Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« CTV's Tom Clark interviews President Bush | Main | News of the Day »

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Watch the Aussies

John O’Sullivan writing in the March 27 edition of National Review does a magnificent job of skewering the wishy-washy, Red Tory-style policies of the British Conservative Party under their new leader David Cameron.

Writes O’Sullivan: “The Tories are still a party in search of a political philosophy, an empty vessel that, these days, is making a little more noise.”

He then goes on to suggest American conservative politicians should not seek to emulate the British Tory model, suggesting they look instead down under.

”If the GOP is looking for an example of a conservative party that is robust philosophically and successful electorally, it need look no farther than John Howard’s Australian Liberal party. Howard has won four successive elections, introduced a series of major conservative economic reforms, presided over astonishing growth in the Australian economy, and won over sections of the electorate that until recently were wedded to the Labour party. There are many reasons for Howard’s success. Most frequently mentioned is his perseverance. But I will hazard one of my own: Howard would rather be right than nice.”

Good advice for American conservatives. Good advice for Canadian conservatives too.

Cross-posted at Gerry's Blog

Posted by Gerrynicholls on March 29, 2006 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Watch the Aussies:


Yes, Howard is terrific; his approach to terrorism is perfect - objectively realistic and with none of the subjective apologetics of multiculturalism and political correctness (aka Canada).

And, the Australian structure of their political legislature is also excellent; it's bicameral but both houses are elected. Their Senate is elected, with each region having the same number of senators, and with a limited term. Their House is smaller, and again, with a limited term.

They don't dither around in international political rhetoric - like the US - they simply go out and get things done. They look after themselves, unlike Canada - where we have always relied on the US to look after any problems in the world.

I hope that now, with Harper, Canada can move out of the hypocritical cave of Trudeau's national socialism and international indifference. But, it won't be easy; we've a generation of brainwashing to deal with - and the result is latte crowd of leftist sophistry/

Posted by: ET | 2006-03-29 10:46:29 AM

Bush and Harper already emulate Howard, selling out their countrymen to massive levels of non-traditional immigration, [Australia is now 24% foreign born]simply for political expediency. The funny thing is that neither Hispanics nor vismins vote Conservative, no matter how much they kiss their ass.

The riots at Australia's Cronulla beach, between vismins and whites, are just the beginning.

Posted by: DJ | 2006-03-29 1:22:56 PM

This topic brings us back to yesterday’s threads on semantics. John Howard is really a classic liberal. Chirac in France is a conservative socialist. We can see this with strikes and France youth wanting job security (whereas American youth have no intentions of staying with one company long enough to get fired). So the French are really traditional conservatives wanting the status quo, not change. That’s really what socialists want also, no change, just government type secured jobs.

So it’s really the Conservatives in Canada and in Australia that want change. PMPM, was like a French conservative, deep down wanting the status quo; hence Martin’s dithering with all his priorities actually gave him his desired outcome of no change or plus ça change.

Quebec has tilted toward French socialist-conservatism, it will be interesting to see if Charest and Harper can turn that Province around to more classic liberalism and become more entrepreneurial and dynamic- I’m optimistic about this for the first time in decades.

All our terminology needs to be reversed as to who’s a freedom-fighting, individualistic, competitive “liberal” and who’s a status quo “conservative”. No wonder I get confused.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-29 1:59:49 PM

If the British Tories need a political philosophy they would do well to emulate Israel's Kadima:

"Kadima was founded on the premise that Israel's long-term survival depends on safeguarding its Jewish majority and preventing Palestinian Arabs becoming the majority at any time in the future."

Mr. Cameron, England's long-term survival depends on safeguarding its English majority.

Posted by: DJ | 2006-03-29 2:04:36 PM

I wouldn't bet on that DJ, for contrary to the rest of the West, the Australian government took the proper hard line concerning the Islamists who were the cause of the riots. Considering that these groups of young Muslim men had the habit of attacking and abusing non-Muslim female bathers at the beach and that when Australian life-guards went to their defense, they were attacked with one being stabbed, the Australians reacted by attacked same Muslims. This was not the s0-called riots reported here, with mean white racists beating up poor Muslims. The government has since come out stating clearly that it will no longer tolerate those immigrants who refuse to asimilate and who seek to impose their ways on Australia. A few years ago when boat loads of Muslims tried landing illegally in Australia claiming 'refugee status', and this after the same people refused to disembark in Indonesia (a Muslim country by the way), Australia refused them entry - rightly so - inspite of the cries and abuse of the U.N. and the rest of the world. Quiet different from us.

They at least have seen the light and understand the danger. I wouldn't be suprised to see them start deporting some of these problem individuals. I admire their refusal to be intimated and pushed around, and we would do well to act more like them.

Posted by: Alain | 2006-03-29 2:14:38 PM

DJ, to make an understatement, you would be a traditional conservative, certainly on matters of immigration. Life is going to be frustrating for you as the Anglo-Saxon post-moderns are practically barren while the world’s population moves from 6.5 billion to 10 billion by 2050 before levelling off. That growth from the third world will be on the shores of the West.

If Anglo-Saxon’s won’t reproduce themselves they have only one other option: indoctrinate their societal values upon those entering the country and kill the multi-culti beast. I agree with Alain, Australia has figured it out.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-29 2:28:46 PM


" He then goes on to suggest American conservative politicians should not seek to emulate the British Tory model, suggesting they look instead down under."

Exactly how does he imagine that anyone is "Emulating" the British Tories???

As for Howard...he may talk tough on Immigration but he's a meddling LIberal Socialist when it comes to personal freedoms and enterprise.

Posted by: PGP | 2006-03-29 6:24:20 PM

Your correct Alain it was not a riot but self-defence. However, why did white Ozzies have to respond in kind before the gov't took action? The bottom line is that there is no need for immigration in OZ or Canada, and especially no need for non traditional immigration, because it will cause conflict.

And if you're correct nomdenet, then why aren't Kadima embracing that strategy? Israeli birth rates, with the possible exception of the Orthodox Jews, are no higher than WASP birth rates. The point is that it's not about indoctrination, it's about ethnic interests. It's how the Jews have survived all these years, even in diaspora, by emphasizing the collective, the Jewish organism. It's evolved and it's brilliant. Thus Kadima choses, naturally, disengagement.

The same option is available to the Anglosphere. Disengage, because if they don't massive non traditional immigration will destroy Anglo-Saxon ethnic genetic interests. It means extinction.

Posted by: DJ | 2006-03-29 7:43:58 PM

Canadas long term survival depends on keeping its european majority.

Unless we want to move our grandchildren to sri Lanka holland or some other multicultural paradise.

We should not let people immigrate here who never even went to high school.

"In 1995, those with 0 to 9 years of education accounted for 18%,"

hard to imagine someone who doesn't even have grade 5 at home [these are adults] not having his grade 5 recognized.....

Over 1/2 of all immigrants to Canada have no qualifications past high school.

We could stop by cutting immigration by over 1/2.

Posted by: ghollingshead | 2006-03-30 8:28:30 AM


Pictures of the pro-illegal immigrant amnesty demonstration in LA.


Posted by: DJ | 2006-03-30 10:03:08 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.