, while electoral exigencies have affected the fortunes of the Third Way, they are insufficient to explain its decline over recent years. And while Third Way adherents might like to claim that they have set the boundaries for serious political debate among social democrats, it seems at least as likely that the Third Way largely attached a label to changes that had taken place in the 1980s and 1990s. The main reason the Third Way has diminished in relevance is its failure to provide sufficient guidance to policymakers on everyday policy challenges. The Third Way lacks the coherence of established ideologies such as liberalism and socialism. Indeed, it is even arguable that it does not amount to a political ideology at all. Over the past two decades, social democratic parties across the developed world have moved towards more market-oriented policies. The Third Way may be a useful way to describe this transition within social democracy; but it is much less useful as an ongoing strategy for parties of the mainstream left. As in the past, social democratic parties must develop new ideas or risk atrophying. But it is unlikely that the ideas which make up the Third Way will contribute much of substance to this process. [This is an edited version of an article first published in AQ, A Journal of Contemporary Analysis. Andrew Leigh is a Fellow of the Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy, and a PhD student at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.]

IS AMERICA AN EMPIRE?

FOOD FOR THOUGHT [Global Policy Forum] The United States is the most powerful nation in the world and it often acts unilaterally, but is it an Empire? Though some insist that “empire” means only direct rule over large-scale conquered territory, the United States today looks decidedly imperial. The term empire has entered common usage, not only among critics but also among advocates of muscular US policy and global superiority. Economist Niall Ferguson has written about the British Empire as a lesson-book for contemporary US power. Influential Washington neo-conservatives are using the E-word freely, insisting that the United States is the world’s most benevolent nation and that it should use its imperial power robustly to expand “freedom” across the globe. This section considers not only the utility of the Empire concept but also the way in which the United States (empire or not) deploys its economic, political and military power globally, limiting the force of international law, shrinking the capacity of international organizations, and reducing the possibility of multilateral action and democratic self-governance in an increasingly interdependent world. We ask also: what limits will this empire encounter, can it sustain "full spectrum dominance" for the forseeable future or will it provoke such broad opposition that its era of hegemony and prosperity comes swiftly and decisively to a close?

SHADOW MINISTER STEPHEN SMITH DISCUSSES LABOR'S INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS POLICY

PETER LEWIS, Editor of Workers Online, interviews Federal ALP Industrial Relations spokesman STEPHEN SMITH. [ Workers Online, December 6, 2004] LEWIS: Research that was done after the federal election suggests only about 49 per cent of union members voted for Labor. What does Labor, you think, need to do to win over the other 51 per cent? SMITH: It remains the case that one of the criteria that maximises a vote for Labor is union membership so if you went through characteristics or categories the presence of union membership is always a helpful contribution in trying to get a Labor vote. But, I have said on a number of occasions, in my view, the reason we lost the last election was a good old fashioned hip pocket nerve federal election being skimmed on that quite fundamental basic economic issue about family living standards and making ends meet and as a consequence the more you're under financial pressure the more your attracted to vote elsewhere. So whether it's a union member or a worker who's not a member of a union, I think one of the essential things we have to do is to enhance our economic management credentials and get people's confidence and trust that we can run the economy so that their own lives will be more easily able to be addressed in terms of their living standards, them sitting around the kitchen table being able to make ends meet. LEWIS: Do you see linkages between personal working life and broad economic management and if so how do you tap those veins? SMITH: Well, often when people speak in macro terms you'd think that there was never any connection. But the whole point of economic growth, the whole point about creating wealth and the whole point about having productive workplaces, is that in the end what that means is that someone's either got a job or they don't. In my view it remains the case that the most important thing you can give to a person these days is still giving that person the chance of a decent job. That gives that person's family the chance of decent livelihood. So whilst you can often or always speak about macro economics, in the end the most important thing is yes we got to make sure that there's economic growth. But you've also got to make sure that that economic growth benefits all Australians, not just a small proportion but the many. It remains the case, in my view, that the best thing you can do for an individual is give them a decent education so they've got the chance of a decent job. It's also the case in economic terms that one of the best things we can do is to invest in the education and skills of people in our workforce because that will give us a more productive economy and that will help maximise our international competitiveness and economic growth. But in the end if you don't make sure that that economic growth trickles to all parts of Australian society, then in the end you haven't actually made the difference and that's what I think is the hallmark of a Labor Government, you've got to make sure the economy grows, make sure there's wealth created, but then you've got to make sure that everyone gets a decent chance of sharing it. LEWIS: The last time there was a Labor Government, there was a very close association with the union movement through the Accord. What is wrong with that model of working very closely to promote to ensure economic growth and economic reform promotes the interests of working people? SMITH: Well, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making sure that the Labor Party in government works closely with the union movement. I've made it clear that there's a fundamental distinction, in my view, between the fact of the relationship that the party has with the trade union movement and our economic management credentials. I mean our opponents would have us believe that the mere fact of a relationship between the Labor party and the trade union movement, the mere fact of us having different industrial relations policies than our opponents, that's