You make some compelling critiques of Albanese's "patriotic progressivism" as something potentially dishonest or at least unconvincing.
However, is this "patriotic progressivism" idea a somewhat reasonable one in principle, as long as it was done convincingly in practice? Isn't the point of this concept that the left should supposedly retake the concept of patriotism from the right? That we can be proud of a country while also acknowledging and addressing its historical and contemporary failings?
If so, then perhaps it's not so much a problem for Albanese to adopt this idea, if he were to do so wholeheartedly (we shall see). The realm problem with it is, unless I'm wrong, that Albanese has only made these claims to "patriotic progressivism" AFTER the election.
If this idea was really so compelling for Albanese, shouldn't he have raised it earlier?
We are now, of course, in the context where all established powers are battling with one another to define what the election result means. So while I think many of us have concluded that the only clear thing we've learned form the election is that voters ran screaming in fear from Dutton and that they largely landed with the government in order to "keep Dutton out", Albanese is instead trying to claim responsibility for the win based on his and his party's own initiatives.
The fact that this ideological battle is being had by political operatives shows the depth of the void that we have in where we are actually going as a nation. The only semblance of a vision we have is a political construct applied from the very top-down by the PM himself, rather than a groundswell of public support for a shared future from the bottom-up.
This just goes to show the incredible importance of creating a people's vision, ideally one that is deliberated upon by a national citizens' assembly. Arguably, it should be the people's choice as to what it is that we all want, and the politician's job should in drafting and explaining their policy proposals for how we are supposed to get there.
What we're seeing now, with Albanese seeking to write his own vision after the fact, is the opposite of that.
Remeikis doesn't waste time claiming that 'patriotism is a right-sided ideal and is anathema to the left'. Some people are making that argument here, and while I like that ambition, I don't see the point of it because having an ideological argument with the Prime Minister is silly. The PM's megaphone is simply too loud for any of us plebs to compete with that. We might as well try and have a polite conversation with the DJ in the middle of a bush doof.
Instead, Remeikis instead makes the very constructive critique of asking what "patriotic progressivism" might look like? This is how we can measure a PM's achievements against his own ideal. It's also extremely neat that she starts and ends with references to Orwell.
So while I fully support Remeikis' main critiques, my argument is slightly different to that, but Remeikis does mention it:
"But if there is one thing we can take from history, its that politicians shouldn’t be in charge of defining either nations or the political spectrum."
I don't think it's appropriate for the PM to be retrospectively writing his own vision immediately after an election. Having a vision is incredibly important, but it should be something that is set and owned by the people. Like party politics usurping policy-making from the parliament, the PM is usurping vision-making from the people.
Bravo TD, bravo. Well done. Yes as you write: 'Democracy isn’t about naturalising a single party but of allowing the people to govern themselves as they see fit with different vehicles at different times.'.
And as you state: 'The clearest statement of that was Albanese comment in the same interview that “our destiny [is] to try to be the natural party of government.'
this should be the biggest cause for concern however I think that Labor faction leaders intend to maintain the farcical corporatised duopoly model. We have evolved an illusion of a democracy that
is blindly accepted by a sedated electorated.
Lastly this may be the case: 'The days of media moguls deciding Australian elections are over, according to new research by The Australia Institute.', however until I'm convinced otherwise the media moguls still dicatate policy to the duopoly & so indirectly they are still deciding what precise topics elections are fought on. I find the whole process insulting. Cheers
Thank you for the article Tim, I've been unwell and although I had to concentrate to read it I enjoyed it very much.
I dislike the entire notion of patriotism. It seems terribly strange to me to have pride in your place of birth, we have utterly no choice in the matter. It feels like taking undue credit to me.
I'm also of the view that it's divisive. How can we value all human life equally if we are divided by nations which compete?
So I was dismayed at this latest slogan. It feels like saying 'we want lefty rightism'.
