Politics and truth

I also thought of my own contradictions. While I was interested in battlers and income disparity, I recognised my own immense ego and quest for a job that paid more money.

And I could not forget the academics that spoke of the need for better public schools but sent their children to private schools, or those who drove old cars with smoke spilling out while they declared their love for the environment in lectures.

By the end of my undergraduate degree, I had changed. Though I still noted the need for an effective manufacturing sector, I also recognised that freer trade was the only fair policy paradigm for encouraging peace and prosperity between competing nations struggling for resources and the influence of certain ideas.

While I had excelled at university, partly because I wrote essays that generally agreed with the views of most academics and tutors, I was increasingly determined to remain committed to the truth, no matter how subjective such an assertion can appear to be or whether it offended the views of fellow students or academics.

But I have tried hard to remain faithful to my prime interest in income disparity both within and between nations, and even environmental degradation, although I admit I am no closer to observing revolutionary solutions.

Today, all I can do is defend the liberal cause and the recent efforts of Western governments to appease both national and international considerations, albeit while I recognise the current economic turmoil and the reality that just a small number of nations still dominate the world economy even if China and India are to be included.

My interpretation of the facts will not even allow me to ridicule the efforts of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, John Howard and George W. Bush, although I have argued that the decision of Australia to support the US in Iraq without a UN mandate was one of the worst policy decisions by liberal democracies (Quadrant).

Sure, I observed the dodgy support given by the US and other nations to corrupt regimes, but I recognised that powerful nations do make tough decisions and often get it wrong.

And I never believed that any Western political leader simply adhered to the theories of Friedman or Hayek and set about to introduce ruthless policies, nor that such liberal economists would ever claim to have the answers to such a complex world. Liberal-minded politicians and economists were doing their best to offer policies and ideas that they believed met the demands of the day.

Rather, I observed the increasing difficulty for Western governments with their post war efforts to both accept the ideal of freer trade yet uphold their national interest to maintain a high standard of living.

In Australia, the struggle was evident under the Hawke and Keating governments to be financially responsible, maintain a manufacturing sector, and improve Australia’s social welfare services.

No longer could Australia rely on high tariffs and high wages while allowing its domestic industry to be uncompetitive against foreign competition. Its close military relationship with the US was now complicated by the rise of China and its increasing economic importance. There was greater concern about welfare dependency compared to the 1960s when just 3 per cent of the Australian population were dependent on such assistance. Australia’s recent embracement of its multicultural nature was challenged by the rise of Islamic extremism, and the environment has become an issue of greater concern, thus requiring greater public resources.