Mediaboss Marketing

This article is about the modern Australian political party. For the Liberal party active in Australia from 1909 to 1916, see Commonwealth Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party of Australia (Lib or colloquially Libs) is a major political party in Australia. Founded in 1945 to replace the United Australia Party (UAP), the Liberal Party is one of the two major parties in Australian politics, along with the Australian Labor Party (ALP).

The Liberal Party is the largest and dominant party in the Coalition with the National Party of Australia, the Country Liberal Party of the Northern Territory and the Liberal National Party of Queensland. Except for a few short periods, the Liberal Party and its predecessors have operated in similar coalitions since the 1920s. Internationally, the Liberal Party is affiliated to the International Democrat Union.

The party's leader is Malcolm Turnbull and its deputy leader is Julie Bishop. The pair were elected to their positions at the September 2015 Liberal leadership ballot, Bishop as the incumbent deputy leader and Turnbull as a replacement for Tony Abbott, whom he consequently succeeded as Prime Minister of Australia. Now the Turnbull Government, the party had been elected at the 2013 federal election as the Abbott Government which took office on 18 September 2013.[3] At state and territory level, the Liberal Party is in office in three states: Colin Barnett has been Premier of Western Australia since 2008, Will Hodgman Premier of Tasmania since 2014 and Mike Baird Premier of New South Wales since 2014. The party is in opposition in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory.

The party's ideology has been referred to as conservative,[4]liberal-conservative,[5] and conservative-liberal.[6] The Liberal Party tends to promote economic liberalism and social conservatism, though often the latter at the expense of the former, especially since the 1990s.[7] Two past leaders of the party, Sir Robert Menzies and John Howard, are Australia's two longest-serving Prime Ministers. The Liberal Party has spent more time in government than any other federal Australian political party.

The contemporary Liberal Party generally advocates economic liberalism (see New Right). Historically, the party has supported a higher degree of economic protectionism and interventionism than it has in recent decades. However, from its foundation the party has identified itself as anti-socialist. Strong opposition to socialism and communism in Australia and abroad was one of its founding principles. The party's founder and longest-serving leader Robert Menzies envisaged that Australia's middle class would form its main constituency.[8]

Towards the end of his term as Prime Minister of Australia, in a final address to the Liberal Party Federal Council in 1964, Menzies spoke of the "Liberal Creed" as follows:

As the etymology of our name 'Liberal' indicates, we have stood for freedom. We have realised that men and women are not just ciphers in a calculation, but are individual human beings whose individual welfare and development must be the main concern of government ... We have learned that the right answer is to set the individual free, to aim at equality of opportunity, to protect the individual against oppression, to create a society in which rights and duties are recognised and made effective.

Soon after the election of the Howard Government the new Prime Minister John Howard, who was to become the second-longest serving Liberal Prime Minister, spoke of his interpretation of the "Liberal Tradition" in a Robert Menzies Lecture in 1996:

Menzies knew the importance for Australian Liberalism to draw upon both the classical liberal as well as the conservative political traditions. ... He believed in a liberal political tradition that encompassed both Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill a tradition which I have described in contemporary terms as the broad church of Australian Liberalism.

Throughout their history, the Liberals have been in electoral terms largely the party of the middle class (whom Menzies, in the era of the party's formation called "The forgotten people"), though such class-based voting patterns are no longer as clear as they once were. In the 1970s a left-wing middle class emerged that no longer voted Liberal.[citation needed] One effect of this was the success of a breakaway party, the Australian Democrats, founded in 1977 by former Liberal minister Don Chipp and members of minor liberal parties; other members of the left-leaning section of the middle-class became Labor supporters.[citation needed] On the other hand, the Liberals have done increasingly well in recent years among socially conservative working-class voters.[citation needed]However the Liberal Party's key support base remains the upper-middle classes; 16 of the 20 richest federal electorates are held by the Liberals, most of which are safe seats.[10] In country areas they either compete with or have a truce with the Nationals, depending on various factors.

Menzies was an ardent constitutional monarchist, who supported the Monarchy in Australia and links to the Commonwealth of Nations. Today the party is divided on the question of republicanism, with some (such as incumbent leader Malcolm Turnbull) being republicans, while others (such as his predecessor Tony Abbott) are monarchists. The Menzies Government formalised Australia's alliance with America in 1951, and the party has remained a strong supporter of the mutual defence treaty.

Domestically, Menzies presided over a fairly regulated economy in which utilities were publicly owned, and commercial activity was highly regulated through centralised wage-fixing and high tariff protection. Liberal leaders from Menzies to Malcolm Fraser generally maintained Australia's high tariff levels. At that time the Liberals' coalition partner, the Country Party, the older of the two in the coalition (now known as the "National Party"), had considerable influence over the government's economic policies. It was not until the late 1970s and through their period out of power federally in the 1980s that the party came to be influenced by what was known as the "New Right" a conservative liberal group who advocated market deregulation, privatisation of public utilities, reductions in the size of government programs and tax cuts.

Socially, while liberty and freedom of enterprise form the basis of its beliefs, elements of the party have wavered between what is termed "small-l liberalism" and social conservatism. Historically, Liberal Governments have been responsible for the carriage of a number of notable "socially liberal" reforms, including the opening of Australia to multiethnic immigration under Menzies and Harold Holt; Holt's 1967 Referendum on Aboriginal Rights;[11]Sir John Gorton's support for cinema and the arts;[12] selection of the first Aboriginal Senator, Neville Bonner, in 1971;[13] and Malcolm Fraser's Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976. A West Australian Liberal, Ken Wyatt, became the first Indigenous Australian elected to the House of Representatives in 2010.[14]

The party has mainly two unorganised factions, the conservative right and the moderate left. Historically, moderates have at times formed their own parties, most notably the Australian Democrats who gave voice to what is termed small-l liberalism in Australia.

The Liberal Party is a member of the International Democrat Union, the only party with the name Liberal to hold membership.

The Liberal Party's organisation is dominated by the six state divisions, reflecting the party's original commitment to a federalised system of government (a commitment which was strongly maintained by all Liberal governments until 1983, but was to a large extent abandoned by the Howard Government, which showed strong centralising tendencies). Menzies deliberately created a weak national party machine and strong state divisions. Party policy is made almost entirely by the parliamentary parties, not by the party's rank-and-file members, although Liberal party members do have a degree of influence over party policy.[15]

The Liberal Party's basic organisational unit is the branch, which consists of party members in a particular locality. For each electorate there is a conferencenotionally above the brancheswhich coordinates campaigning in the electorate and regularly communicates with the member (or candidate) for the electorate. As there are three levels of government in Australia, each branch elects delegates to a local, state, and federal conference.[15]

All the branches in an Australian state are grouped into a Division. The ruling body for the Division is a State Council. There is also one Federal Council which represents the entire organisational Liberal Party in Australia. Branch executives are delegates to the Councils ex-officio and additional delegates are elected by branches, depending on their size.[15]

Preselection of electoral candidates is performed by a special electoral college convened for the purpose. Membership of the electoral college consists of head office delegates, branch officers, and elected delegates from branches.[15]

The Liberals' immediate predecessor was the United Australia Party (UAP). More broadly, the Liberal Party's ideological ancestry stretched back to the anti-Labor groupings in the first Commonwealth parliaments. The Commonwealth Liberal Party was a fusion of the Free Trade Party and the Protectionist Party in 1909 by the second prime minister, Alfred Deakin, in response to Labor's growing electoral prominence. The Commonwealth Liberal Party merged with several Labor dissidents (including Billy Hughes) to form the Nationalist Party of Australia in 1917. That party, in turn, merged with Labor dissidents to form the UAP in 1931.