It bothered me since childhood. Only recently did I manage to find the words to describe the feeling. I'm quite humbled by the approval, Thank you, commenters.
You have just explained perfectly why patriotism is of such importance to conservatives. And perhaps this is Albanese's feeble attempt to beat them at their own game.
"“We see there is a role for the state in improving people’s lives, but we also very much believe in markets, and that markets are a democratic mechanism as well. I believe in the private sector being the key driver of growth, but the public sector should step in where there is market failure.”"
Privatise the profits and socialise the losses.
As for 'patriotic progressivism' I chocked on reading that. Just another move to try to take over ground from the flag wavers in the Coalition. Labor are cementing themselves in by taking over centre right neoliberal economics and Liberal party talking points and tactics. If this keeps up there will be openings for left leaning independents at the next election. I would support them instead of the Greens if they looked like upsetting 'new' Labor.
I have referred to old media as the legacy media or the corporate media even though I know that left leaning media can operate as a pty ltd company.
In the SMH today, George Brandis was prattling on about 'Liberal values' so I sent in this letter: "George Brandis asks about Liberal values. The creation of the Liberal party had one purpose in mind and that was to oppose the left of politics which was represented by Labor and the unions. Now that Labor is ostensibly a centre right party economically and that Labor's Accords have left the union movement mostly irrelevant, the job is finished and the Liberals have lost their purpose and reason for existing."
Which I believe is exactly Labor's plan. Make the Liberals irrelevant by being right wing. No doubt some numpty will still trot out the 'socialist Labor' garbage but they will be ignored.
Nicely put, Graeme. I hope they publish your letter. Underlying all this is this ridiculous notion that politics is about parties and teams rather than getting things done. The whole idea that we should pursue an agenda, a policy platform, or a mandate--however you dress it up--rather than solve actual problems collectively is so deeply ingrained people can't even see it. Thus my wish for minority government, to at least try to break the mindset.
Too much for an old lefty to take in at one read, but Albos PP statement scared the shit out of me at first read. I hope he can back it up with revolutionary progressivism and take AUSTRALIA
into a wonderful future (gas free or tax the shit out of them) where all our people prosper and are happy (not Brethren happy)
Thanks for the uptick for Andrew Leigh - one of the very very few non-factional Labor MPs - as you have previously identified. "Progressive" appeals to me - but the use of "patriotism" as a rallying cry/slogan - that sets off warning bells for me. That's definitely a swing to the right or further to the right from where the federal ALP already is - as centre-right. And watching the "progress" of Albanese from Indonesia to the Pope's investiture/coronation to his meetings with the rabid EU & associates - such as von der Leyen and Zelenskiy... not at all beyond Indonesia - reassuring.
So I see how the definition he wishes to promote is negated in the exact way in which Ed Husić explains: “You can’t celebrate diversity and then expect it to sit in the corner silent.”
The idea that Albanese can say something such as: "...but we also very much believe in markets, and that markets are a democratic mechanism as well. I believe in the private sector being the key driver of growth..."!! Markets and private sector as democratic and key driver - Fair dinkum??? Antheter Albadutton - rise up!
It's a shame some of the vaunted cooperation with Europe and Canada hasn't led to Australia being a co-signatory to the recent UK-Canada-France statement about Gaza.
Although, on the other hand, according to many of the sources I read - Israel did suffer a heinous attack on October 7, 2023 - only most of the deaths that day - especially from the Nova rave party - were the result of IDF action under the so-called Hannibal Directive - and then blamed on Hamas in order to push the genocide into operation. I don't think I'd want Australia to be joining the duplicitous and ideologically non-Labour Party Starmer (ref. Asa Winstanley's "The Weaponising of Anti-Semitism") in any joint statement... To me the Starmer statement looks as if drafted by the Zionists... Jim
Much as I dislike pushing back, Tim - this sudden handholding amongst foreign ministers does not inspire me with any hope for the cessation of the genocide - and as well - this report is by a journalist? an ideological reporter? called Matthew Knott who was very soundly put in his place some time back by Francesca Albanese when he tried a "Gotcha" question to her at the National Press Club in Canberra.
