Post a response to this discussion thread
but it is misleading to equate them with the American democrats.
Labor traditionally identify themselves as the party of the working classes. They are not what I would call 'liberals' in the sense of either the American definition, or the (correct) definition Another gave. You can easily compare them to the British labour party, the same way the Australian Liberals are similar to (and probably idolise) the Tories, but it is not so easy to compare them to the American parties. Australia also has a Democrat party, they are again very different to the American counterpart.
Americans seem to divide all politics along the liberal/conservative line. In Australia, at least relatively recently, we have only had two parties with any chance of getting into government, Liberal and Labor. This is by no means a conservative versus a liberal party. Both have conservative politicians, both have factional divisions.
Australian Liberals are traditionally seen as 'for the rich' - to my mind 'liberal' because they assume every one has the same chance of getting as rich as they are. As I mentioned before, Labor have long been associated with the 'worker' and the trade unions, but this is all changing of course. The current government is very liberal - privatise everything, discourage public health care, leave industrial relations up to the individual employer etc. A 'liberal' is basically an individualist.
So, the disparity between Another's definition of 'liberal' and the popular meaning it has in different places is obviously a reflection of very different political traditions. Australian politics has some very unique aspects, but it is still very much aligned with British politics, same system and all that. American politics is so totally different in its development and traditions it is very hard to compare to Australia.
Oh well, if you aren't asleep yet, thanks for reading and sorry for crapping on so long.
Post a response to this discussion thread