The UAP had been formed as a new conservative alliance in 1931, with Labor defector Joseph Lyons as its leader. The stance of Lyons and other Labor rebels against the more radical proposals of the Labor movement to deal the Great Depression had attracted the support of prominent Australian conservatives.[16] With Australia still suffering the effects of the Great Depression, the newly formed party won a landslide victory at the 1931 Election, and the Lyons Government went on to win three consecutive elections. It largely avoided Keynesian pump-priming and pursued a more conservative fiscal policy of debt reduction and balanced budgets as a means of stewarding Australia out of the Depression. Lyons' death in 1939 saw Robert Menzies assume the Prime Ministership on the eve of war. Menzies served as Prime Minister from 1939 to 1941 but resigned as leader of the minority World War II government amidst an unworkable parliamentary majority. The UAP, led by Billy Hughes, disintegrated after suffering a heavy defeat in the 1943 election.

Menzies called a conference of conservative parties and other groups opposed to the ruling Australian Labor Party, which met in Canberra on 13 October 1944 and again in Albury, New South Wales in December 1944.[17][18] From 1942 onward Menzies had maintained his public profile with his series of "The Forgotten People" radio talkssimilar to Franklin D. Roosevelt's "fireside chats" of the 1930sin which he spoke of the middle class as the "backbone of Australia" but as nevertheless having been "taken for granted" by political parties.[19][20]

Outlining his vision for a new political movement in 1944, Menzies said:

...[W]hat we must look for, and it is a matter of desperate importance to our society, is a true revival of liberal thought which will work for social justice and security, for national power and national progress, and for the full development of the individual citizen, though not through the dull and deadening process of socialism.

The formation of the party was formally announced at Sydney Town Hall on 31 August 1945.[18] It took the name "Liberal" in honour of the old Commonwealth Liberal Party. The new party was dominated by the remains of the old UAP; with few exceptions, the UAP party room became the Liberal party room. The Australian Women's National League, a powerful conservative women's organisation, also merged with the new party. A conservative youth group Menzies had set up, the Young Nationalists, was also merged into the new party. It became the nucleus of the Liberal Party's youth division, the Young Liberals. By September 1945 there were more than 90,000 members, many of whom had not previously been members of any political party.[18]

After an initial loss to Labor at the 1946 election, Menzies led the Liberals to victory at the 1949 election, and the party stayed in office for a record 23 yearsstill the longest unbroken run in government at the federal level. Australia experienced prolonged economic growth during the post-war boom period of the Menzies Government (19491966) and Menzies fulfilled his promises at the 1949 election to end rationing of butter, tea and petrol and provided a five-shilling endowment for first-born children, as well as for others.[22] While himself an unashamed anglophile, Menzies' government concluded a number of major defence and trade treaties that set Australia on its post-war trajectory out of Britain's orbit; opened Australia to multi-ethnic immigration; and instigated important legal reforms regarding Aboriginal Australians.

Menzies ran strongly against Labor's plans to nationalise the Australian banking system and, following victory in the 1949 election, secured a double dissolution election for April 1951, after the Labor-controlled Senate refused to pass his banking legislation. The Liberal-Country Coalition was returned with control of the Senate. The Government was returned again in the 1954 election; the formation of the anti-Communist Democratic Labor Party (DLP) and the consequent split in the Australian Labor Party early in 1955 helped the Liberals to another victory in December 1955. John McEwen replaced Arthur Fadden as leader of the Country Party in March 1958 and the Menzies-McEwen Coalition was returned again at elections in November 1958 their third victory against Labor's H. V. Evatt. The Coalition was narrowly returned against Labor's Arthur Calwell in the December 1961 election, in the midst of a credit squeeze. Menzies stood for office for the last time in the November 1963 election, again defeating Calwell, with the Coalition winning back its losses in the House of Representatives. Menzies went on to resign from parliament on 26 January 1966.[23]

Menzies came to power the year the Communist Party of Australia had led a coal strike to improve pit miners' working conditions. That same year Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb, and Mao Zedong led the Communist Party of China to power in China; a year later came the invasion of South Korea by Communist North Korea. Anti-communism was a key political issue of the 1950s and 1960s.[24] Menzies was firmly anti-Communist; he committed troops to the Korean War and attempted to ban the Communist Party of Australia in an unsuccessful referendum during the course of that war. The Labor Party split over concerns about the influence of the Communist Party over the Trade Union movement, leading to the foundation of the breakaway Democratic Labor Party whose preferences supported the Liberal and Country parties.[25]

In 1951, during the early stages of the Cold War, Menzies spoke of the possibility of a looming third world war. The Menzies Government entered Australia's first formal military alliance outside of the British Commonwealth with the signing of the ANZUS Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States in San Francisco in 1951. External Affairs Minister Percy Spender had put forward the proposal to work along similar lines to the NATO Alliance. The Treaty declared that any attack on one of the three parties in the Pacific area would be viewed as a threat to each, and that the common danger would be met in accordance with each nation's constitutional processes. In 1954 the Menzies Government signed the South East Asia Collective Defence Treaty (SEATO) as a South East Asian counterpart to NATO. That same year, Soviet diplomat Vladimir Petrov and his wife defected from the Soviet embassy in Canberra, revealing evidence of Russian spying activities; Menzies called a Royal Commission to investigate.[26]

In 1956 a committee headed by Sir Keith Murray was established to inquire into the financial plight of Australia's universities, and Menzies pumped funds into the sector under conditions which preserved the autonomy of universities.

Menzies continued the expanded immigration program established under Chifley, and took important steps towards dismantling the White Australia Policy. In the early 1950s, external affairs minister Percy Spender helped to establish the Colombo Plan for providing economic aid to underdeveloped nations in Australia's region. Under that scheme many future Asian leaders studied in Australia.[27] In 1958 the government replaced the Immigration Act's arbitrarily applied European language dictation test with an entry permit system, that reflected economic and skills criteria.[28][29] In 1962, Menzies' Commonwealth Electoral Act provided that all Indigenous Australians should have the right to enrol and vote at federal elections (prior to this, indigenous people in Queensland, Western Australia and some in the Northern Territory had been excluded from voting unless they were ex-servicemen).[30] In 1949 the Liberals appointed Dame Enid Lyons as the first woman to serve in an Australian Cabinet. Menzies remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and British Commonwealth but formalised an alliance with the United States and concluded the Agreement on Commerce between Australia and Japan which was signed in July 1957 and launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.

Menzies retired in 1966 as Australia's longest-serving Prime Minister.

Harold Holt replaced the retiring Robert Menzies in 1966 and the Holt Government went on to win 82 seats to Labor's 41 in the 1966 election.[31] Holt remained Prime Minister until 19 December 1967, when he was declared presumed dead two days after disappearing in rough surf in which he had gone for a swim.

Holt increased Australian commitment to the growing War in Vietnam, which met with some public opposition. His government oversaw conversion to decimal currency. Holt faced Britain's withdrawal from Asia by visiting and hosting many Asian leaders and by expanding ties to the United States, hosting the first visit to Australia by an American president, his friend Lyndon B. Johnson. Holt's government introduced the Migration Act 1966, which effectively dismantled the White Australia Policy and increased access to non-European migrants, including refugees fleeing the Vietnam War. Holt also called the 1967 Referendum which removed the discriminatory clause in the Australian Constitution which excluded Aboriginal Australians from being counted in the census the referendum was one of the few to be overwhelmingly endorsed by the Australian electorate (over 90% voted 'yes'). By the end of 1967, the Liberals' initially popular support for the war in Vietnam was causing increasing public protest.[32]

The Liberals chose John Gorton to replace Holt. Gorton, a former World War II Royal Australian Air Force pilot, with a battle scarred face, said he was "Australian to the bootheels" and had a personal style which often affronted some conservatives.

