Let me give you some advice in how to address a well written article that you don't agree with. Rather than doing the childish thing "I dont like it" , its better to play these academics at their own game by itemising their argument and addressing it from a conservative point of view, point by point
The following points were touched on in the linked article from a Progressive Point of view (POV)
(a) *Monarchy..............................Good for Aus..............................................................bad for Aus (b) Education.........................Judeo/Christian view Good..........................................Marxist/Materialist view better (c) China................................Sinophobia Justified...................................................Trade with China good & make hay while the sun shines (d) Bush vs Urban.................Bush Conservative values Best....................................Urban Cosmopolitan/Multiculture best
etc etc
* Now lets look at what a Conservative argument could be in relation to (a) IE: that we keep the Monarchy Let me demonstrate:.
*The monarchy gives depth , meaning & continuity to our history as a country because after all it was an act of Westminster Parliament in 1900 and signed into law by Queen Victoria on the 9th July 1900 that made Australia an independent country. Before that the 6 States were essentially British colonies. Unlike the USA, we did not have to fight a War of Independence to achieve that.
British Law (including Common Law) fundamentally governed the 6 States and the new Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 inherited those Laws albeit moderated by our very own Constitution.
We proudly celebrate our British heritage via Galopoli/WW1 engagement with the Mother Land as we do also with WW2 and the sacrifices we as a country have made to protect the Motherland in both World Wars are memorialised on Anzac Day.
In more recent times we have relied the GG to sack a recalcitrant Whitlam Government and lately the AUKUS Sub deal incorporating the UK to protect us from China.
Etc Etc Etc
And that's only point (a)
Just to flippantly dismiss an argument as being LW is not what could be called a persuasive argument and lets face it, if HC does its thing over the longer term, it simply has to be educational. The history of bouts Propaganda have been short lived, IMO...eh?
