Part 2: Conservative Dissent in the Blogosphere

[Part 1 of “The Rise of Conservative Dissent in the Blogosphere” is here…]

Australia’s successful “tea party moment”

Australia does not have an equivalent historical or cultural legacy on which to build a “Tea Party” styled populist reaction to an elite agenda.[1] A corresponding movement that encapsulates the same mass emotional fervour would necessarily take a different form here. It may therefore be a little odd to describe the defeat of the “Rudd–Turnbull” Emissions Trading Scheme as an Australian “Tea Party moment”, but some striking parallels do exist.

The most obvious was the kind of people involved at both ends of the controversy: a grass-roots campaign seemed to derail elite political consensus in both major parties, forcing it to abandon an agenda otherwise considered a fait accompli by reason of Labor’s electoral victory in 2007, and the ascent of the so-called “moderate” wing of the Liberal Party to the leadership of the Coalition. However, while the US Tea Party is still in the process of consolidating a political identity and program, the Australian “moment” had a clearly defined target and knew precisely what method was required to achieve its desired objective. Like the US Tea Party, it did not appear to have any co-ordinated organisational structure; but this too changed as a consequence of the dramatic shift in the political climate after the failure of Copenhagen and the outcome of the Coalition’s leadership challenge in December 2009.

To understand the role of the public outcry, it’s worth noting how carefully synchronised the views of the Labor government, elements of the media and the Opposition’s “moderates” were around this time. Earlier in the year calls for the Liberal Party to move to the left by “neutering the hardline right-wing elements who are increasingly making the party electorally unattractive”[2] were not uncommon in the press. The visit of Lord Monckton was accompanied by a near complete media blackout, reinforcing the elite consensus in relation to human-induced global warming theory (2GB’s Alan Jones was a notable exception). Since the legislation of an ETS was a feature of the leftist program, opposition was spearheaded generally by conservatives. Passage of the law not only became a litmus test for the ability of the Left to dictate the parameters and direction of reform, but also a trial of how far left the nominally conservative Coalition could be pushed. Thus, in a clear swipe at ETS sceptics, the “father of the Moderates faction in New South Wales” Nick Greiner cautioned his followers “not to mix with ‘cave dwellers’” and avoid acting on the terms of “troglodyte people”. The rising pressure of dissent within the Opposition induced one government minister to claim that “the extremists have gained control of the Liberal party”.[3] The broader Left on both sides of politics and their amen corner in the fourth estate appeared to be of one mind.

Electoral reality however painted a very different picture of voters’ attitudes. At the peak of public discontent, and on the eve of the leadership challenge, 80 per cent of voters did not feel they had the scheme adequately explained to them (including an overwhelming majority of Labor voters themselves). The intensity with which the scheme was pushed was matched by a growing public opposition to it. According to Tony Abbott, MPs’ phone lines were in “meltdown” and a flood of correspondence encouraged other prominent conservatives such as Senators Nick Minchin and Cory Bernardi to defy their party’s stance, triggering a domino effect within its parliamentary ranks. Peter van Onselen reported that no less than two thirds of Coalition backbenchers disagreed with plans to renegotiate with Labor, and the position of outspoken sceptics “reflect[ed] the view of an overwhelming majority of their colleagues”.[4] More importantly: “Three times as many House of Representative MPs do not want to negotiate at all (21-7) and when the data are broken down to include only marginal seat MPs, 11 out of 15 MPs do not want to negotiate.” Since none of this would have been possible without popular backing, only the most ideologically committed leftists with total disregard for public sentiment could honestly believe this was the work of “cave dwellers”, “trologdyte people”, “extremists” and “hardline right-wingers”, yet that was exactly the narrative pushed.

Like the US Tea Party, it was the people that animated the seismic shift in the political consensus. Unlike the US experience however, it appears that Australians have more faith in the role of their elected representatives. This faith was not misplaced. Instead of compromise with a leftist program, so often the best hope for a conservative outcome in legislative reform, an entire policy was stopped dead in its tracks. It was their pressure that drove the Coalition’s leadership challenge and the success of the conservative lobby under Tony Abbott, which led directly to a radical policy reversal on a major legislative agenda that previously enjoyed bipartisan support. It was that change that sank the legislative agenda, arguably contributing in some way to the failure of a Copenhagen accord itself. What eventually followed was the undignified toppling of a Prime Minister before the expiration of his first term in office. Australia’s Tea Party “moment” may have been far less theatrical than its American counterpart, but by no means was it less dramatic.