The Gorton Government increased funding for the arts, setting up the Australian Council for the Arts, the Australian Film Development Corporation and the National Film and Television Training School. The Gorton Government passed legislation establishing equal pay for men and women and increased pensions, allowances and education scholarships, as well as providing free health care to 250,000 of the nation's poor (but not universal health care). Gorton's government kept Australia in the Vietnam War but stopped replacing troops at the end of 1970.[33]

Gorton maintained good relations with the United States and Britain, but pursued closer ties with Asia. The Gorton government experienced a decline in voter support at the 1969 election. State Liberal leaders saw his policies as too Centralist, while other Liberals didn't like his personal behaviour. In 1971, Defence Minister Malcolm Fraser, resigned and said Gorton was "not fit to hold the great office of Prime Minister". In a vote on the leadership the Liberal Party split 50/50, and although this was insufficient to remove him as the leader, Gorton decided this was also insufficient support for him, and he resigned.[33]

Former treasurer, William McMahon, replaced Gorton as Prime Minister. Gorton remained a front bencher but relations with Fraser remained strained. The McMahon Government ended when Gough Whitlam led the Australian Labor Party out of its 23-year period in Opposition at the 1972 election.

The economy was weakening. McMahon maintained Australia's diminishing commitment to Vietnam and criticised Opposition leader, Gough Whitlam, for visiting Communist China in 1972only to have the US President Richard Nixon announce a planned visit soon after.[34]

During McMahon's period in office, Neville Bonner joined the Senate and became the first Indigenous Australian in the Australian Parliament.[35] Bonner was chosen by the Liberal Party to fill a Senate vacancy in 1971 and celebrated his maiden parliamentary speech with a boomerang throwing display on the lawns of Parliament. Bonner went on to win election at the 1972 election and served as a Liberal Senator for 12 years. He worked on Indigenous and social welfare issues and proved an independent minded Senator, often crossing the floor on Parliamentary votes.[36]

Following Whitlam's victory, John Gorton played a further role in reform by introducing a Parliamentary motion from Opposition supporting the legalisation of same-gender sexual relations. Billy Snedden led the party against Whitlam in the 1974 federal election, which saw a return of the Labor government. When Malcolm Fraser won the Liberal Party leadership from Snedden in 1975, Gorton walked out of the Party Room.[37]

Following the 197475 Loans Affair, the Malcolm Fraser led Liberal-Country Party Coalition argued that the Whitlam Government was incompetent and delayed passage of the Government's money bills in the Senate, until the government would promise a new election. Whitlam refused, Fraser insisted leading to the divisive 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. The deadlock came to an end when the Whitlam government was dismissed by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr on 11 November 1975 and Fraser was installed as caretaker Prime Minister, pending an election. Fraser won in a landslide at the resulting 1975 election.

Fraser maintained some of the social reforms of the Whitlam era, while seeking increased fiscal restraint. His government included the first Aboriginal federal parliamentarian, Neville Bonner, and in 1976, Parliament passed the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976, which, while limited to the Northern Territory, affirmed "inalienable" freehold title to some traditional lands. Fraser established the multicultural broadcaster SBS, accepted Vietnamese refugees, opposed minority white rule in Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia and opposed Soviet expansionism. A significant program of economic reform however was not pursued. By 1983, the Australian economy was suffering with the early 1980s recession and amidst the effects of a severe drought. Fraser had promoted "states' rights" and his government refused to use Commonwealth powers to stop the construction of the Franklin Dam in Tasmania in 1982.[38] Liberal minister, Don Chipp split off from the party to form a new social liberal party, the Australian Democrats in 1977. Fraser won further substantial majorities at the 1977 and 1980 elections, before losing to the Bob Hawke led Australian Labor Party in the 1983 election.[39]

A period of division for the Liberals followed, with former Treasurer John Howard competing with former Foreign Minister Andrew Peacock for supremacy. The Australian economy was facing the early 1990s recession. Unemployment reached 11.4% in 1992. Under Dr John Hewson, in November 1991, the opposition launched the 650-page Fightback! policy document a radical collection of "dry", economic liberal measures including the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST), various changes to Medicare including the abolition of bulk billing for non-concession holders, the introduction of a nine-month limit on unemployment benefits, various changes to industrial relations including the abolition of awards, a $13 billion personal income tax cut directed at middle and upper income earners, $10 billion in government spending cuts, the abolition of state payroll taxes and the privatisation of a large number of government owned enterprises representing the start of a very different future direction to the keynesian economic conservatism practiced by previous Liberal/National Coalition governments. The 15 percent GST was the centerpiece of the policy document. Through 1992, Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating mounted a campaign against the Fightback package, and particularly against the GST, which he described as an attack on the working class in that it shifted the tax burden from direct taxation of the wealthy to indirect taxation as a broad-based consumption tax. Pressure group activity and public opinion was relentless, which led Hewson to exempt food from the proposed GST leading to questions surrounding the complexity of what food was and wasn't to be exempt from the GST. Hewson's difficulty in explaining this to the electorate was exemplified in the infamous birthday cake interview, considered by some as a turning point in the election campaign. Keating won a record fifth consecutive Labor term at the 1993 election. A number of the proposals were later adopted in to law in some form, to a small extent during the Keating Labor government, and to a larger extent during the Howard Liberal government (most famously the GST), while unemployment benefits and bulk billing were re-targeted for a time by the Abbott Liberal government.

At the state level, the Liberals have been dominant for long periods in all states except Queensland, where they have always held fewer seats than the National Party (not to be confused with the old Nationalist Party). The Liberals were in power in Victoria from 1955 to 1982. Jeff Kennett led the party back to office in that state in 1992, and remained Premier until 1999.

In South Australia, initially a Liberal and Country Party affiliated party, the Liberal and Country League (LCL), mostly led by Premier of South Australia Tom Playford, was in power from the 1933 election to the 1965 election, though with assistance from an electoral malapportionment, or gerrymander, known as the Playmander. The LCL's Steele Hall governed for one term from the 1968 election to the 1970 election and during this time began the process of dismantling the Playmander. David Tonkin, as leader of the South Australian Division of the Liberal Party of Australia, became Premier at the 1979 election for one term, losing office at the 1982 election. The Liberals returned to power at the 1993 election, led by Premiers Dean Brown, John Olsen and Rob Kerin through two terms, until their defeat at the 2002 election. They have since remained in opposition under a record five Opposition Leaders.

The dual aligned Country Liberal Party ruled the Northern Territory from 1978 to 2001.

The party has held office in Western Australia intermittently since 1947. Liberal Richard Court was Premier of the state for most of the 1990s.

In New South Wales, the Liberal Party has not been in office as much as its Labor rival, and just three leaders have led the party from opposition to government in that state: Sir Robert Askin, who was premier from 1965 to 1975, Nick Greiner, who came to office in 1988 and resigned in 1992, and Barry O'Farrell who would lead the party out of 16 years in opposition in 2011.

