In Rudd we trust: the failure of left-wing political commentary.(Politics)(Kevin Rudd)

AFTER TWENTY-FIVE YEARS of substantial economic reform, reflective of Australia's attempt to benefit from the international economy, the subject of politics remains largely debated at the public intellectual level between two sets of supporters: those on the Left who dominate the social sciences at Australia's universities and offer much criticism (and hardy anything else), and those on the supposed Right who are generally committed to policies that they perceive as being necessary to uphold the national interest through a greater promotion of freer trade and the private sector than in the past.

For those on the Left, their supposed monopoly of concern for vulnerable members of society often leads them to oppose many of the policy trends of recent years. They are reluctant to accept the promotion of freer trade; they oppose Australia's closer alliance with the USA, especially the Howard government's sending Australian troops to Iraq without waiting for a UN mandate; they castigate the Howard government over its unwillingness to sign the Kyoto protocol and address other environmental problems; and they criticise the ongoing reliance upon credit and borrowing to fuel economic activity, which has resulted in an extremely high level of private debt.

Despite the efforts of the Left, Australia, like much of the world, continues to embrace economic liberalisation. Australians get on with making the most of their situation, although they expect Australian governments to act responsibly in the national interest. And though they hardly view politics as one of the most noble of professions, they continue to support the Coalition and Labor as being the political parties most capable of balancing and addressing Australia's economic, social and environmental needs.

From the interaction between political parties, interest groups and public opinion, Australians have debated a number of issues and have generally accepted a degree of economic reform which has allowed the nation to remain one of the most prosperous in the world, notwithstanding the reality that many ordinary people are now struggling under rising housing costs, and the enormous problems caused by unprecedented environmental degradation.

Yet, even in this federal election year, when intellectual honesty should be evident from academics in public commentary on the vital issues, those on the simplistic Left refuse to offer sophisticated analysis of policy possibilities and limitations. Some left-wing political commentators, such as Robert Manne, Clive Hamilton and Judith Brett, make little effort to even discuss some of the harsh realities that confront Australia in a world of competing nations. Political analysis to them, even in this election year, mostly reflects their commitment to the ideal of the perfect society, criticising the Howard government and ignoring the need to discuss how plausible Labor's alternative policies are in a competitive world. Judith Brett not only stated in the March issue of the Monthly that "Howard seems unable to focus on the long-term future of the nation, let alone the planet", but argued in the July edition that Rudd is a "social democrat" who was committed to policies that help all Australians. So much for balanced and unbiased political commentary from a professor of Australian politics.

So has the subject of politics become of interest merely to those who want to hear ideas or arguments which pay little attention to the limiting factors that help explain policy trends today, and to those who just highlight the need to address competitive realities that have led to policies which have promoted freer trade and less government intervention, which has placed immense pressure upon Australia's taxation and industrial relations systems?

For those of us who are concerned about adverse policy trends which may be emerging in regard to income disparity (both within Australia and between nations) and environmental degradation, but who generally support processes associated with freer trade, we are also interested in ideas that may help shape a better world. The only difference between us and those on the simplistic Left is that we dare to indicate the truth about policy limitations, not because we embrace recent policy trends, but because there are important reasons why such policy trends have emerged and need to be addressed. Hence, when considering new ideas for policies, we do not ignore the reality of the competitive nature of international relations, where nations struggle to gain resources and influence each other through the promotion of certain ideas.