Andrew Leigh is impressively quiet and knows his stuff We can feel safer with most of Labor and the Greens can take them to task with our mate Larissa charming the bejesus out of the rising labor stars 🥰
Brilliant work Tim, thank you. Yes, "the natural party of government"! What a thing to aspire to! Not a society where nobody is homeless or poor or in want of care. No, it's all about us, the Labor Party, in power forever. This is a statement with no heart and no soul, just hubris.
It is another one of those phrases that is so taken for granted, most of us barely notice. But it falls apart on the slightest examination. Yeah, I hate the idea.
"Since the 1980s, Australia’s has shifted relentlessly to the right and the “centre” has inevitably shifted with it. Labor has been the vehicle of that."
Thanks Tim, it's good to read someone who accurately analyses the historical context of politics in Australia. I'm so tired of hearing all the bullshit, mostly spouted by journalists who were actually there, but who refuse to see what was in front of their very eyes.
It was a formative period for journalists at the time and a lot of mythology has grown up around the "reforms". Which is not to play down what a monumental shift it was, in fact, the opposite. But we've now had 40-odd years to make an assessment and reflect and the rosy coloured glasses need to come off.
A "sweeping victory" where Labor's first prefs went from 32 to 34% means party messaging to promote loyalty within our largely apolitical population shouldn't be a surprising response. The broader context beyond Trump hasn't been talked about much in this thread, but Tim Soutphommasane has promoted "patriotic progressivism", most recently in The VIrtuous Citizen (see Guy Rundle's Substack). The labour-capital origins of legacy political parties project an organising principle which doesn't resonate, with a widespread collapse of support in Europe for conservative and social democratic parties and their move to the Right in response. I see Albanese's use of these ideas as a defensive strategy rather than an appropriation of right-wing objectives, trying out a modern public identifier for neo-laborism.
With his extended parliamentary authority, there is little scope to blame others for not turning it into a positive program rather than just a slogan. While the Trumpist threat shouldn't be a threat here because, as John Quiggin points out, we are less white, less religious, less rural, our attention-seeking MSM inflames any sign of political/cultural conflict for economic gain, so fringe-dwellers can easily get publicity; Albanese's two word description might be disarming enough to counter the loonies.
I'm having second thoughts on the above, having just seen Ash Sarkar and Michael Walker at Novara Media (Youtube) debate Keir Starmer's recent "Island of Strangers" speech. It has some parallels with Albo's patriotism message, and it would be surprising if the two camps haven't talked about strategic positioning in their respective electorates. Sarkar sees Starmer's effort as a sinister echo of Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" 1968 speech, "dog whistling" in effect. One thing I'll stick to is that international populist trends must be considered for their local relevance; as recently as last July we saw significant Australian support for Trump's anti-government message, and the later eagerness which our local Right jumped on board, which moderates meekly endorsed: the Coalition's only principle is power at any cost. With the right content and inclusive identity, can "progressive patriotism" be a coherent re-statement to embed social democratic values with broad appeal?
Labor made a point of saying they had visited British Labour to "learn" from them so I guess we'd expect some resonances. Been happening for a long time, I guess. As I said, I think there is some value in making statements like this, but it has to reveal, not hide. Contradictions need to be confronted etc, not airbrushed out by a slogan.
Great article, Tim.
You make some compelling critiques of Albanese's "patriotic progressivism" as something potentially dishonest or at least unconvincing.
However, is this "patriotic progressivism" idea a somewhat reasonable one in principle, as long as it was done convincingly in practice? Isn't the point of this concept that the left should supposedly retake the concept of patriotism from the right? That we can be proud of a country while also acknowledging and addressing its historical and contemporary failings?