Concluding thoughts

MacCallum claims that contemporary media culture has been detrimental to the development of serious politics. McGowan, Goldberg and Switzer would suggest that political ideology has harmed professional journalism. In fact, they are all correct in their own particular way. The rise of Keen’s “amateur” is the product of a common cultural phenomenon that can be traced at least to the social revolution of the 1960s, a revolution which aggressively fostered a culture not only hostile to traditional hierarchy and its values of excellence based on established authority and objectivity, but also fostered the radical autonomy born out of a morally relativistic mindset in which individual preference and whim became the guiding rule of human conduct. Consequentially, appeals to objective truth were associated with the abolished traditional order, inaugurating the reign of subjectivism in literary, journalistic and political discourse. Over time, the countercultural avant-garde developed its own dogmas and hierarchies, eventually permeating existing establishments such as the two discussed here: media and politics. Like an ouroboros devouring its own tail, this in turn fed a disenfranchised populist reaction drunk on its own “individual authority” and a revolutionary spirit ironically inherited from the soixante-huitards themselves.

In other words, the perceived legitimacy of user-generated media is the product of the professional media’s failure as much as it has been fostered by a resulting culture of online libertarianism. The vested interests, partial attitudes and intellectual laziness of the commentariat have done more harm to the traditional press and mainstream politics than the blogosphere could ever hope to do. If non-liberal arguments are shut out of the system, the political ramifications were just a logical extension of this. Traditionalist conservatives have been presented with an opportunity to create a viable political alternative and market it directly to the people at a time when the electorate appears to be exhausted with the same tired ideas repackaged each electoral cycle.[5] This will be a colossal task made more difficult by the negligence of institutions entrusted with the role of ensuring political accountability, but that negligence will continue to feed the momentum of these “amateurs” in their work.

Therefore, the problems identified by Keen and Osnos are inherently cultural at heart and their solution will require a radical paradigm shift not only on the editorial board, but among the individual reporters themselves and the schools of media and journalism—an unlikely thing to happen in the near future. In this climate, the rise of the “cult of the amateur” is difficult to avoid, and the further growth of rightist populism is impossible to prevent. Parallel institutions will need to rise. History has proven that the growth of truly popular “alternative” media and grass-roots political movements will coalesce and formalise to become establishments in their own right. The premium placed on accurate reportage and truth in politics necessarily means that mechanisms through which regulations and standards are enforced will also naturally develop. The grass-roots attractiveness of both would gradually fade, but that would still leave a fourth estate enriched by an injection of genuine diversity of opinion.

Those threatened by these new usurpers are right to fear a period of disruption; however, such periods do not occur randomly but are the result of an already decaying environment. If they are distressed by these developments, they would do better to turn their attention to their own role in facilitating this decay rather than object to the public’s natural reaction to it. With the right commitment and experience, today’s dissenters on the right could become part of tomorrow’s establishment; this can only have a positive influence on the next generation of journalists and politicians. Those who value popular democracy and free political expression have nothing to fear.


Edwin Dyga has worked with various members of parliament, state and federal, in government and opposition. He is presently employed as an adviser to the New South Wales Shadow Minister for Justice and Attorney General. The views expressed here are his own. A footnoted version of this article is available at Quadrant Online.



Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals (Random House 1971)

Patrick Allitt, “How to Succeed in Politics’ The National Interest No 108 (July-August 2010)

W James Antle III, “Party Bashing’ The American Spectator 43:2 (March 2010)

W James Antle III, “The Tea Party: A Mixed Bag’ Chronicles Magazine 34:7 (July 2010)

W James Antle III, “Mission Attrition’ American Spectator 43:6 (July-August)

Kwame Appiah, The Ethics of Identity (Princeton University Press, 2005)

Lawrence Auster et al, “Palin supports radical feminist law—so her “conservative” supporters support it to’ View from the Right (15 September 2008) <>

Lawrence Auster et al, “The simplest explanation why Palin will never be a credible Conservative leader’ View from the Right (9 February 2010) <>

Australian Broadcasting Corporation, “For Lovers of Animals’ Q&A (14 June 2010) <>

Kevin Baker, “The Vanishing Liberal—How the Left Learned to be Helpless’ Harper’s Magazine 320:1919 (April 2010)

Bruce Bartlett, “Thou Shall Not Speak Ill of Bush’ The American Conservative 5:5 (13 March 2006)

Chris Berg and Sinclair Davidson “Climatgate: What We’ve Learned So Far’ IPA Review 61:3 (December 2009)

Bill Berkowitz, “Tea Party Movement—A Fertile Ground for White Supremacists?’ Z Magazine 23:2 (February 2010)