The Liberal Party does not officially contest most local government elections, although many members do run for office in local government as independents. An exception is the Brisbane City Council, where both Sallyanne Atkinson and Campbell Newman have been elected Lord Mayor of Brisbane.[40]

Labor's Paul Keating lost the 1996 Election to the Liberals' John Howard. The Liberals had been in Opposition for 13 years.[41] With John Howard as Prime Minister, Peter Costello as Treasurer and Alexander Downer as Foreign Minister, the Howard Government remained in power until their electoral defeat to Kevin Rudd in 2007.

Howard generally framed the Liberals as being conservative on social policy, debt reduction and matters like maintaining Commonwealth links and the American Alliance but his premiership saw booming trade with Asia and expanding multiethnic immigration. His government concluded the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement with the Bush Administration in 2004.[35]

Howard differed from his Labor predecessor Paul Keating in that he supported traditional Australian institutions like the Monarchy in Australia, the commemoration of ANZAC Day and the design of the Australian flag, but like Keating he pursued privatisation of public utilities and the introduction of a broad based consumption tax (although Keating had dropped support for a GST by the time of his 1993 election victory). Howard's premiership coincided with Al Qaeda's 11 September attacks on the United States. The Howard Government invoked the ANZUS treaty in response to the attacks and supported America's campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the 2004 Federal elections the party strengthened its majority in the Lower House and, with its coalition partners, became the first federal government in twenty years to gain an absolute majority in the Senate. This control of both houses permitted their passing of legislation without the need to negotiate with independents or minor parties, exemplified by industrial relations legislation known as WorkChoices, a wide ranging effort to increase deregulation of industrial laws in Australia.

In 2005, Howard reflected on his government's cultural and foreign policy outlook in oft repeated terms:[42]

When I became Prime Minister nine years ago, I believed that this nation was defining its place in the world too narrowly. My Government has rebalanced Australia's foreign policy to better reflect the unique intersection of history, geography, culture and economic opportunity that our country represents. Time has only strengthened my conviction that we do not face a choice between our history and our geography.

John Howard

The 2007 federal election saw the defeat of the Howard federal government, and the Liberal Party was in opposition throughout Australia at the state and federal level; the highest Liberal office-holder at the time was Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman. This ended after the Western Australian state election, 2008, when Colin Barnett became Premier of that state.

Following the 2007 federal election, Dr Brendan Nelson was elected leader by the Parliamentary Liberal Party. On 16 September 2008, in a second contest following a spill motion, Nelson lost the leadership to Malcolm Turnbull.[43] On 1 December 2009, a subsequent leadership election saw Turnbull lose the leadership to Tony Abbott by 42 votes to 41 on the second ballot.[44] Abbott led the party to the 2010 federal election, which saw an increase in the Liberal Party vote and resulted in the first hung parliament since the 1940 election.[45]

Through 2010, the party improved its vote in the Tasmanian and South Australian state elections and achieved state government in Victoria. In March 2011, the New South Wales Liberal-National Coalition led by Barry O'Farrell won government with the largest election victory in post-war Australian history at the State Election.[46] In Queensland, the Liberal and National parties merged in 2008 to form the new Liberal National Party of Queensland (registered as the Queensland Division of the Liberal Party of Australia). In March 2012, the new party achieved Government in an historic landslide, led by former Brisbane Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman.[47]

The following is a complete list of Liberal Party leaders:

Key: Liberal Labor Country/National PM: Prime Minister LO: Leader of the Opposition : Died in office

1 Queensland is represented by the Liberal National Party of Queensland. This party is the result of a merger of the Queensland Division of the Liberal Party and the Queensland National Party to contest elections as a single party.

2 The Northern Territory is represented by the Country Liberal Party, which is endorsed as the Territory division of the Liberal Party.

See more here:
Liberal Party of Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The graphic pictured above is getting passed around quite a bit on Facebook lately and it gets posted by liberals whenever the subject of Benghazi comes up. The graphic above with a list of attacks below, supposedly points out that many more people were killed in embassy bombings and shootings under Bush than the 4 who were killed in Benghazi under President Obama. The comparison is made as if somehow sheer numbers excuses a cover up, issuing stand down orders and lying about the cause of the Benghazi consulate attack.

In effect what liberals are saying when they post this graphic is, "Well yes, we know Obama lied about Benghazi, covered up the truth and made up a story as to what caused the attack, but Bush is way worse because there were more embassy attacks and more people died under his watch." Sadly, this is simply part of the "blame Bush for everything that happens to Obama" mentalities of both liberals and Obama himself because not a single one of these attacks when looked at closely, even holds a candle to what happened in Benghazi. And in fact, with one of the attacks listed below, even though it has 371,000 references in Google, we can't find any evidence the attack even happened. All references in Google search seem to be the same list that liberal blogs just blindly copied, passed around and then mindlessly published without checking a single reference. So much for liberal facts!

Liberals also like to point out that either 52 or 54 people were killed (depending on what sources you read), but when looked at these attacks more closely only 1 person who died was an American. That person was U.S. Diplomat David Foy killed in Pakistan in March 2006. All other deaths were either brave embassy guards who were killed in the line of duty defending the safety of embassy employees, or they were innocent bystanders killed in the crossfire or bomb explosions.

We also have the list that somewhat goes with the inaccurate graphic and is posted over at Daily Kos, which I will never link to (but you can find it here) , with the title "If diplomatic attacks are a sign of weakness, Bush was the weakest of all."

In reality this list is weak because everything on it pales in comparison to Benghazi. Yes, real people with families and loved ones died in these attacks, but in no case was there any controversy surrounding them as there is in the Libya attack and in no embassy attack under the Bush Presidency was there any attempt to cover-up what happened or was there blame placed on something that turned out to be patently false. The sheer level to which Obama has gone to hide the facts of this attack is like nothing we have ever seen in the United States of America.

Read below as we destroy both the list and the graphic at the top of this post:

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan - Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

Unlike Benghazi, this attack happened outside the walls of the consulate and yes, twelve people were killed and 51 injured, all Pakistanis. I cannot find any reports of Americans amongst the injured. And we aren't sure how this attack matches up with the graphic above because there were 12 people killed, not 10.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - Truck bomb kills 17.

This one is only on the list found at Daily Kos and the link to the list above and we especially love this example because we can't find a single credible reference anywhere in Google that this attack ever happened!

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan - Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

Two policemen were killed in this shooting outside the consulate and according to CNN, "none of the staff inside the compound at the time were injured in the attack."

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan - Suicide bomber kills two.

Two Uzbek policemen were killed outside the embassy of both the countries of Israel and the United States. US and Israeli officials said none of their staff were among the casualties.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia - Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

This is the only attack on this list and referenced in the graphic where the walls of the embassy were breached and personnel inside were killed, but once again, the graphic and the reference above from The Daily Kos don't match. Four security guards and five staff were killed, none were Americans. By our math, 4 plus 5 equals, 9, not 8 as listed in the graphic and 5 as listed in the reference above.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan - Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat directly targeted by the assailants.

This is the only attack where an American diplomat, not an Ambassador like Christopher Stevens, was actually killed. Tragically, David Foy was specifically targeted outside the embassy when a massive car bomb went off in the parking lot behind the consulate as he arrived for work.