the be all and end all of economic management credibility. Well, industrial relations policies and having policies that lead to fair workplaces but flexible workplaces is just one part of economic,management. I'm not one that believes that the relationship between the party and the trade union movement needs to either be revised, reviewed or reversed. There's a qualitative difference between the party after an election saying, well there's an area of public policy we want to review, in this case industrial relations policy, and walking away from the fundamental facts of that relationship. LEWIS: Before we talk about that review, a lot of people in the union movement aren't that familiar with you, just give us a bit of background, your experience as a union member, and whether you've ever been involved in any industrial action that you can remember? SMITH: I'll give you the sketch. Born in Narrogin, which is a country town in Western Australia. My dad was with, what was in the PMG, he ended up in telecom, before it became Telstra. We moved from country Western Australia into the service in Narrogin in Southern Cross and we moved to Perth where I started grade seven and basically lived in Perth ever since. Went to school, my Mum and Dad still live in the same place, live in my electorate. I went to university, did law, practiced as a lawyer for a bit and as a lawyer I was a member of the nation's second most powerful trade union, called the Law Society, second only to the nation's most powerful trade union, called the AMA, and then went overseas and did a Masters at London University. I came back to Perth, I worked for the Attorney General of Western Australia and then I became the state secretary of the WA branch. And as the state secretary of the WA branch I needed to be a member of a relevant union, having been a member of the Law Society through all of that period I just spoke about. So I checked, as the state secretary of the WA branch, I was also the party agent for electoral act purposes. So the Australian Workers Union in Perth had coverage of what was known as agents, so I joined the AWU. I've been a member ever since . Other than leading protests by Law students when I was president of the Law Students union in University of Western Australia when we were all about to get shafted for lack of article clerks places to get into the legal profession. What industrial officers and union organisers would regard as hands on industrial activity -- haven't been much there. LEWIS: That's a good background. Let's talk about this review of IR. What do you see the parameters of the review? SMITH: I think there are a couple of general points to make about the review. Firstly, the mere fact of the review does not mean that we're going to walk away from the relationship with the movement, doesn't mean we're going to walk away from long standing principles or commitments, the mere fact of the review doesn't mean that the parliamentary party or, as I said earlier, industrial relations policies being the be all and end all of our relationship with the business community or economic management credentials. On the contrary, its generally been the case historically, that Australians have regarded Labor as being better at industrial relations policy and better at industrial relations than our opponents, largely because we've always tried to operate on a cooperative framework of consensus and cooperation rather than the Alsatians and balaclavas, which our opponents are always so attracted to. So there are a couple of framework things. The next general point I make is, I see this parliament in three separate stages. First, the three weeks in the parliament that we're going through, and the need to deal with time sensitive pieces of legislation, Electrolux validation legislation is the only one that falls into that category. Secondly, the first half of next year, where my expectation is the government will only deal with time sensitive IR matters or with fair/unfair dismissal legislation, which they see as a way of trying embarrasses us politically, but which I don't. Then the real part of this parliament shall be when the parliament and the world changes after July 1. So I see the first sort of phase of the policy review as essentially from the moment of appointment until when the parliament gets up towards the end of this year. This is the time for dealing with things that come along but also making initial contact with people; so I've sort of out and about, making contact with peak organisations, union or business or industry, with constituent groups, individual unions, state or national, individual companies, .just making contact and do the sort of things which I've always believed is important to do when you get a new area, which is to start the process of making contact, reading, look, listening and learning, getting on top of the detail. The second phase in the parliament next year provides a real opportunity to do that and that's where I'll be working extensively, getting out and about, getting people's views and getting all the details in my head, not just in the IR area, but my other portfolio areas. Whilst there's no sort of formal process, where people put in submissions, part of the IR review will go through the economic sub committee of cabinet which we established a couple of weeks ago. This committee has all of the shadow cabinet members with economic interests. I think the real pointy end of the policy review will come after the 1st July when we see what the government intends to do in terms of having unbridled power, having an unencumbered Senate, and Kevin Andrews has already made it crystal clear that they propose to go far beyond anything that they committed themselves to do at the election or anything they proposed to do as part of the unsuccessful 1996 reforms. It'll be our response to what they do after 1st July which I think will be the most important part of the policy and the policy review and our policy in political response. LEWIS: Let's suppose that they go the big bang. It's a new territory for an opposition in recent times without having any leverage in the senate how does one oppose? SMITH: Well, I mean, it's very hard to talk on the abstract, you've got to actually see what they do. And then you've got to make a judgment and the union movement will have to make the same judgment, the movement will have to make a judgment about what things the parliamentary party regards as being absolutely essential to oppose because its bad public policy or going down a wrong road. Those things where our attitude might be, well you know, on balance we would not go down this road, but its not something that in a sense you'd die in a ditch for, those things which you might even support. I mean there may well be some things that may well be sensible changes, I'm not holding my breath for that, but I think the key judgment will be if you just plug a hypothetical situation out of the air and the government decides to do