Chip Berlet, “Taking Tea Parties Seriously’ The Progressive 74:2 (February 2010)

Peter Brimlow, “Where Does Sarah Palin Stand on an Immigration Moratorium’ in Peter Brimlow (ed) 2009 Anthology ( Books, 2009)

Connie Bruck, “The Political Scene—Right Fight’ The New Yorker (7 June 2010)

Tucker Carlson, “JournoList’ The Daily Caller <>

Nick Clegg, The Liberal Moment (Demos, 2009)

Peter Coleman, “Where the Conservatives Went Wrong’ The Australian (12 December 2009)

Matthew Continetti, “The Two Faces of the Tea Party’ The Weekly Standard 15:39 (28 June 2010)

Phillip Coorey, “Malcolm in the Muddle’ Sydney Morning Herald (10 October 2009)

Phillip Coorey, “Climate Change Sceptics Triumph’ Sydney Morning Herald (9 December 2009)

Michelle Cotts, “Pink Elephants’ The New Republic 241:4882 (13 May 2010)

Sinclair Davidson, “Climategate Hits the IPCC’ IPA Review 62:1 (March 2010)

John Derbyshire, “No Life on MARs’ The American Conservative 9:4 (April 2010)

John Derbyshire, “Prol Tax’ The American Conservative 9:8 (August 2010)

Michael Dougherty, “Tea Party Crashers’ The American Conservative 9:4 (April 2010)

Nick Dyrenfurth, “Turnbull Needs to Learn from Whitlam’ The Australian (21 August 2009)

Thomas Fleming, “Lighting a Candle’ Chronicles Magazine 34:7 (July 2010)

Matthew Franklin, “Coalition boosted by shift on ETS’ The Australian (30 January 2010)

Malcolm Fraser, “Liberalism—The Philosophy That Shapes Government Policies and Actions’, Address to the State Council of the Liberal Party of Australia, South Australia Division (5 December 1980)

David Freddoso, The Case Against Barack Obama (Regnery, 2008)

John Fund, Stealing Elections—How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy (Encounter Books, 2004)

Paul Gottfreid, “An Airhead from Alaska’ Salisbury Review 28:3 (Spring 2010)

Bernard Goldberg, Bias—A CBS Insider Exposes How The Media Distorts The News (Perennial, 2002)

Mary Katharine Ham, “Grand Old Tea Party’ The Weekly Standard 15:23 (1 March 2010)

Lee Harris, “The Tea Party vs The Intellectuals’ Policy Review No 161 (June-July 2010)

David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (Thomas Nelson, 2006)

Francis James, “Gentlemen and Players’ in Ray Aitchison (ed) Looking at the Liberals (Cheshire, 1974)

James Kalb, The Tyranny of Liberalism (ISI Books, 2008)

Steven Kautz, Liberalism and Community (Cornell University Press, 1995)

Andrew Keen, The Cult of the Amateur (Nicholas Berealy Publishing, 2008)

Paul Kelly, “John Malcolm Fraser’ in Michelle Grattan (ed) Australian Prime Ministers (New Holland, 2000)

Roger Kimbal, Tenured Radicals (Ivan R Dee, 1990)

Roger Kimbal, The Long March (Encounter Books, 2000)

Michael Kinsley, “My Country, “Tis of Me’ The Atlantic 305:5 (June 2010)

Mark Lilla, “The Tea Party Jacobins’ The New York Review of Books 57:9 (27 May-9 June 2010)

Mungo MacCallum, “Amateur League’ The Monthly (April 2010)

Mungo MacCallum, Run Johnny Run (Duffy & Snellgrove, 2004)

Alasdair MacIntyre, Whose Justice, Which Rationality? (University of Notre Dame Press, 1989)

Myron Magnet, “The Tea Party Challenge’ IPA Review 62:2 (June 2010)

William McGowan, Coloring The News—How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism (Encounter Books, 2002)

Ben McGrath, “The Movement’ The New Yorker (1 February 2010)

Rebecca Mead, “The Wayward Press—Rage Machine’ The New Yorker (24 May 2010)

John J Miller, “Senator Tea Party’ National Review 62:3 (22 February 2010)

Glen Milne, “Turnbull stance cops poll axing’ Sunday Telegraph (29 November 2009)

Christopher Lord Monckton, “Caught Green-Handed’, Science & Public Policy Institute Occasional Paper (7 December 2009)

Brad Norington, “Tea Party Off Republican Leash in Primary Elections’ The Australian (Online) (10 June 2010, 12:00AM) <>

Peter van Onselen, “Majority of Libs oppose ETS plan’ The Australian (29 September 2009)

