Who is spearheading the political narrative of Australia? Is it the robust debate between Coalition and Labor – the elected (if not ideologically unreliable) duopoly that pass the crown between themselves every three years? Or is it the ravenous press, whose ranks are padded-out with political miscreants salty about their gender studies debt…

We are told, repeatedly, that our public broadcaster and its private industry peers maintain impartiality, but the Australian public have long suspected that the real battle for the election takes place in the copy room, not Canberra.

This behaviour does not breed much talent in the ranks of journalism, but we can acknowledge their dedication to political action. Their piranha-style press clubs are the reason we have weak-hearted politicians who, in the off chance they manage to whisper a good idea, are quick to retreat under the shadow of bad headlines.

Politics is an evolutionary ecosystem. Fear of the press has caused parties to preference bland, easily-controlled cardboard-cutouts instead of charismatic leaders. The result is a leadership model that follows headlines instead of creating them, drip-feeding on focus groups and the advice of advisors who can be easily purchased by third-party interests.

A few weeks ago, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton was (probably) handed the results of a focus group that told him it was ‘okay’ to go forth and champion Trump-style patriotism.

Hurray!

The resurrection of Donald Trump is a good news story on the conservative right, with the notable exemption of Liberal royalty John Howard, who mutters his distaste to bemused rooms full of party supporters.

Conservatives are nostalgic and even the young ones have entered a state of mourning for the Australia they grew up in and loved. There is a view abroad that it’s not too late to restore the spirit of these countries, the only problem for Australian voters is that they don’t have much to work with when it comes to spiritual leaders.

For Dutton, a bit of patriotism will do him the world of good in the polls.

During his first campaign, Trump embraced the American flag to the scorn of the press. Now, he does it all the time and the crowds go wild. Plenty of Australians would like to see Peter Dutton snuggle the Australian flag. He came close a month ago when he took a stand against the divisive flag politics that has been used by Labor and the Greens for many years to undermine the supremacy of the national flag.

Dutton made the perfectly sensible decision to only stand in front of the Australian flag for all of his official duties. This is how it should be.

The popularity of this move was reflected in the outrage of those who accused Dutton of invoking hatred and engaging in an inflammatory move. Actually, Dutton is reversing the inflammatory political move by returning to a ‘one nation, one culture, one people’ position.

‘We are a country united under one flag and if we’re asking people to identify with different flags, no other country does that, and we are dividing our country unnecessarily,’ said Dutton.

Standing in front of two flags (and sometimes three) implies that Australia is a nation of parts, when it is not. That is a false narrative exaggerated by the political class and re-printed by the press, many of whom are handed vast sums of public money to write columns normalising racial division. These column inches are fed back into the political machine and emerge as horrific policies and treaties.

It is a reminder of how desperate a portion of our country is to manifest racial division so they can cut a profit from the pain. There are plenty of complaints, most from people in extremely well-paid, nonsense, publicly funded roles who are annoyed about Dutton ignoring the so-called ‘collective’. Indigenous politics is saturated with poorly disguised socialist-speak and what Dutton has done is pick up the corner of their wool and reveal a bit of wolf.

Dutton survived the first anti-Australian press assault, and so he had another go by defending Australia Day and putting Woke councils on notice.

How did the press react? The Canberra (Bubble) Times ran a headline this morning, An insult to us as Aboriginal People: Peter Dutton’s pledge sparks debate while the Sydney Morning Herald picked, PM dodges Australia Day stoush with Dutton, calls him ‘nasty’. The Australian Financial Review went with the particularly bad faith option of, Peter Dutton stokes culture war over Australia Day.

There are lots of ways to write these headlines. Peter Dutton restores unity on Australia Day is a good option. Divisive race activists vanquished is another. No more race-baiting on national day, could work. Dutton saves Australia Day from the commies. Or we could always go with, Dutton tells over-paid race activists that they are no longer welcome in this country.

‘As Australia Day approaches, the usual suspects are out in force trying to feed us a diet of national self-loathing. Each year, these moralising lecturers take to social media and our televisions to push their ideological narratives,’ said Dutton.

‘Before Australia Day is over, you will undoubtedly hear the same elites, inner-city advocates, celebrities, and corporate honchos deliver the same old sermons … such people are determined to examine our history in the most hostile, unforgiving, and unbalanced manner imaginable. Their goal is political: to delegitimise the achievement of modern Australia by saying that our nation was founded on original sin.’

Part of this pledge includes banning left-wing councils from misusing the national day as a political piñata against the wishes of rate payers.

‘It will be a sign of pride and nationalism in our country.’

The deeper issue beneath this conversation is the nature of conservatism as the opposing force to collectivism in Western politics. The atmosphere of shame surrounding conservatism and right wing politics is a fabrication of the left who tried to erase their ideological competition through propaganda instead of debate. Trump was one of the first to reject this shame. He makes voters feel good, not apologetic.

I challenged my social media followers to define ‘moderate’ in terms of Liberal politics.

Is a moderate a conservative who wears a blue shirt because their parents did, but dabbles in socialism? Are they like the Teals, basking in the success of capitalism while clearing their minds of guilt by supporting green things? Do they take money under the table from corporate interests and then pay lip service to Menzies? Are they seat-warmers, enjoying the safety of a blue ribbon seat while quietly voting for Labor policies?

I argued, and you can disagree with me, that ‘moderate’ is a filthy word.

That Liberals should pride themselves on being full-blooded conservatives and shun the relics of the ‘broad church’ which was mistakenly created to eke out a few extra years of power in sacrifice of its future.

In the comment section, those who identified as ‘centre-right’, the ‘sensible centre’ (of what?), and ‘moderate’ were actually conservatives, not moderates. They had simply been made to fear the branding.

To those people I would say, conservatism is a virtue. Do not water down one of the greatest political movements in history. Embrace it. Come away from the edges and occupy the heart and soul of blue ribbon conservatism. Being a weak version of conservatism is little more than holding open the gates and nodding politely at the socialists as they storm through. We are meant to be guardians and that takes fortitude.

And to the conservative-slanted news programs who, in daylight hours, quietly mutter disapproval in the direction of Australia’s national flag and national day, be careful. You’ll look as ridiculous as the American news broadcasters who tried to prop-up Joe Biden.