If so, then perhaps it's not so much a problem for Albanese to adopt this idea, if he were to do so wholeheartedly (we shall see). The realm problem with it is, unless I'm wrong, that Albanese has only made these claims to "patriotic progressivism" AFTER the election.
If this idea was really so compelling for Albanese, shouldn't he have raised it earlier?
We are now, of course, in the context where all established powers are battling with one another to define what the election result means. So while I think many of us have concluded that the only clear thing we've learned form the election is that voters ran screaming in fear from Dutton and that they largely landed with the government in order to "keep Dutton out", Albanese is instead trying to claim responsibility for the win based on his and his party's own initiatives.
The fact that this ideological battle is being had by political operatives shows the depth of the void that we have in where we are actually going as a nation. The only semblance of a vision we have is a political construct applied from the very top-down by the PM himself, rather than a groundswell of public support for a shared future from the bottom-up.
This just goes to show the incredible importance of creating a people's vision, ideally one that is deliberated upon by a national citizens' assembly. Arguably, it should be the people's choice as to what it is that we all want, and the politician's job should in drafting and explaining their policy proposals for how we are supposed to get there.
What we're seeing now, with Albanese seeking to write his own vision after the fact, is the opposite of that.
Yes, it is worth reading Amy Remmeikis's piece on this: https://amyremeikis.substack.com/p/progressive-patriotism-is-nothing
Yes, that's an excellent article.
Remeikis doesn't waste time claiming that 'patriotism is a right-sided ideal and is anathema to the left'. Some people are making that argument here, and while I like that ambition, I don't see the point of it because having an ideological argument with the Prime Minister is silly. The PM's megaphone is simply too loud for any of us plebs to compete with that. We might as well try and have a polite conversation with the DJ in the middle of a bush doof.
Instead, Remeikis instead makes the very constructive critique of asking what "patriotic progressivism" might look like? This is how we can measure a PM's achievements against his own ideal. It's also extremely neat that she starts and ends with references to Orwell.
So while I fully support Remeikis' main critiques, my argument is slightly different to that, but Remeikis does mention it:
"But if there is one thing we can take from history, its that politicians shouldn’t be in charge of defining either nations or the political spectrum."
I don't think it's appropriate for the PM to be retrospectively writing his own vision immediately after an election. Having a vision is incredibly important, but it should be something that is set and owned by the people. Like party politics usurping policy-making from the parliament, the PM is usurping vision-making from the people.
Bravo TD, bravo. Well done. Yes as you write: 'Democracy isn’t about naturalising a single party but of allowing the people to govern themselves as they see fit with different vehicles at different times.'.
And as you state: 'The clearest statement of that was Albanese comment in the same interview that “our destiny [is] to try to be the natural party of government.'
this should be the biggest cause for concern however I think that Labor faction leaders intend to maintain the farcical corporatised duopoly model. We have evolved an illusion of a democracy that
is blindly accepted by a sedated electorated.
Lastly this may be the case: 'The days of media moguls deciding Australian elections are over, according to new research by The Australia Institute.', however until I'm convinced otherwise the media moguls still dicatate policy to the duopoly & so indirectly they are still deciding what precise topics elections are fought on. I find the whole process insulting. Cheers
Thank you for the article Tim, I've been unwell and although I had to concentrate to read it I enjoyed it very much.
I dislike the entire notion of patriotism. It seems terribly strange to me to have pride in your place of birth, we have utterly no choice in the matter. It feels like taking undue credit to me.
I'm also of the view that it's divisive. How can we value all human life equally if we are divided by nations which compete?
So I was dismayed at this latest slogan. It feels like saying 'we want lefty rightism'.
well said
Well said, PP!
Ha, that's an interesting way to put it, PP.
It bothered me since childhood. Only recently did I manage to find the words to describe the feeling. I'm quite humbled by the approval, Thank you, commenters.
You have just explained perfectly why patriotism is of such importance to conservatives. And perhaps this is Albanese's feeble attempt to beat them at their own game.