Peter Osnos, “An Elegy for Journalism’ Foreign Affairs 89:1 (January-February 2010)

Tom Piatak, “George Wallace and the Tea Party’ Chronicles Magazine 34:7 (July 2010)

Ramesh Ponnuru and Kate O’Beirne, “The Coming Tea Party Election’ National Review 62:3 (22 February 2010)

Matt Ridley, “The Global Warming Guerrillas’ Spectator Australia (6 February 2010)

Dennis Shanahan, “Battlers switching back to Coalition’ The Australian (7 December 2009)

Gabriel Sherman, “The Revolution Will Be Commercialised’ New York (3 May 2010)

Ken Silverstein, “Tea Party in the Sonora’ Harper’s Magazine 321:1922 (July 2010)

Harry Stein, “How the Press Got Political’ City Journal 18:2 (Spring 2008)

Robert J Stove, Book Review: The Cult of the Amateur by Andrew Keen National Observer No 74 (Spring 2007)

Tom Switzer, “Conservatives Are No Longer Losing The Culture Wars’ Quadrant 51:10 (October 2007)

Laura Tingle, “Angry Malcolm Fraser Quits Liberals’ Australian Financial Review (26 May 2010)

Laura Tingle, “While Fraser Waited, he was Resigned to Resigning’ Australian Financial Review (29 May 2010)

Evan Thomas and Eve Conant, “Hate’ Newsweek (19 April 2010)

Simon Walters and Brendan Carlin, “Tories Ditch Policies as Fast as They List Them: “Cameron Wanted to Bury Party Right” Say Lib Dems’ Mail Online (16 May 2010, 3:42PM) <> [print version unavailable to writer]

Dean Wells, Power Without Theory (Outback Press, 1977)

Chilton Williamson Jr, “Sam Francis’s Mad Tea Party’ Chronicles Magazine 34:4 (April 2010)

Chilton Williamson Jr, “The New American Mob’ Chronicles Magazine 34:7 (July 2010)

Laura Wood et al, “The Conservative Feminist Sisterhood’ The Thinking Housewife (9 April 2010) <>

Bryan York, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (Three Rivers Press, 2005)

‘Abbott keeps pulling back Labor’s lead’ The Australian (2 February 2010)

‘Greiner Warns Hockey to Avoid “Cave Dwellers”’ Sydney Morning Herald (30 November 2009)

[1] For a brief historical reflection, see: Allitt op cit p 36; Tom Piatak, ‘George Wallace and the Tea Party’ Chronicles Magazine 34:7 (July 2010).

[2] Nick Dyrenfurth, ‘Turnbull needs to learn from Whitlam’ The Australian (21 August 2009) p 12.

[3] Phillip Coorey, ‘Malcolm in the muddle’ Sydney Morning Herald (10 October 2009) p 23. The ‘extremist’ missive was hurled within hours of Abbott’s succession: Phillip Coorey, ‘Climate change sceptics triumph’ Sydney Morning Herald (9 December 2009) p 1.

[4] Peter van Onselen, ‘Majority of Libs oppose ETS plan’ The Australian (29 September 2009) p 1. For an analysis of the public reaction, see also: Dennis Shanahan, ‘Battlers switching back to Coalition’ The Australian (7 December 2009) p 1; Matthew Franklin, ‘Coalition boosted by shift on ETS’ The Australian (30 January 2010) p 4; ‘Abbott keeps pulling back Labor’s lead’ The Australian (2 February 2010) p 1.

[5] It is unlikely traditionalism will experience a broad and popular renaissance, however, social conservatives remain an important and under-valued demographic that can wield considerable influence within the present political upheaval. Rebecca Mead interviews Andrew Breitbart: ‘His conservatism fails him on issues such as the legalisation of prostitution, and he sometimes tilts towards favouring gay marriage. “But, when the entire media is structured to attack conservatives […] there is a huge business model to come in and counterbalance that,” he said’: Mead op cit p 27. Another optimistic view is that ‘[t]he conviction that animates the Tea Party could lead to a more authentic conservatism. The Tea Party could also represent the biggest political opportunity yet for a Middle American Radicalism’: Antle op cit (July 2010) p 15. The opportunity is there, but it has not yet been realised (cf Fleming in n 13 of Part 1). It is hoped that Australian conservatives have paid attention to these observations in the US, since the experience in the UK shows what a failure to do so could lead to: the complete evaporation of a conservative alternative within the political mainstream and the danger this presents for the likelihood of growing support among disenfranchised voters for fringe movements.

Leave a Reply