a hundred things, a judgment has to be made whether you oppose a hundred things or whether you oppose the five or ten things which are the most insidious and the most obnoxious on the basis that focusing on those gives you the best chance of getting community support. And having no protection of the Senate, the only public policy protection that you have is either by get community support and staring the government down, which I frankly regard as unlikely, or more importantly, winning the next election and winning the next election, making it clear in the run up to that election what parts of the changes you propose to reverse or amend. LEWIS: I guess the other side of it is a positive agenda, what work can you do to start developing an agenda for work in the future? SMITH: I think that's, in very many respects, that's always the big challenge, it is possible that the government goes off in a particular direction on July 1, that our political and policy responses say well he's gone down that direction but we are not going to focus on going down that direction or where the thing should be brought back to. We may take the position that we think, in a changing Australia, a changing economy, a changing world, there's an entirely new and novel and different direction that you can go into, so that's where you work out your positive policy and positive political agenda. I have made the point that Mark's been saying that we've got to try and make ourselves, in a policy and political sense, relevant to people who don't necessarily come into contact with unions, or the industrial relations systems, franchisee, contractors, home business owners genuinely small business operators running from home, that's sort of stuff. I've made the point; we haven't even had a conversation with those people, let alone trying to craft out the policies that might be of interest or relevance to them. LEWIS: But to what extent do you think their issues with big business would be different to those of employees of large companies? SMITH: I think it will be the case that for very many of those people, their issues will be complexity of regulations, duplication of regulations, taxation arrangements, competitive arrangements in terms of their relationship with big business or suppliers. So there's a whole array of issues there, which bear no relationship what we would regard as industrial relations or the workplace relations act, which a lot of these people don't have any day to day contact with industrial relations or unions, or the industrial relations systems. So there's a whole potential pot pourri of public policy, which can be attractive to those people and can end up getting their policy in political support. LEWIS: Finally, I guess the areas where there's real concern at where Labor's heading around AWA in particular, what's your thinking at the moment around? SMITH: Well, we started the flexibility in bargaining with instruction of enterprise bargaining and in the last election we were very strong on not wanting to go down the AWA road. And Mark's given a couple of speeches recently where he's made it pretty clear that our starting point is enterprise bargaining and collective bargaining, we see an ongoing role for and ongoing respect for collective bargaining. But the AWA issue is an issue that parts of business are very hot to trot on, so that forms part of the policy review. But Mark's made it pretty clear, as have I, that our starting point is enterprise or collective bargaining, so I'm not seeing that as an iconic issue and frankly I'm surprised that in a number of areas that the AWA has become such an iconic or threshold issue: there are plenty of more relevant issues around the place as well. LEWIS: Finally, one last question. Let's pull out the crystal ball, how important is the next five years in what we do with industrial relations to the way we work in 20 years time? SMITH: Well I've been traveling around the Commonwealth as a member of Parliament and as a shadow minister in various portfolios over the years, and every workplace I go to whether its an office, or a mine site or a factory or a production site, my experience is always when you speak to people on the ground to employees and to management, that the places where you get most productive activity are those places where essentially you've got a friendly and happy and cooperative workplace and that's often about the relationship between the employers and the employees. If the employees and employers, if the management and the workers don't have confidence and faith and trust in each other, it doesn't matter what the fine print of the industrial relations legislation is, in the end you won't have a productive workplace. So the most important thing is to make sure that you've got co-operative and productive workplaces, whatever the detail is. That's why, as I said earlier, Australians have taken view that we're better at IR than our opponents, because the notion of a cooperative workplace and cooperative arrangements have always been our style rather than our opponents. In terms of productive economic activity the nation now takes the benefit of 14 years of economic growth, we take the benefit of the reforms that the Keating Government's made and that essentially opened up our economy and made us internationally competitive. The Howard Government has been very complacent about our international competitiveness and we're seeing that now they've essentially relied upon the economic growth that's come from our changes and the state of the Australian dollar, because they've done nothing to take us to the next level or see the next wave of productivity improvements, they're now starting to worry and complain about the state of the Australian dollar. We need to take ourselves to the next wave or the next level of productivity gains, which is about investing in the skills and education of our workforce, investing in research and development, investing in better use, more efficient use of infrastructure, investing in better information technology infrastructure, reducing the complexity of regulations so that we're more productive, they're all the big challenges. And industrial relations legislation, workplace legislation, plays a key part in all of that so setting ourselves up at the start of this century to get the next level of international competitiveness is very important. We've survived historically, economically as a nation through being a great trading nation and being an attractive place for overseas capital investment and the only way that occurs is by being internationally competitive and other than taking the benefit our reforms, introducing a GST and trying to flog off Telstra, the government's economic policy is essentially being, take the benefit of the economic reform and not do much else. Well, we may well pay to our cost, if we don't pretty quickly start to invest in all those intellectual and physical skills, which will take us the next level of productive activity.