Australian wisdom?

In truth, the world will go on. Capitalism will remain crucial to encouraging and rewarding innovation and hard work, we will continue to develop in a way consistent with the age-old struggle for resources and the influence of particular ideas, and we will offer band aid solutions every now and then to address key issues of concern, although certain policies can make an important difference.

There are no easy answers to a reality that reflects humanity’s ongoing struggle to balance many contradictory aims: self-interest and altruism, competitiveness and compassion, the economy and the environment, and both national and international considerations.

One only has to note the changing policy stances of some of Australia’s most publicised figures to know that policy consensus is never easy. For instance, Clive Hamilton in the early 1990s once advocated a much more interventionist industry policy to protect Australia’s high-tech industries to help Australia’s export performance, yet he now focuses on convincing Australians about the dangers of consumerism and materialism.

Similarly, Ross Garnaut, now urges Australia to adopt measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions after advising Australia from the 1980s to utilise its comparative advantage in resources and agriculture to benefit from high economic growth in Asia.

And there are the obvious hypocrites, as demonstrated by the environmental superhero Al Gore with his 2006 family home utility bill of $30,000 (equivalent to 20 times the US average).

How we will ever achieve a fairer world is far more complex than even our best-intentioned minds can ever contemplate. Nevertheless, no matter how difficult such a task may be in this world of immense competition, the need to aspire to policies that can unite people should be central to any half-decent commentator, whether they define themselves as a liberal, conservative, or even a critic of capitalism.

After all, many Australians who do influence election outcomes vote for very different political parties for different reasons; ranging from the economy to the environment, although many support a particular party for self-interested or ideological reasons.

So while Janet Albrechtsen’s article in the Wall Street Journal (October 6, 2008) suggested how the US could learn from Australia’s lending practices - which encourages greater borrowing responsibility as any default must cover the shortfall in the loss of value - she could make a greater effort to indicate how Australia can best deal with record home unaffordability and much higher rental prices.

And with Andrew Bolt often defending the importance of democracy, why persist with a ridiculous assertion that Australians (as a small nation) can make little difference in regard to the environment (ABC’s Insiders, October 26, 2008)?

I would have thought that Bolt’s promotion of democracy would urge Australia to play its part among like-minded nations if an issue needs to be promoted, as the West itself is a minority of the world’s nations seeking to maintain global leadership. You either believe that we have to address environmental degradation or you don’t; although how fast and to what extent we reform is a matter for extensive debate.

Australian society continues to evolve, despite many old and new problems that remain. One only has to note that Australians are less protectionist and racist than in the past, have accepted greater responsibility for past wrongs to Australia’s Indigenous population, and have continued to encourage Australian governments to provide considerable resources for various social welfare needs, despite important differences between Labor and the Coalition over the degree of government intervention.

However, if the need to compete in economic terms continues to force ongoing economic reform - and this is likely as long as Western nations support freer trade - severe policy limitations will emerge for Australia in future years.