Gerard Henderson’s article in today’s SMH argues that Howard Haters are their own worst enemies, because their insular lives and obsession with blaming everything on Howard leaves them so out of touch with ‘ordinary Australians’ that they have no impact on elections.
The problem with much, but not all, opposition to Howard is it is obsessive and consequently has little impact in the marginal seats in suburban and regional Australia. Opponents of Howardism would have much more impact if they threw the switch to rationality with respect to the Prime Minister and ceased their consistent condemnation of Kim Beazley and Labor.
I can see what Henderson is getting at, and of course I am interested in what ‘the Left’ can do in Australia to turn things around politically. However, this article is so packed full of stereotypes and so completely lacking in any real analysis that it really provides no actual insight into this question. The target audience here appears to be those Howard-supporters who relish in mocking the Left and who refuse to let reality or complexity get in the way of their favourite pastime. The ‘average day’ of the monolithic Howard-hating intelligentsia is absurd – for one thing, the amount of media consumption described is over-the-top, not to mention the limited number of people who actually do work in the Humanities department of Australian universities. But the real limitation to this article, for me, is the assumption that those of us who hate what Howard is doing to Australia are solely concerned with getting the Opposition into power.
While I would be very happy if Howard and the Coalition generally were not in power in Australia, this isn’t really the end of the line for me. If you take a long-term view of politics, then the quality of the government, be they ALP or Coalition, and the quality of the media, civil society, and other social institutions are all issues that merit attention. Once you acknowledge this broader level of concern, the activities that Henderson mocks in his article suddenly make a lot more sense - particularly when you take into account that he has conveniently narrowed them down to only the most stereotypical. Of course, that still doesn’t address the question of what ‘the Left’ can do in Australia to turn things around politically, but my point is that this particular article (or other similar rants against ‘the Left’) isn’t where we are going to find the answer.
I had a 50 something cabbie who told me on Friday night, apropos of nothing much, that he couldn’t stand Howard and liked Keating. I don’t think he was moonlighting from his other job as a Cultural Studies Lecturer. I’ve heard the same sentiment articulated in public bars. What Gerry et al forget is 47% of Australians didn’t vote for the Coalition last time. Hint for Gerry - lots live in the suburbs, in regional and rural areas etc.
I actually don’t think there’s much need to counter this sort of thing. The question of coming up with appealing policy and a narrative to switch 47% to 51% is a different kettle of fish, but I doubt all this ranting and raving has much effect on it either way, except perhaps to demoralise those to whom it’s addressed.
The typical day thing is hilarious, though. I wonder what Gerry’s typical day involves…
“The it’s-Howard’s-fault refrain is heard repeatedly across the land.”
what the? has he been reading my blog?
Although, clearly, he hasn’t understood the jist of the “refrain of the Right-eous” argument…
“Right now, the irrationality of so many Howard haters has the unintended consequence of enhancing Howardism.”
Hmmmm…. Is this the mode of argument that sets up neoliberal economic and social policy as the only ‘rational’ way??? T’is an interesting rhetorical move. It means that politicians are powerless in the face of hegemonising global forces. ‘Of course you pay bribes, that’s how you do business…’
Miranda Devine’s most recent column attempts to run the same line of argument. See flashman’s post (and my comment) here: http://www.electronsoup.net/?q=node/268#comment
GH: “It may sound strange. But in intelligentsia land, you can get through an entire day without hearing anything but criticism of the Howard Government. Here’s how such a day in the life of a Howard-hater might work - via live radio/television, Foxtel iQ, iPod, tape, video, DVD and newspapers.”
How strange. No doubt a few people might be obsessed with “hating” Howard. But I bet there aren’t many. I certainly don’t “hate” him - I dislike his approach to government but I certainly don’t waste my emotions, energy and time on hating JH.
GH writes about a really strange “typical day” too.
It’s cheap and doesn’t contribute much to write stuff like this:
“Arise and read the editorial and letters and opinion pages of The Age, Australia’s most politically imbalanced broadsheet, judged on its coverage of the national security and industrial relations debates. Admire the cartoons of Michael Leunig, who has drawn Howard as a masked, kneecapping IRA terrorist. Look forward to next Saturday’s Herald in the hope that, again, Alan Ramsey will describe the PM as a “duplicitous toad” and refer to him as “Little Johnny”. Check The Australian to see if cartoonist Bill Leak still maintains “we are all little Johnnies now; smaller, meaner and less attractive”.