"“We see there is a role for the state in improving people’s lives, but we also very much believe in markets, and that markets are a democratic mechanism as well. I believe in the private sector being the key driver of growth, but the public sector should step in where there is market failure.”"
Privatise the profits and socialise the losses.
As for 'patriotic progressivism' I chocked on reading that. Just another move to try to take over ground from the flag wavers in the Coalition. Labor are cementing themselves in by taking over centre right neoliberal economics and Liberal party talking points and tactics. If this keeps up there will be openings for left leaning independents at the next election. I would support them instead of the Greens if they looked like upsetting 'new' Labor.
I have referred to old media as the legacy media or the corporate media even though I know that left leaning media can operate as a pty ltd company.
In the SMH today, George Brandis was prattling on about 'Liberal values' so I sent in this letter: "George Brandis asks about Liberal values. The creation of the Liberal party had one purpose in mind and that was to oppose the left of politics which was represented by Labor and the unions. Now that Labor is ostensibly a centre right party economically and that Labor's Accords have left the union movement mostly irrelevant, the job is finished and the Liberals have lost their purpose and reason for existing."
Which I believe is exactly Labor's plan. Make the Liberals irrelevant by being right wing. No doubt some numpty will still trot out the 'socialist Labor' garbage but they will be ignored.
Very true Graeme. Labor's role in destroying the unions gets too little attention.
Nicely put, Graeme. I hope they publish your letter. Underlying all this is this ridiculous notion that politics is about parties and teams rather than getting things done. The whole idea that we should pursue an agenda, a policy platform, or a mandate--however you dress it up--rather than solve actual problems collectively is so deeply ingrained people can't even see it. Thus my wish for minority government, to at least try to break the mindset.
Thank you for this comment, you describe what I see so clearly.
I would add that Chalmers has always been Thatcherite neoliberal.
Wow Tim
Too much for an old lefty to take in at one read, but Albos PP statement scared the shit out of me at first read. I hope he can back it up with revolutionary progressivism and take AUSTRALIA
into a wonderful future (gas free or tax the shit out of them) where all our people prosper and are happy (not Brethren happy)
cheers
Thanks for the uptick for Andrew Leigh - one of the very very few non-factional Labor MPs - as you have previously identified. "Progressive" appeals to me - but the use of "patriotism" as a rallying cry/slogan - that sets off warning bells for me. That's definitely a swing to the right or further to the right from where the federal ALP already is - as centre-right. And watching the "progress" of Albanese from Indonesia to the Pope's investiture/coronation to his meetings with the rabid EU & associates - such as von der Leyen and Zelenskiy... not at all beyond Indonesia - reassuring.
So I see how the definition he wishes to promote is negated in the exact way in which Ed Husić explains: “You can’t celebrate diversity and then expect it to sit in the corner silent.”
The idea that Albanese can say something such as: "...but we also very much believe in markets, and that markets are a democratic mechanism as well. I believe in the private sector being the key driver of growth..."!! Markets and private sector as democratic and key driver - Fair dinkum??? Antheter Albadutton - rise up!
It's a shame some of the vaunted cooperation with Europe and Canada hasn't led to Australia being a co-signatory to the recent UK-Canada-France statement about Gaza.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-from-the-leaders-of-the-united-kingdom-france-and-canada-on-the-situation-in-gaza-and-the-west-bank
Although, on the other hand, according to many of the sources I read - Israel did suffer a heinous attack on October 7, 2023 - only most of the deaths that day - especially from the Nova rave party - were the result of IDF action under the so-called Hannibal Directive - and then blamed on Hamas in order to push the genocide into operation. I don't think I'd want Australia to be joining the duplicitous and ideologically non-Labour Party Starmer (ref. Asa Winstanley's "The Weaponising of Anti-Semitism") in any joint statement... To me the Starmer statement looks as if drafted by the Zionists... Jim
Worth noting we have now joined with some other countries in condemning what's happening. Now we have to turn words into actions, as does everyone else. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-blasts-israel-in-joint-statement-demanding-aid-for-starving-gazans-20250520-p5m0nc.html
Much as I dislike pushing back, Tim - this sudden handholding amongst foreign ministers does not inspire me with any hope for the cessation of the genocide - and as well - this report is by a journalist? an ideological reporter? called Matthew Knott who was very soundly put in his place some time back by Francesca Albanese when he tried a "Gotcha" question to her at the National Press Club in Canberra.