Isn't it interesting that the only embassy attack where an American was killed under Bush and they don't include it in their completely inaccurate graphic above. You would think they would want that one in there.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria - Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

Here we go again, another attack listed where not only were no Americans killed, no Americans were even injured. Yes, sadly one brave Saudi security guard was killed doing his job as militants tried to storm the embassy compound. Once again, the embassy wall were never breached and all American personnel inside remained safe.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece - A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

Another embassy attack that liberals try to point out in some way is equal to what happened in Benghazi, Libya. While this is a serious event that targeted one of our embassies, it took place early in the morning when a grenade was launched into an empty embassy building. Again, no one was killed or injured.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey - Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

Yet another case where embassy security sadly died, but died in the line of duty. ThreeTurkish National Police officers were killed defending the embassy. All Americans inside remained safe.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sanaa, Yemen - Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls school instead.

Though there are reports by liberal websites of 2 being killed at a girl's school near this embassy when mortars were fired at it but missed, the official US Embassy website in Yemen says that there were only injuries.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sanaa, Yemen - Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

You liberals might what to get your facts straight on this before you post such drivel. How many were killed? The graphic says 10 and the quote above says 11. Actually there weren't 10 people killed, there were 19, six attackers, six Yemeni police, and seven civilians. And guess what, absolutely zero Americans were killed or injured in that attack.

Even though some members of the Yemeni security forces were killed, they did exactly as they were supposed to do, they defended the embassy and saved the personnel inside! And liberals are pointing this out as a sign of weakness? Having security forces do their duty and die during a battle is weakness?

2008 - Rioters set fire to US Embassy in Serbia - (Only listed in graphic above)

Rioters did break into the embassy in this attack and one person was killed, a rioter when they got trapped in a part of one building they had set on fire. All American personnel were safe and accounted for.

There are also 2 more attacks going around the net that liberals are trying to paint as Bush's fault, but once again, neither even remotely holds up to scrutiny as anything even compared to what happened in Benghazi. The first is an attack on what liberals are trying to call the American consulate on January 22, 2002 in Calcutta, India where 5 policemen were killed. In reality it was not the consulate , but an American cultural center that was attacked.

And the final one going around the net is in relation to the bombing of 2 Bali nightclubs on October 12, 2002 when a third much smaller device detonated outside the United States consulate in Denpasar, causing only minor damage.

There you have the graphic and the list, including one attack that never happened, which liberals use to whine and ask why there was no outrage when Bush was president and embassies were attacked. Bush did plenty of things wrong, but he did not lie to all of the country, assisted by a willing press, in order to try and cover up the deaths of 4 Americans.

See the original post here:
Liberals Use Grossly Misleading Graphic And List To ...

Question What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy? Answer -A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

Question What is the only thing worse than an incompetent liberal President? Answer -A competent liberal President.

Question Who was the first liberal Democrat? Answer -Christopher Columbus. He left not knowing where he was going,got there not knowing where he was,left there not knowing where hed been and did it all on borrowed money.

Q: How many liberals does it take to change a light Bulb? A: At least ten, as they will need to have a discussion about whether or not the light bulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the light bulb they still may not change it to keep from alienating those who might use other forms of light.

Q:How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb? A:None. Liberals wouldnt actually change the light bulb, but they would show compassion for it by talking a lot about how terrible it is in the dark and more funding is needed to improve dim, 60 watt bulbs up to bright and productive 100 watt bulbs.

Q: How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb? A: Let George Bush fix it! Its his fault its dark anyway!

See the rest here:
SHORT JOKES ABOUT LIBERALS - Laugh@Liberals

The basics of liberal vs. conservatives come down to a simple dynamic: liberals are for progress, liberty, equality, creativity, originality, love for one another; conservatives are against them all (though they'll concoct, contrive, contort, conflate and conceal to hide that very fact). Liberals liberate. Conservatives conserve. Liberals push forward. Conservatives pull backwards. So you have pro and con... for and against... progressive vs. conservative.

Here's how it plays out:

Rich and powerful people have a very good reason to promote conservatism. The fundamental core of conservatism is to "conserve" (preserve, maintain) traditional customs, institutions and hierarchies. This is a perfect formula for keeping the socio-economic elite rich and powerful, or making them even more so. It's also the perfect formula to keep all other people in their proper places, which, of course, is below and subvervient to the rich and powerful. The father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, called this "the chain of subordination."

As a matter of "faith" these conservative elites believe that they are the superior people, and thus the just rulers of society. Conservatives have referred to this as "natural law." They maintain that if economic, social and governmental policies are skewed in their favor, then all of society will benefit. In economic parlance, this ideology is called "supply-side," though today it is more commonly known as "trickle-down" economics, or sometimes "Reaganomics" (or sometimes "voodoo economics.") This idea goes way, way, way back in history, and has been promoted by every king and pope and sultan and dictator around the world. In all of that time and practice, there is zero evidence that it actually works to benefit all the people, or even the overall economy, of any particular society. What it does do quite effectively is enrich the already rich. And so there is little wonder why conservative power-mongers so stubbornly stick to the "trickle-down" formula, and perennially sell it to a gullible public.

So, the conservative socio-economic elite are constantly pushing for low, low (or no) taxes for the rich and their corporations, and low, low (or no) regulation on business. They want to skew social systems, including government, toward their favor. They don't really care about the lower classes, including the vast middle class, which is the true engine of a modern economy. They only care about themselves. Indeed, for them to make more and more and more money, and acrue more and more power, it is in their best interest to squash the lower classes. So wealthy and powerful conservatives believe that We the People should serve the economic system, which is rigged in favor of the socio-economic elite.

Democracy presents a basic problem for these conservatives because it tends to oppose hierarchical and institutional power. The idea of inherent superiority, subservience, or "traditional" power structure runs counter to the values of democracy. So it turns out that much of conservative ideology is deeply un-American (as well as un-Christian). In a democracy, policy, customs and institutions are supposed to be skewed toward We the People, in a system where "hierarchy" and "subservience" are at least greatly diminished if never completely eliminated entirely. In a democratic society no one is considered "superior" just because they are of a particular clan or culture or possess wealth or power.

Yet at the heart of conservative thinking remains the rigid belief in hierarchy, natural rulers, and thus superiority and inferiority. The conservative socio-economic elite are determined to "conserve" this separation and inequality if at all possible.

Since the founding of America, liberals have sought to expand opportunities for the average person, and even the disadvantaged and downtrodden, seeking a more egalitarian society that works for everyone.

Liberals have a more fact-based, rather than faith-based, ideology. They are not so motivated by self-serving but actually negative emotions, such as prejudice, greed and fear, and thus can see the great advantages to a society of justice for all, and the "general welfare," a term used in the preamble of the Constitution.

Liberals are "utilitarian" in thinking that social, economic and governmental policy should be skewed toward the advantge of the largest number of people, not just the rich and powerful, or toward any particular clan, religion or cultural group. And liberals are far more magnanimous in being willing to share both their wealth (by not being so greedy) and their innate self worth (by not being so prejudiced) with other people.

Liberals take to heart, and mind, the ideas of liberty, equality, justice for all, and pursuit of happiness: true American values. Liberals also are a whole lot better at extending compassion for all: a true Christian value. And from this real commitment to universal values comes the continual liberal impulse to try to expand rights and steer toward a more equitable and just society. This does not mean that liberals wish to destroy rich people or capitalism, but that these people, and this economic system, must be controlled to the extent that they serve We the People, not vice-versa.

In fact, the United States has done far better economically when operating under general liberal principles than it does under conservative ideology. For example, the Great Depression and this latest Great Recession both resulted following an extended period of conservative, "trickle-down" economic policy. Taxes were slashed, regulations were relaxed or eliminated, bubbles and mini-booms resulted, the rich got richer, the Middle Class struggled, the poor got poorer, and then the economy crashed. A tragic collapse in the economy - affecting hundreds of million of Americans - has happened twice now in the past 80 years... and still the conservatives won't learn the lesson!

