Contrary to popular belief, the past was not more eventful than the present, George Orwell wrote in 1940.

Orwell was writing about the Great War, at the beginning of what became World War II and the intersection of patriotism and conservatism, which he was ardently against.

“Patriotism has nothing to do with conservatism,” he argued.

“It is devotion to something that is changing but is felt to be mystically the same, like the devotion of the ex-White Bolshevik to Russia. To be loyal both to Chamberlain’s England and to the England of tomorrow might seem an impossibility, if one did not know it to be an everyday phenomenon.”

Then, Orwell’s focus was on keeping Hitler out of England, but he saw enough into the future to see how militarisation bred a certain type of nationalism that conservatives could seize.

It was My Country Left or Right that came to mind when Anthony Albanese dropped the phrase “progressive patriotism” in a Nine Publishing podcast earlier this week.

Albanese was talking in the context of the election, where he defined his latest buzz slogan as speaking “about doing things the Australian way, not looking towards any other method or ideology from overseas”.

“This is a project, if you like, that’s not just about strengthening Australia, but also being a symbol for the globe in how humanity can move forward,” he explained.

Albanese isn’t the first politician to try and wrest patriotism from conservatives (as Orwell and others can attest) and while it will no doubt end up being another Humpty Dumpty phrase that will come to mean nothing, it does open up some interesting questions.

Albanese meant it in terms of keeping his government to the centre. 

He sees his government’s response to the Trump tariffs as being progressively patriotic (as identified by Nine columnist Sean Kelly during the campaign) and sees the Australian way as the centre way, which is more grist for the middle-of-the-road legacy he sees himself as building. 

But do the Australian people?

Jason Falinski, the former Liberal MP for Mackellar and spokesperson for Australians for Prosperity – one of the new conservative versions of GetUp – obviously sees opportunity in trying to break away from issues being seen as either ‘left’ or ‘right’ telling ABC RN Breakfast he doesn’t think Australians “think along that ideological spectrum”.

“I don’t think we need to focus on left or right, what we need to focus on Australians getting ahead, and when we start doing that and talking to Australians about that, we will see our vote start to go up as well,” he said.

Former Liberal MP Falinski claims there is n ‘right’ or ‘left’. Photo: Getty

Just as it suits Albanese to co-opt the idea of patriotism as being progressive, it suits the Coalition to pretend there is no longer ‘left’ or ‘right’ issues, despite the Coalition being largely responsible for creating the issue in the first place – which is how climate action became seen as ‘progressive’ (or woke depending on where in the Coalition one sits).

It suits Labor and the Liberal Party to reframe ideologies in both their bids to win the centre, but that doesn’t mean voters have to follow their narrow definitions.

Broadening out Albanese’s use of progressive patriotism could address many of the structural reform issues stalled in the nation, and so far pushed aside by his government.

Albanese considers himself a reformist not a revolutionary, but it is not revolutionary to actually start standing for Australian values. 

Rethinking AUKUS is progressive patriotism. Taxing foreign-owned fossil fuel companies to pay for Australia’s future is progressive patriotism. Having a government which puts Australians first with their health care, their education, their welfare is progressive patriotism.   

Telling your so-called closest ally and strategic partner that ridiculous tariffs are ‘not the act of a friend’ is not so much progressive patriotism as it is walking a diplomatic line and rebranding it as taking a stance.

That’s the problem when politicians start throwing terms around without meaning – or trying to eke meaning from the meaningless – they can mean anything without saying a thing.

But that doesn’t mean there isn’t room to create meaning from it.

Progressive patriotism may very well sink into the political abyss along with ‘continuity with change’, ‘back on track’ and ‘whinging Wendy’. Or it could be used to try and move the government into moving on issues where putting values first would be patriotic. 

Orwell’s uncomfortable relationship with patriotism is as relatable now as it was in 1940 when he tried explaining it. If you take it as unquestionable love and defence of a country regardless of action or direction, then you’ll end up using it to defend the indefensible.

But using it for good? There is a wealth of opportunity there.

If the path forward is stripping away ideology from issues, even better. 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. 

If the Prime Minister is going to declare that the bare minimum of election posturing is progressively patriotic, than he should be prepared to back it in during his term as leader. 

Australian voters have given the government a pathway in the Senate to do just that.  So far, there is no indication the government will take it. 

So given we started with Orwell, let’s also end with him, given he also had a bit to say about politics and language:

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”