-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, 17 October 1998 11:52 PM
Subject: RE: One Nation
>[DK]
>Albert wrote:
>
>>It is logically possible for Neither to
>>become an organization which includes both One Nation supporters
>>and people "on the left" united solely by its core principles of
>>opposition to the ALP and Coalition two party state and its objective
>of
>>achieving PR. This thread is largely about whether or not we
>>should attempt to do that.
>
>Neither will have made an enormous contribution to good Australian
>government if it succeeds in achieving its core aim as stated on its
>website
>of seeking to smash the two party system .... and nothing else.
>
>But don't underestimate the magnitude of that task.... better funded
>and
>better organized groups have already tried and failed.
>
>You will need the co-operation of every ally you can muster just to
>achieve
>that one goal, no matter what those diverse allies may individually
>support
>on any other issue you care to name.
>
>My recommendation therefore is that you nurture supporters from wherever
>they may come; avoid alienating any; concentrate on achieving your
>primary
>goal rather than being sidetracked by the multitude of other issues that
>come along; and leave your supporters the freedom decide for themselves
>whether to support any other group, party, or independent who may
>appeal.
>
>[AL]
>Basically I agree and see no problem with supporters of One Nation
>being members of Neither.
>
>However there may be a severe problem with alienating potential
>supporters "on the left" if we as an organization do not take a clear
>stand against the racist policies of One Nation at the same time as we
>are engaged in parallel efforts against the two party state and for PR,
>which will after all be of immediate benefit to One Nation and of little
>immediate benefit to people "on the left" (who are a long way from being
>able to form any kind of mass party that would win even 1 quota in a
>House of Representatives based on PR).
What is the difference between the 'racist' policies - as you call them - of
ON, and the ethnics who also do not want more immigration, and the abos who
want the parasites in ATSIC sprayed with insect killer - they are all racist
too I supose in your view. No? Have you stopped believing media hype and
wanking yet?
>
>One Nation has been able to woo a substantial section of National party
>voters, as well as many Liberal and ALP voters away from the parties
>they support.
>
>In my view there is a much larger pool of disillusioned ALP voters on
>the left of the ALP who could be won away from it by an organization
>that is clearly (but non-factionally) "on the left" but are unlikely to
>be swayed by an organization that appears "neutral". There is also
>a problem with the amount of energy that people will put in to a
>political organization that maintains an artificial neutrality.
>(PR societies have existed for many years without many people getting
>fired up enough about their views to really put an effort into
>"winning").
>
>A fight to "smash the two party system" requires reasons for opposing
>the two parties that can mobilize people to actually smash them. The
>mere "desirability" of PR is not enough. In putting forward reasons we
>have to express an "attitude" towards political issues, even if we don't
>explicitly have a "policy" on numerous matters we might disagree about.
>That "attitude" is inevitably coloured by being "on the left" or "on the
>right".
>
>If we do express an attitude "on the left", and One Nation supporters
>can "wear" being part of an organization whose core principles they
>agree with but that is also clearly hostile to the party they support,
>that would be fine by me. But I don't think it would be easy.
>
>On the other hand, if the organization is "on the left" it may be even
>harder to avoid distraction resulting from differences "on any issue you
>care to name". That has been the history of attempts to organize broad
>organizations "on the left" in Australia.
>
>I believe the key in either case is to maintain a clear distinction
>between "criteria for membership" and "policies" (as the mainstream
>political parties do).
>
>To achieve the core aim of smashing the two party system I believe it
>will be necessary to demonstrate the feasability of a representative
>legislature in which a full range of political viewpoints actually
>debate each other rather than just two very similar parties abusing each
>other over trivialities.
>
>A "Parliament of the Net" conducting higher level political debates than
>occur in Canberra or the mass media could contribute to that.
>
>Ongoing discussions in this mailing list about Neither policies
>conducted in the same "higher level", spirit could help prepare for
>that. Let's try it and see how we go.
>
>[AL]
>>My view is that in the long run, One Nation will lead opposition to the
>>two party state and support for PR from the right, Neither will do so
>>from the left and we will coordinate our activities to the extent
>>necessary through direct liasion between opposing organizations with
>>certain common objectives and through common support for "neutral"
>>organizations such as Electoral Reform Societies which really do have
>no
>>other agenda.
>
>[DK]
>I realise the categories "left" and "right" can have some uses, but they
>are
>often a hindrance when it is assumed that the two groupings need to
>oppose
>rather than co-operate in achieving desired goals. I truly believe more
>can
>be accomplished by co-operation than by competition.
>
>Dave
>
>[AL] Well I'm all for co-operation (as well as competition).
>It was great meeting a group of Christian Right-To-Lifers who came round
>to express their good wishes on my release from prison and persisted in
>saying that I was a "righteous" person despite being very clear on the
>fundamental differences in world outlook.
>
>The most enjoyable united front I have been in was with the Liberals
>against the ALP over the Australia card as our differences of principle
>were quite clear and it was basically free of the internal
>competition characteristic of factional "left" united fronts. We simply
>cooperated to defeat the Australia card (though of course Howard was not
>really opposed to it and short-circuited a movement that could have
>actually brought down the Hawke government by announcing the "bungle"
>concerning Senate approval of regulations which got them off the hook).
>
>I can see such a united front being practical on a "single issue" like a
>Vote No campaign for the referendum. If One Nation took that position
>(btw does anyone know if they will?), differences between them and other
>participants such as Monarchists and radical republicans should not be
>an obstacle to cooperation in achieving a common goal with a division of
>labor in working to achieve that goal.
>
>My point is that "smashing the two party system" is not a "single issue"
>but involves an overall "attitude". Converging attacks from both right
>and left may actually be more effective than attempting to express a
>neutral "attitude" which is not really supported by anybody in Neither.
>
>BTW, single member electorates and a two party system have survived only
>in Australia, the US and Britain because of the relative "moderation" of
>the politics of those countries. Sharper differences between different
>political parties in other countries require PR to avoid a denial of
>representation that could otherwise lead to civil strife ;-)
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send an email to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
>
>For help with this mailing list, look at
>http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
>