Go to work in a university humanities department and talk to your Howard-hating colleagues. It’s morning tea time. Go online and check out the most recent criticism of Howardism in John Menadue’s New Matilda journal of (almost identical) opinion. Agree with editor Jose Borghino’s view that Howard is the “hamster version” of Robert Menzies.
Break for lunch. Drop into an inner-city bookshop to check out the latest Howard-hating thesis on the Morry Schwartz-owned Black Inc’s publishing list, including such titles as The Barren Years: John Howard and Australian Political Culture. Admire past copies of Black Inc’s Quarterly Essay, featuring the likes of Mungo MacCallum and Guy Rundle. Buy the most recent issue of Schwartz’s quaintly named journal The Monthly, featuring yet another (very long) article by Robert Manne bagging Howard.
Spend the afternoon on research. Order a DVD of Richard Connolly’s taxpayer-subsidised film Three Dollars. Re-read Rayson’s taxpayer-subsidised play Two Brothers. Prepare a workshop on how to establish socialism in at least one country .
Drive home listening to the ABC Radio National’s Perspective program, followed by Sandy McCutcheon’s Australia Talks Back. Tune into ABC TV’s 7.30 Report to see which cabinet minister Kerry O’Brien is interrupting. Check out how alienated George Negus is on SBS TV. Go to sleep listening to Phillip Adams’ Late Night Live program. Dream of Gough Whitlam, Howard Dean, George Galloway. Wake up - read The Age.”
GH would do better to say that people should approach policies rationally rather than irrationally.
Coming soon to a Cultural Studies department near you? If he’s at all serious, it demonstrates his ignorance of what actually goes on in Universities… Yikes! That sounds elitist! Must get coffee… must read Robert Manne…
Personally, I dream of Ms Fits.
Segmentation at work. You satisfy the echo-chamber while trolling the other end of the spectrum. He successfully doubled his audience. Now his article got a bunch of hits through one of the biggest sites in ozplogistan linking to it.
If Gerard Henderson was posting here through an AOL account, he would probably write; YHBT HAND.
this stuff about Howard haters always give me a laugh.
AFTER keating got thrashed we had the spectre of a Liberal President alleging Keating was having affairs with both Janet holmesA Court and a young male violinist from the Symphony orchestra.
Ever wonder Why Iron Mark sprayed at tony Staley?
now that is what I would call hate
“ozplogistan”
What is this word? I have never encountered it before.
It’s shorthand for Australian political blogosphere. It is horribly, horribly mangled, but it was in reasonably common usage a couple of years ago. I’m pretty sure it was coined by John Quiggin.
Gerard’s typical day:
“Arise and read the editorial and letters and opinion pages of The Age. Note Australia’s most politically imbalanced broadsheet, judged according to my quaint right-wing views of its coverage of the national security and industrial relations debates. Seize upon the cartoons of Michael Leunig, who once drew Howard as a masked, kneecapping IRA terrorist. Look forward to next Saturday’s Herald hoping that, again, Alan Ramsey will describe the PM as a “duplicitous toad� and refer to him as “Little Johnny�. Check The Australian to make sure cartoonist Bill Leak still maintains “we are all little Johnnies now; smaller, meaner and less attractive�.
Go to work at the Sydney Institute and file morning’s reading under Howard-hating. It’s morning tea time. Go online and check out the most recent criticism of Howardism in John Menadue’s New Matilda journal of (almost identical) opinion. Note editor Jose Borghino’s view that Howard is the “hamster versionâ€? of Robert Menzies.
Break for lunch. Drop into an inner-city bookshop to check out the latest Howard-hating thesis on the Morry Schwartz-owned Black Inc’s publishing list, including such titles as The Barren Years: John Howard and Australian Political Culture. Note past copies of Black Inc’s Quarterly Essay, featuring the likes of Mungo MacCallum and Guy Rundle. Buy the most recent issue of Schwartz’s The Monthly, featuring yet another (very long) article by Robert Manne bagging Howard. File everything hunder Howard-hating.
Spend the afternoon fast asleep. Order a DVD of Richard Connolly’s taxpayer-subsidised film Three Dollars. Re-read Rayson’s taxpayer-subsidised play Two Brothers. Fantasise that the left is preparing a workshop on how to establish socialism in at least one country. Laugh at my own joke for half-an-hour hour. File my fantasies under Howard-hating and string it all together into yet another biased right-wing column on leftists. Adopt smug expression, knowing I get paid for writing the same biased drivel week in week out.