Andrew Leigh is impressively quiet and knows his stuff We can feel safer with most of Labor and the Greens can take them to task with our mate Larissa charming the bejesus out of the rising labor stars 🥰
I really admire Leigh but he is steeped in that view of liberal economics that is now at the heart of Labor's agenda.
Oh for an MP who mentions Doughnut economics
Brilliant work Tim, thank you. Yes, "the natural party of government"! What a thing to aspire to! Not a society where nobody is homeless or poor or in want of care. No, it's all about us, the Labor Party, in power forever. This is a statement with no heart and no soul, just hubris.
It is another one of those phrases that is so taken for granted, most of us barely notice. But it falls apart on the slightest examination. Yeah, I hate the idea.
"Since the 1980s, Australia’s has shifted relentlessly to the right and the “centre” has inevitably shifted with it. Labor has been the vehicle of that."
Thanks Tim, it's good to read someone who accurately analyses the historical context of politics in Australia. I'm so tired of hearing all the bullshit, mostly spouted by journalists who were actually there, but who refuse to see what was in front of their very eyes.
It was a formative period for journalists at the time and a lot of mythology has grown up around the "reforms". Which is not to play down what a monumental shift it was, in fact, the opposite. But we've now had 40-odd years to make an assessment and reflect and the rosy coloured glasses need to come off.
A "sweeping victory" where Labor's first prefs went from 32 to 34% means party messaging to promote loyalty within our largely apolitical population shouldn't be a surprising response. The broader context beyond Trump hasn't been talked about much in this thread, but Tim Soutphommasane has promoted "patriotic progressivism", most recently in The VIrtuous Citizen (see Guy Rundle's Substack). The labour-capital origins of legacy political parties project an organising principle which doesn't resonate, with a widespread collapse of support in Europe for conservative and social democratic parties and their move to the Right in response. I see Albanese's use of these ideas as a defensive strategy rather than an appropriation of right-wing objectives, trying out a modern public identifier for neo-laborism.
With his extended parliamentary authority, there is little scope to blame others for not turning it into a positive program rather than just a slogan. While the Trumpist threat shouldn't be a threat here because, as John Quiggin points out, we are less white, less religious, less rural, our attention-seeking MSM inflames any sign of political/cultural conflict for economic gain, so fringe-dwellers can easily get publicity; Albanese's two word description might be disarming enough to counter the loonies.
I'm having second thoughts on the above, having just seen Ash Sarkar and Michael Walker at Novara Media (Youtube) debate Keir Starmer's recent "Island of Strangers" speech. It has some parallels with Albo's patriotism message, and it would be surprising if the two camps haven't talked about strategic positioning in their respective electorates. Sarkar sees Starmer's effort as a sinister echo of Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" 1968 speech, "dog whistling" in effect. One thing I'll stick to is that international populist trends must be considered for their local relevance; as recently as last July we saw significant Australian support for Trump's anti-government message, and the later eagerness which our local Right jumped on board, which moderates meekly endorsed: the Coalition's only principle is power at any cost. With the right content and inclusive identity, can "progressive patriotism" be a coherent re-statement to embed social democratic values with broad appeal?
Labor made a point of saying they had visited British Labour to "learn" from them so I guess we'd expect some resonances. Been happening for a long time, I guess. As I said, I think there is some value in making statements like this, but it has to reveal, not hide. Contradictions need to be confronted etc, not airbrushed out by a slogan.