Conversely, the largest expansion of a Middle Class in the history of the world took place under the auspices of the New Deal programs, policy and ideology. In this way, liberals often have to actually rescue conservatives and capitalism from their own web of greed. Barack Obama may have done it again by pulling the U.S. economy back from the precipice of depression that 30 years of "Reaganomics" steered us on to.

Now the conservatives are back, selling the same old snake oil. Mitt Romney offers a tax plan that will lower the tax rates of the ultra wealth even further than the record lows they are at presently. His plan (according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center) will give the richest Americans a $250,000 tax break, while costing the average middle class family with children an extra $2,000 per year. Newt Gingrich calls for zero taxes on corporations.

The current Democratic Party (far from actually liberal) favors just slightly increasing the top tax rate so that the richest Americans are paying a fairer share of their wealth, for the good of the commoners and the commons... which is to say, America. To get back to real prosperity, it will take more than this paltry bargaining by the moderates. America will need to return to strong unions, high taxes on the rich and corporations, and stringent regulation on business and industry, most particuarly the financial sector.

Because conservativism is based upon the "traditional value" of strict clan hierarchy, a ranked system of order is to be "conserved." That's a system of ranking, or castes, in which certain people are inherently superior to others. Of course, professional conservatives place themselves over and above other people. This is Burke's "chain of subordination."

Historically, conservative policies seek to conserve, protect or expand hierarchies, institutions and traditions that subjugate women, indigenous people, poor people, workers, immigrants and other minorities, non-Christian religions. Slavery itself was a long-running "traditional value" of conservatism.

Importantly, the traditional hierarchy and "chain of subordination" also claims ownership of the environment. The "traditional value" of conservativism regarding the environment is that natural resources should be subjugated and controlled by the strongest. This ethos spurred hundreds of years of blatant imperialism, exploitation of developing nations and their people, and has led to devastating consequences for the biosphere.

Liberals carried the load in the struggle to uplift and liberate women, workers, children, African Americans, Native Americans, immigrants and other minorities, including gay, lesbian and transgender individuals. Today, liberals are struggling to prevent the erosion of hard-won rights for these same classes in the face of an onslaught of conservative measures to reduce or destroy such rights and power.

Conservatives habitually seek to restrict rights, protections, including voting privileges (they originally mandated that voting was restricted to white males who owned property, and then only for congressional representatives, not for senators). Likewise, conservatives traditionally seek to depress voter turnout through such means as intimidation, poll taxes, means testing, and registration restrictions which unfairly target the poor. The lower the turnout, the fewer voters professional conservatives have to convince to vote against their own best interest, and the better the conservative's chance of winning.

Liberals seek to expand voter turnout, understanding that the greater the number of voters, the greater the likelihood of the liberal candidate or issue prevailing.

Conservatives understand their policies serve only a select few, and that they cannot win unless they "divide and conquer". They do this by playing upon voters' prejudices, greed, fears and "wedge" issue emotionality, often successfully convincing voters to actually vote against their own economic or social self-interest. They also seek to divide America from the rest of the world through bully tactics and unilateral actions.

In conservative ideology, it is the individual on his (or her) own, and America separate from and above the rest of the world.

Liberal positions actually serve the welfare of far more individuals than those of conservatives, therefore their policies are more likely to unite rather than divide. Liberals also seek to join and cooperate with the rest of the world through careful, nuanced diplomacy and organizations such as the United Nations.

In liberal ideology, we are all in this together, we work together, we help each other, as Americans, and as nations of the world.

Conservatives by nature are exploiters... of workers, of women, of minorities, of the economy (for the corporation), of the environment.

Liberals defend, preserve and protect workers, women, minorities, the economy (for the middle class), and the environment.

Conservatives seek to preserve a white-bread world that supports the primacy of patriarchal, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant culture, and have little or no interest in understanding or respecting other cultures. Occasionally, they will allow persons or groups who are somewhat similar (i.e. Catholics, minorities) within their tent, but only if it is self-serving. This ignorance fuels suspicion and fear of "the other," and often a tendency to want to subjugate this "other", which, of course, generates resistance, animosity and distrust from "the other." This creates a negative feedback loop that is continually reinforced by the conservative, so they remain at war with the world.

Liberals, even though perhaps a part of WASP culture, value a variety of perspectives and cultural traditions, and are more open to learning about them... thereby reducing fear of the unknown. They are free to develop true and lasting trust with "the other", and forge a better future that works for all.

Conservatives seek a homogeneous populace that obeys and conforms to their conceptions of "traditional values". Anyone outside this populace, whether voluntary or involuntary, is "the other", and is subject to ridicule, scorn, ostracization, bigotry, fear, subjugation, and sometimes violence. In this regard, conservatives pay lip service to concepts such as freedom, equality and individuality, but can become very unsettled when these American rights are put to any use which varies from their sense of conformity.

Liberals recognize that the full exercise of freedom, individuality, creativity and "the pursuit of happiness" not only allows non-conformity but in many cases requires it.

Science and art often conflict with conservative concepts. When this happens conservatives react with hostility and rigidity. They will not modify their ideology to accommodate modern knowledge and changing sensibilities. Instead, they choose to defend their traditional, often mythological, mindset by denigrating and attacking science and art. Thus the conservative becomes more and more estranged from discovery, truth, creativity, and fun.

Liberals are far more free to learn from and enjoy science and art because being truth-based, not tradition/mythology-based, these high achievements of the human spirit are generally supportive of liberal values and concepts. Additionally, the more astute and sophisticated liberal actually revels in exposure to concepts that challenge their viewpoints and sensibilities, for this enables them to continually refine their ideology to remain in accord with the most modern scientific insights and deep truths that the creative arts often reveal.

Conservatives cling tenaciously to traditional, mythological, often archaic systems, including clan mentality that fears any threat to established status-quo. That status-quo generally plays in favor of the conservative elite, thus his need to protect it. To do so, he transposes his own fear (though often a distorted, exagerrated version) to his followers to ensure their loyalty.

A "boogie-man" or evil regime is actually an aid in securing such blind loyalty. Thus, you have Ronald Reagan ramping up his belligerent rhetoric against a fading and tired Soviet Union (the "Evil Empire"), and Cheney-Bush with their "Axis of Evil" and "terror alerts" actually encouraging a fearful populace following a domestic attack by 19 guys with box-cutters.

Conservative leaders continually endeavor to frighten their constituents because they want them to turn toward the leaders for "security". And so the followers become mere sheep, spooked into falling right in line with right-wing social, political and religious dogma. Thus, conservatives are perpetually the most afraid of all all political classes.

Liberals are much less invested in preserving the status quo, and therefore much less fearful of change to such systems. Instead, liberals can allow themselves to see change as potentially positive and hopeful, even as it overturns some long-held traditions.

As for "boogie-men," liberals have been far better at confronting and defeating them than have conservatives... and without having to terrorize their own people. "The only thing we have to fear... is fear itself," pronounced Franklin Roosevelt, rallying American resolve before taking on and defeating two of the most fearsome militaries in world history -- the Nazis and Imperial Japan.

More free and less fearful than conservatives, it turns out that liberals are the actual "free and brave" celebrated in the Star-Spangled Banner.