Drive home listening to the ABC Radio National’s Perspective program, followed by Sandy McCutcheon’s Australia Talks Back. Tune into ABC TV’s 7.30 Report to see which cabinet minister Kerry O’Brien is interrupting. Check out how alienated George Negus is on SBS TV. Go to sleep listening to Phillip Adams’ Late Night Live program. Nightmares of Gough Whitlam, Howard Dean, George Galloway. Wake up - check under my bed for leftists, read The Age.�
Hating on the haters. A giant circle of self-referentiality. The ouribouros of Howard.
Too right, Kate. I think the Howard-hater-haters hate the haters more than the haters hate Howard.
I do hear this quite a bit from people. Is it because people are unwilling to admit that they voted for Howard or is society really that segregated that liberal voters don’t socialise with labor voters?
Actually, Chris that is probably the most interesting question raised by the article. I personally know very few Howard voters (some of my grandparents, in-laws, family friends, one friend from Uni, and a couple of lecturers at the law school), and I would put that down to leading a fairly segregated life and having grown up in Canberra.
CS, I sat down at lunch wondering how one would go about summarising a day in the life of a Howard-voting right wing individual and then read your comment which was even more fun. Thank you.
Oh, and Robert thank you for the translation service. I probably should have guessed that one.
Crikey had a neat take on the Howard-hater-hater’s typical day:
The oddly-named Monthly has just arrived in my letterbox, featuring … a long (cover) article by Robert Manne about John Howard.
*sighs*
Zoe, but get with the program, if it’s 2pm you should be in an inner city bookshop. How’s planning for the seminar on “socialism in at least one country” coming along? Don’t let the side down, comrade!
What do you think of ‘The Monthly’*, Zoe?
I took out a 2 year sub when it first appeared but on the current standard of the mag, I won’t be renewing.
*Surely they could have come up with something better?
“Socialism in at least one country� sounds like it could be a good rallying slogan. What do people think?
Unlike most of the left Bob Hawke does not hate JH; he went down to see him at his 30 year celebration and had him around for a BBQ.
A mixed bag, Ron. I think probably two of the issues so far have been good reads. I haven’t opened the current one, but am looking forward to the Chloe Hooper article on Palm Island - I liked her article a while ago about the Young Libs.
Garner is a bit hit and miss, Robert Forster is excellent on music, and I share Gerard’s boredom with Robert Manne on Howard. I took out a year subscription, and wouldn’t renew for more than $40. The promise of new writers has not been fulfilled. I wonder why no-one’s been scouting out some of the excellent writers writing blogs?
I don’t read many magazines anymore, only really Harper’s which at $12 is easily more than twice as good as the Monthly. And it’s very thin on ads - apparently the owner’s prepared to cop losses for five years, and I think he’ll need that.
Is that an Oz edition of Harper’s?
(My apologies for hijacking the thread Cristy.)
No worries Ron, I am interested.
Cristy I see you are blaming JH for problems with health, education, everything. Considering that these are all state issues not federal is that fair and reasonable?
rog, who provides most of the funding? Who sets the legislative and regulatory agenda? It’s not the states. However, they should wear a heap of blame as well in health at least.
rog, where do you see this? I don’t believe that I mentioed health, education or everything in the above post. I mean, sure, I blame Howard when I stub my toe, but I didn’t write about it.
“Is that an Oz edition of Harper’s?”
Not that I have seen… its mostly full of American related stuff. Interesting though… the last issue I got had an interesting essay on Thomas Jefferson’s gospel (he basically edited out all the miracles) and the gospel of Thomas. Of course the connection between the two is non-existent, but it was an interesting read.
I must have a screw loose or something, because I’m a bit of a Howard hater and yet I read Quadrant and the Australian.
I like WBB’s take on it:
“it’s not getting any easier for your average Howard hater in the street.
Hmmmm. What’s Plan B, again? Waiting for the prick to die, it seems, is the best we’ve come up with so far.”
ROFL, as they say.
Re: Harper’s…
Yeah, American Harper’s - and I enjoyed the article Cliff mentions a great deal.
I’m more a Howard despairer than a hater, myself.
I am definitely N-O-T a so-called “Howard Hater” but he and his mob must go! And the sooner the better because for every day they stay in apparent power, the more danger we face and the deeper we sink into the economic mire.
If his government actually worked I would be deleriously happy - “even “relaxed and comfortable” - but his government doesn’t work and God help us when his whole fantasy world of imagined prosperity and fake wealth and awesome institutions evaporates …. and when the hard cruel real world wakes us up with a hell of a jolt.
