The Green non-revolution

Two particular changes are emblematic of the new Greens demographic. The 2012 decision to ditch estate duties (inheritance tax) is a sure sign of their awareness that they have a wealthier support base whose economic interests they must defend. Their shift from opposing Australia’s population growth to supporting large scale immigration demonstrates their disregard of poorer lower wage voters. High levels of immigration disproportionately create competition amongst those in the lower wage bracket, while providing cheaper services, restaurants and childcare for middle-income Australians. Demonstrated by Di Natali’s careful assurance that he was paying his nannies ‘above’ minimum wage, as any egalitarian would.

Refugees, student radicalism, military spending, uranium and the IMF are all issues that speak to the radical edge of the Greens base but that are not the things that sustain the party election after election.

Libertarian political parties are fantastically unsuccessful because they tell people up front that their fundamental purpose is to not provide the services states normally do. The Greens do not make this mistake or the mistakes of the radical left. They are uniquely effective at acting in the interests of their supporters while appearing to not be doing so.

The only comparison could be the Tea Party in the United States which rails against big government and socialised medicine while being firmly in support of the existing health and social security guarantees expected by future retirees.

Parties after all are vehicles for advancing the economic and social interests of their supporters and the Greens are no exception. If they were truly radical and revolutionary they would be about as successful as the Communist Party or the Australia First Party. It just so happens that the Greens are already among the most fortunate and want more state support for their lives and the lives of their children.