Because professional conservatives thrive only by keeping a significant portion of the populace in fear, they must maintain an aggressive defensive posture against all real and imagined threats in the world. Macho posturing and the set-up of "boogie-men" that serve to bind their followers to them are a staple of conservative word and deed. Such "boogie-men" require blustering, continual defense sector build-up, a never-ending escalation of military spending, and/or by actual armed confrontations.

Such a military build-up virtually demands war on a semi-regular basis to justify and perpetuate the state of fear and dependency among the populace. As always, conservative leaders don't want a fair fight, they want to rig the game in their favor. So the enemy, the "boogie-man," is usually some disadvantaged or downtrodden people like the Indians or the Mexicans or the Spaniards in Cuba or the Filipinos or the Vietnamese or the Grenadians or the Iraqis or the Afghans or "terrorists" hiding out in caves. Fueled by conservative prejudice and greed, the Americans come blustering in with all their overwhelming firepower, claiming to be spreading democracy or civilization, making a mess of things and creating generations worth of hatred, then pull out and declare a great victory.

Such war-mongering represents a great victory for the professional conservatives who 1) successfully maintain, or expand, their flock of sheeple, and 2) make millions (or billions) of dollars through their war-making adventures, and 3) clandestinely pass legislation amidst the fog of war that furthers their agenda. It's a win-win-win for them, usually not so much for the nation.

Not being nearly as fearful in general, liberals are far more likely to seek peaceful solutions to conflict than conservatives. Liberals are also not nearly so driven by prejudice and greed. So they are suspicious of the "military industrial complex" and its natural impulse toward proclaiming "enemies" and moving toward conflict and war.

Liberals are also far less easy to bamboozle when it comes to the "provocations" that purportedly require war. Thus, liberals early on saw through the Bush administration's rush to war with Iraq based on the ballyhooed "weapons of mass destruction" that conservatives were swallowing down hook, line and sinker.

However, the notion that liberals are cowardly, or "lily-livered," is sheer myth. When a real (not imagined) threat emerges, liberals are often the first to perceive the threat (as they currently do with unbridled corporate greed), and will defend America as fiercely as any conservative. And they often do so with much greater efficiency, responsibliity and humanity... it is rarely liberal soldiers or officers who are caught demeaning, torturing, or murdering innocent citizens. Meanwhile, the most important American military victories in history came under the watch of liberal Commanders-in-Chief.

The commonly used conservative perjorative of a "lily-livered liberal" is a vicious myth perpetrated by an evil mentality that deliberately seeks to divide and conquer by demeaning, even demonizing, the other, of just two, political polemics. It is a vile tactic, never even remotely returned in kind by liberals, that underscores the validity of the word "praetorian" for conservative.

To achieve their objectives, conservatives often are compelled to distort and deceive so as to hide their true intent. They have to hide their true intent because conservative ideology is so often counter to the welfare of the common good of the nation and the vast majority of its citizens. It is also quite contrary to authentic American values of liberty, equality, pursuit of happiness, and justice for all. So deception is a perennial conservative tactic.

Not having enough votes to forward their agenda by themselves, the wealthy elite and corporations successfully connive social conservatives to join with them by disguising and distorting their real purposes, and diverting attention to social "wedge issues" which often prompt the social conservatives to vote with the power elite and actually against their own best interests.

Masters of "disinformation", the actions of conservatives are often the precise opposite of their promises. This practice has long been built into conservative strategy. Thus, "The Clear Skies Initiative" was a giveaway to air polluters; "The Healthy Forests Initiative" a boon for timber companies; "The Patriot Act", actually an afront to the U.S. Constitution; the "Compassionate Conservative" and "Uniter not a Divider" candidate became one of the least compassionate and most divisive presidents; "Fair and Balanced" Fox News is, in fact, the least fair and balanced television news channel in American history. The "No Spin Zone" conservative television program spins like a whirling dervish.

Truth has a liberal bias simply because conservatives long ago abdicated truth in favor of mythology and tradition. So conservatives often find themselves in opposition to natural and scientific fact. In such situations professional conservatives deceive, distort and distract, paying for their own "experts" who happily "dissent" with established science. Meanwhile they encourage their allies in government to postpone or kill solutions to issues that the conservatives do not support.

Liberal politicians have been known to exaggerate and sometimes fail to deliver on their promises, but rarely do they need to lie about their intent. And rarer still would be the liberal who does the exact opposite of what was promised. The liberal agenda revolves around helping average people. No wedge issues are needed. No disinformation required. Liberals rely on voters understanding the nuance of issues, and perceiving the holistic truth. Sometimes that is asking too much of the significant section of the populace that are low-information voters and/or are susceptible to manipulation, fear-mongering, bigot-baiting.

Conservative ideology often clashes with actual facts, scientific discovery and natural truth, so it is in the interest of conservative if the populace remains disengaged, distracted, uneducated and plain dumb. Conservatives hope that the voter has amnesia when it comes to American history, lest they realize how wrong-headed conservatives have been for over 230 years.

Conservatives have actively worked against, indeed fought tooth and nail, every step of progress that our nation has ever made, including, very importantly, every expansion of educational opportunity. And conservative economic policy has always favored the ultra wealthy and coporations. These conservative power-mongers greatly benefitted from the general public not well knowing these very facts. They also are well aware of the inverse: the more education a person gets, the more liberal they generally become.

In election cycles they strive to divert attention from the real issues, consistently throwing up smoke-screens of "wedge issues" to further confuse and confound a huge segment of the population, as well as happily engaging in the "politics of personal destruction" style mudslinging. Anything to keep actual facts out of the mix. Mindless consumerism and entertainment such as sports, video games, most television programming and other diversions also serve the conservative cause. It is no coincidence that such programming often comes directly from huge corporations (run by conservatives) eager to perpetuate the "dumbing down" of America.

The more education an individual has, the more likely they are to tend toward liberal values. Scientists, researchers, professors, teachers, artists, writers, in general the smartest and most educated people in the country are most often liberals. And this is why conservatives are so often at odds with school and university curricula. Truly understanding the history of America means recognizing that this country was founded on liberal ideas, and that each and every stitch of progress made since 1776 sprang from a liberal font. The more information and knowledge a person has, the more they realize that issues can rarely be distilled down to black and white, but require a more nuanced approach.

In election cycles, liberals struggle to keep the focus on the primary issues that affect each and every person and family, and not get dragged into 1) tangential issues, such as abortion, gun control, gay marriage, etc. that truly affect only a comparative few, or 2) personal attacks that serve to divert attention from the real issues.

In keeping with their strict and punitive Old Testament orientation, conservatives hold that evil and sin are the norm within humankind, and therefore a system of order, hierarchy and severe punishment must remain in place. Naturally, the strong and exemplary people (the royals, the nobles, the wealthy and their henchmen) shall be considered the keepers of this order, and all others shall be subject to this "chain of subordination" as Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservativism called it. As a result of this worldview of humanity awash in sin and depravity, and the unworthiness of most people, conservatives live in constant fear and separateness from the bulk of humanity. If most humans are sinful, then the world is an exceedingly dangerous place. SO they must ever be on-guard to anything that might threaten their clan. This leads to their ultra-sensitive sensibilities being easily offended by non-normative behavior such as alternative art, music, literature and lifestyles. They are predisposed to consider someone guilty until proven innocent. This negative, pessimistic and fearful view of humanity explains why conservatives have little empathy for "the other" and wish no particular "social contract" with them.