On a scale of competence as a national leader: I put him slightly ahead of Galtieri, Mugabe and G. Bush MkII; definiely below Vidkun Qvisling, Chiang Ching-kuo, Mahatir Mohammed and John Major; not even in the same paddock as Ataturk, Sun Yat-sen, Truman, Khrushchov or any of the other outstanding national leaders.
And the “trendy lefties” must share a very large part of the blame for keeping this dud in office. ((Did I miss out on offending anyone?))
Quadrant, dare I say it, used to have one Robert Manne as editor! (in pre Howard-Hating days)…
Harper’s is a good mag.
I know Robert Manne used to write from the conservative side of things. What I’m interested to know is how much he actually changed his own perspective as opposed to how much conservatism itself has changed. I once heard Malcolm Fraser remark that he did not move further to the left, but that the right moved further right. How much is this the case with Manne?
“Too right, Kate. I think the Howard-hater-haters hate the haters more than the haters hate Howard. ”
LOL! In my case I suspect you are bang on target there.
Here’s my take on Manne, Cliff.
Well I semi-endorse some of Graham Bell’s points.
Howard’s actually been pretty damn good as a short term crisis manager - from Port Arthur to the Asian currency meltdown to the Bali bombing to the Boxing Day tusmani sumai tuismani big wave thingy. He did everything you’d want out of a good Aus PM. Fast, decisive, pragmatic and effective action.
My two big problems with him are:
a) when he manufactures or inflames issues for pure political gain- which all pollies do but in his case in a particularly unproductive and US atomic wedgie style; and
b) no attempt to plan ahead. A large chunk of his ecomomic luck is built on Hawke, Keating, Button et al working hard to lay a long-term legacy they’d never get to claim credit for but did so anyway because they felt it needed to be done.
However there seems to be no sense from Howard and co that they’re anything but the big end of town’s janitors and fixers. Australia’s never been richer and an awful lot is going rather well now. So this is exactly the moment when you can and should start hedging against the future. For a pro-business party, the Libs seem surprisingly ignorant of this fundamental business tenet.
This is true as far as it goes but it does not go nearly far enough.
The problem is not Howard-hating as such. There are plenty of good reasons to hate Howard’s ends and means.
Howard’s ideological ends - union-bashing, boss-pampering and climate-ignoring - should outrage most right-thinking people. His methodological means - brutal disregard for ministerial responsibility, flouting multilateral institutions and common indecency towards legitimate refugees - are also appalling.
And Howard-huggers like Henderson are frankly embarassing in their relentless spinning of Howard’s deceits and despicabilities.
The Howard-hating Wets come unstuck because they ignore or downplay Howard’s indisputable good deeds - his civilization of cultural identity and his militarization of national security.
Howard, more than any other politician in recent Australian history, has consolidated the Australian state from internal and external threats.
He has won tremendous victories in the “Culture War”. This has seen off some of the more disastrous follies and rogueries of the past generation’s social policy - ratbag feminists, multicultural segregationists, lame duck Republicans, indigenous seperatists etc.
The cultural benefits speak for themselves. A more beneficial and diverse immigration policy, a revival of the birthrate amongst educated females, a more realistic appreciation of Aboriginal social problems. Its all good.
Howard has also struck mighty blows in the “Terror War”, chiefly through the trouncing jihadists and ethnic cleansers in E Timor and Afghanistan and the empowerment of Shiite Iraq. Howard’s crucial role in encouraging and assisting the consolidation and democratization of Indonesia alone cements his place in history.
These actions, whatever their global merits, have certainly reinforced the US alliance, beefed up our defensive readiness and generally put the terroristic and militaristic threats to this nation on the back foot. So far, apart from Bali, there has been no domestic blow-back.
Most Australians recognise the values that Howard has stood up for in cultural and national conflicts have been civilized and beneficial. The Howard-haters are blind to this which is why they keep getting beaten like a drum.
Well, stap my vitals! Doesn’t Jack come across as almost a breath of fresh air and cool reason after Graeme Bird’s demented dervish bellowing?
And y’know Jack I agree with all the points you’ve made that I agree with. Just lose this cultural straw war thing and stop damning Birdlike everyone you think disagrees with you. Then who knows, we could be stepping out together for a nice night each time one of us is in the other’s town.
But lest folks think I’m drunk and getting maudlin (or even worse, soft and girly), I would like to draw your attention to these classic Strocchi clangers.
“..a revival of the birthrate amongst educated females”
Oh yes, a campaign to breed an elite. The problem here is that many of the kinda men who think like this are no position to do anything about it.