Liberals, if they are Christian (which many are) place more stock in the New Testament orientation of love for one another. Those liberals who are not very religious maintain a secular humanist perpsective which accords dignity, worth and inherent goodness to most people. Liberals are far less prone to being offended by alternative lifestyles or tradition-challenging art, music and literature. They are predisposed to consider someone innocent until proven guilty. With a far more optimistic and positive view of other people, liberals are far less fearful of the world, and therefore are more prone to want to help others and not allow anyone to fall between the cracks of society.

Read this article:
Compare and Contrast Liberals and Conservatives... a handy ...

By Jonah Goldberg April 27, 2012

One of the great differences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives will freely admit that they have an ideology. Were kind of dorks that way, squabbling over old texts like Dungeons and Dragons geeks, wearing ties with pictures of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke on them.

But mainstream liberals from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama and the intellectuals and journalists who love them often assert that they are simply dispassionate slaves to the facts; they are realists, pragmatists, empiricists. Liberals insist that they live right downtown in the reality-based community, and if only their Republican opponents werent so blinded by ideology and stupidity, then they could work with them.

This has been a theme of Obamas presidency from the start. A couple of days before his inauguration,Obama proclaimed: What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry (an odd pronouncement, given that bigoted America had just elected its first black president).

In his inaugural address, he explained that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.

Whether the president who had to learn, in his own words, that theres no such thing as shovel-ready projects after blowing billions of stimulus dollars on them is truly focused on what works is a subject for another day. But the phrase is a perfect example of the way liberals speak in code when they want to make an ideological argument without conceding that that is what they are doing. They hide ideological claims in rhetorical Trojan horses, hoping to conquer terrain unearned by real debate.

Of course, Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats when it comes to reducing arguments to bumper stickers. (Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has written that the presidents economic experiment has failed. It is time to get back to what we know works.) But the vast majority of Republicans, Ryan included, will at least acknowledge their ideological first principles free markets, limited government, property rights. Liberals are terribly reluctant to do likewise. Instead, they often speak in seemingly harmless cliches that they hope will penetrate our mental defenses.

Here are some of the most egregious examples:

Diversity is strength

Affirmative action used to be defended on the grounds that certain groups, particularly African Americans, are entitled to extra help because of the horrible legacy of slavery and institutionalized racism. Whatever objections opponents may raise to that claim, its a legitimate moral argument.

But that argument has been abandoned in recent years and replaced with a far less plausible and far more ideological claim: that enforced diversity is a permanent necessity. Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, famously declared: Diversity is not merely a desirable addition to a well-run education. It is as essential as the study of the Middle Ages, of international politics and of Shakespeare.

Its a nice thought. But consider some of the great minds of human history, and its striking how few were educated in a diverse environment. Newton, Galileo and Einstein had little exposure to Asians or Africans. The genius of Aristotle, Socrates and Plato cannot be easily correlated with the number of non-Greeks with whom they chatted in the town square. If diversity is essential to education, let us get to work dismantling historically black and womens colleges. When I visit campuses, its common to see black and white students eating, studying and socializing separately. This is rounding out everyones education?

Similarly, were constantly told that communities are strengthened by diversity, but liberal Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam has found the opposite. In a survey that included interviews with more than 30,000people, Putnam discovered that as a community becomes more ethnically and socially varied, social trust and civic engagement plummet. Perhaps forced diversity makes sense, but liberals make little effort to prove it.

Violence never solved anything

Its a nice idea, but its manifestly absurd. If violence never solved anything, police would not have guns or nightsticks. Obama helped solve the problem of Moammar Gaddafi with violence, and FDR helped solve the problem far too late of the Holocaust and Hitler with violence. Invariably, the slogan (or its close cousin War is not the answer) is invoked not as a blanket exhortation against violence, but as a narrow injunction against the United States, NATO or Republican presidents from trying to solve threats of violence with violence.

The living Constitution

It is dogma among liberals that sophisticated people understand that the Constitution is a living, breathing document. The idea was largely introduced into the political bloodstream by Woodrow Wilson and his allies, who were desperate to be free of the constraints of the founders vision. Wilson explained that he preferred an evolving, organic, Darwinian Constitution that empowered progressives to breathe whatever meaning they wished into it. It is a wildly ideological view of the nature of our political system.

It is also a font of unending hypocrisy. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, conservatives argued that the country needed to adapt to a new asymmetrical warfare against non-state actors who posed an existential threat. They believed they were working within the bounds of the Constitution. But even if they were stretching things, why shouldnt that be acceptable if our Constitution is supposed to evolve with the times?

Yet acolytes of the living Constitution immediately started quoting the wisdom of the founders and the sanctity of the Constitution. Apparently the document is alive when the Supreme Court finds novel rationalizations for abortion rights, but when we need to figure out how to deal with terrorists, suddenly nothing should pry original meaning from the Constitutions cold, dead hands.

By the way, conservatives do not believe that the Constitution should not change; they just believe that it should change constitutionally through the amendment process.

Social Darwinism

Obama this month denounced the Republican House budget as nothing more than thinly veiled social Darwinism. Liberals have been trotting out this Medusas head to petrify the public for generations. It does sound scary. (After all, didnt Hitler believe in something called social Darwinism? Maybe he did.) But no matter how popular the line, these liberal attacks have little relation to the ideas that the robber barons and such intellectuals as Herbert Spencer the father of social Darwinism actually followed.

Spencers sin was that he was a soaked-to-the-bone libertarian who championed private charity and limited government (along with womens suffrage and anti-imperialism). The reform Darwinists namely the early-20th-century Progressives loathed such classical liberalism because they wanted to tinker with the economy, and humanity itself, at the most basic level.

More vexing for liberals: There was no intellectual movement in the United States called social Darwinism in the first place. Spencer, a 19th-century British philosopher, didnt use the term and wasnt even a Darwinist (he had a different theory of evolution).

Liberals misapplied the label from the outset to demonize ideas they didnt like. Theyve never stopped.

Better 10 guilty men go free ...

At least until George Zimmerman was in the dock, this was a reflexive liberal refrain. The legendary English jurist William Blackstone the fons et origo of much of our common law said, Better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. In fact, this 10 to 1 formula has become known as the Blackstone ratio or Blackstones formulation.

In a brilliant study, n Guilty Men, legal scholar Alexander Volokh traced the idea that it is better to let a certain number of guilty men go free from Abrahams argument with God in Genesis over the fate of Sodom, to the writings of the Roman emperor Trajan, to the legal writings of Moses Maimonides, to Geraldo Rivera.

As a truism, its a laudable and correct sentiment that no reasonable person can find fault with. But thats the problem: No reasonable person disagrees with it. Theres nothing wrong with saying it, but its not an argument its an uncontroversial declarative statement. And yet people say it as if it settles arguments. It doesnt do anything of the sort. The hard thinking comes when you have to deal with the and therefore what? part. Where do we draw the lines? If it were an absolute principle, we wouldnt put anyone in prison, lest we punish an innocent in the process. Indeed, if punishing the innocent is so terrible, why 10? Why not two? Or, for that matter, 200? Or 2,000?

Taken literally, the phrase is absurd. Letting 10 rapists and murderers go free will almost surely result in far more harm to society than putting one poor innocent sap in jail.

When you hear any of these cliches along with I may disagree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it, which is another personal favorite understand that the people uttering them are not trying to have an argument. Theyre trying to win an argument without having it at all.

tyrannyofcliches@gmail.com

Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of the National Review Online and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His book The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas will be published Tuesday.

Read more from Outlook, including:

Thomas Mann and Norman Ornsteins Lets just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

Five myths about conservative voters

Friend us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Read the original post:
Top five cliches liberals use to avoid real arguments ...