“Howard has also struck mighty blows in the “Terror Warâ€?, chiefly through the trouncing jihadists and ethnic cleansers in E Timor and Afghanistan and the empowerment of Shiite Iraq.”
Fitful and often token support for the US’s complete cockup in Central Asia are mighty blows in the “Terror Wars”? You’d frame a mousetrap as a cheese platter just to get attention and glory, wouldn’t you?
Howard haters and their ilk conveniently omit that it has been their very own Howard hating unelected swill, the senate, that has blocked the elected govt’s bills, until now.
Cristy - where did I see this? - on your own blog where you blamed Howard for every one of your ills, including your stubbed toe.
A good article, I thort. Andrew Bolt advanced a sharper version of the same argument here.
Howard has discovered (or rediscovered - I think Thatcher first put it to effective use) the best way of getting to the 15-20% or so of swinging voters who decide elections: he appeals directly to them over the heads of the liberal commentariat, who he knows will never vote for him, anyway.
David Williamson’s risible article on his unpleasant cruise experience provides a neat analogy. For every Williamson Howard loses, he wins the rest of the boatload.
Jeez Rob, I really, really hope the last part of your last comment isn’t intended as some kind of SIEV X related pun.
The connection didn’t occur, Laura, but then I have a sense of humour deficit.
Good, I’m glad it didn’t Rob…deficit or not, it’s no laughing matter as you know.
In response to Laura’s post (hon, you deserve your own comments!), why feel the need to justify yourself when the criticism doesn’t even apply to you - hey, you don’t even exist in the imagined world of a polemic like this. The university being attacked here is the one imagined in the minds of people who don’t work in it: a place where Left wing ideology dominates. Ha! Try telling that to a student like I had in my office this afternoon who hadn’t slept in two days (in week 2 of semester), who can hardly make it to lectures part time because they are too busy working jobs that might keep them in the state they love, in a ‘career’ that offers as much security as the next monthly contract. These students don’t have time for class, let alone clubs, societies or indeed unions for Howard hatin’.
It would be comforting if the Left did take such a predictable form; I’d make a career out of laughing at it too. But the people you and I know, read, and also care about have a range of views on social issues - not the least because we every now and then read the thoughts of women, we have a craving for ideas outside of mainstream press outlets, we don’t all live in the inner-city, and when we’re not busy having a life, we teach classes composed of hundreds of students from all over the world (because our universities cannot function without their upfront fees). In the world of this newspaper columnist, there are Howard haters and there are ordinary people, a choice that neatly corresponds with the belief that ‘you are either with us or against us’. Thankfully, there are a lot more sources around these days that can admit that things are a little more complicated.
Now that you mention it, though, I don’t see a connection between Howard-the-stinker and SIEV-X the …….. well, fill it in for yourself. Yes, bad joke. But I don’t buy Tony Kevin’s line on this at all.
The point is, Henderson and Bolt are reading your guys an important lesson, and you just won’t listen, because you hate the message’s point of origin. Labor will never get back until they re-capture the middle ground that can vote either his way, or that way, depending. Screaming ‘Howard’s a bastard!’ doesn’t persuade anyone but yourselves - and none (very few?) of the folks hereabouts would vote for Howard before or after you’d cut your left hands off. But the plain fact is Howard doesn’t care about you: he’s not after your vote. He won’t try to buy you off, because he doesn’t need to.
Labor has to get more mature, and realise that Howard has won lections for 10 years for a reason - the electorate prefers him to the alternative. And put some serious thought into what they propose to do about it (like, not screamingabuse, which is at the same time screaming abuse at the electorate).
All 100% correct & true Mel. Blogging like my effort today really isn’t much different from shouting angrily at the TV (or radio, or newspaper) and closing comments is an acknowledgement of that. (Textual critic that I am, Henderson’s little burlesque there probably stung so much because I noticed *he* began his story of an imaginary day with the same word (arise) *I* began the story of a real one. Hey maybe he reads my blog!
I better wash it, just in case.
Of course it stung for that reason, Laura. You recognised yourself in his caricature. You knew what he said was true. Doesn’t that compel some sense of self-reflection?
I’m at a loss to understand the reference to David Williamson’s cruise. Does this mean that I’m not a cultural elitist after all?
And what Mel said (he says after getting home at 10pm having worked an 11 hour day and teaching at 8pm, with nary a spare moment to plot the downfall of Western civ, praise Venezuela or even - sob - browse in an inner city bookstore - and my early morning on the way to work visit to the dvd store to try and get the Dune miniseries failed miserably!)…
Oh, and nice post, Laura. I can also report that I got my hair cut yesterday in time for the start of tutes in week 2
It was an analogy, Mark. And I think you are conscioulsy missing the point.
I still don’t get it, Rob. What’s David Williamson’s cruise article? I have no idea what you’re referring to. Did Williamson go on a cruise and write an article about it? Please enlighten me!
Haven’t you read it? Here it is. It’s fun, though David didn’t have much.
Excellent news, Mark. I’m hoping to make it to the hairdressers next weekend, but it’s probably not worth bothering, I’m sure I’ll come out looking like a latte-inhaling Monthly reader no matter what.
Rob the whole point of my convoluted post is that I don’t recognise the object of Henderson’s satire in that blunt-as little sketch. It doesn’t pack any punch as parody because it misses the mark so drastically. It’s like drawing a stick figure, writing a person’s name underneath, and calling it a realistic portrait.
I’m sorry, I thought you meant your real day was the same as his imaginary one.
I start the day with ‘arise’, too, but in the Omar Khayamaian sense.
I had fun, anyway, Laura, because I had my hair ironed - a thing that as a boy, I never knew existed until my last visit to my hair salon!
Rob, I’ll defer the reading of Williamson’s article. I don’t much care for him of late - Don’s Party and The Club were great but I saw that play about sexual harrassment (most un-PC by the way, sort of grumpy backlash anti-feminism stuff and wasn’t there one where he has a go at Foucault?) about a decade ago and thought it very poor. As I’ve commented before, I think you’re falling into Gerrie’s trap of confusing luvvies and lefties.
I’d rather read Shakespeare, Brecht, Marlowe or Schiller any day than Williamson. Frankly I don’t think there’s much of a canon in Australian theatre. Though perhaps that’s my ignorance talking.
To return, though, to Cristy’s question: well, of course you are!
Howard takes every opportunity to tell the waverers (that crucial 15-20%) that ‘I am one of you, I share your values and concerns’, and THE LEFT (The Left — the left) turns right round and tells them the bloody opposite. Is it any wonder he wins elections? Remember he only has to win about 11% of the undecideds, and he’s got it.
Personally, I didn’t feel at all offended by the article… rather I was heartened by it. I ardently hope that the right believes this caricature… I hope and pray that they lie back on their laurels thinking that their only opposition is a disconnected and cacaphonous minority. You don’t have to read Sunzi’s Art of War (and I haven’t) to intuit that one of the greatest mistakes one can make is to underestimate one’s enemy. These “Howard haters” of whom Henderson and Bolt speak, are simply a vocal minority. Howard may have defeated them on culture… but his future is in the hands of the rank and file of Australia’s labour force… who are soon to become guinea pigs in Johnny’s long sought after ideological experiment. In the words of Sir Humphrey, Howard is a “courageous” leader.
Sunzi’s Art of War should be in the reading queue ahead of Williamson, Cliff!
To change the topic slightly, I hope and fervently pray someone is working on a blog post called “A Day in the Life of Hendo”…
The only test of that is next election, Cliff. Everything else is just puff. But the right’s coming from a position of strength. And really, how does one actually underestimate Kim Beazley?
Yes, I rarely agree with Jack, including in most of the second half of his comment in this thread, but he’s no Birdman; more a gentleman.
I think the comments have been interesting, using Hendo as a springboard. But let’s be blunt. His column is no more than Hendo doing his common, and I think rather slimy (or at least cowardly, and certainly not scholarly) finger-pointing spray; using his strangely privileged column for publicly prejudicially naming ‘leftists’ under beds, in the same way that he made his media name in the first place. He plys a shameful trade.
“The only test of that is next election, Cliff. Everything else is just puff.”
Well, one can dream. Oh and didn’t you get the memo? “Puff” has been redefined by Dominoes pizza.
I missed the memo!
http://sopuff.com.au/home/default.asp
re: cs’s comments. I don’t understand why newspaper editors publish GH’s rubbish like this column. I mean, what is it’s worth other than as some weird caricature that says more about GH’s lack of something to write about?
Who did he use to come up with this caricature?
My sleeping patterns are very weird: it’s 12:30am in Sydney, I need to get up tomorrow at 6am, and I don’t feel tired at all due to a 2hr sleep this evening after work.
Coming in late as another lefty who’s worked her bum off all day, and is now relaxing with a glass of wine, excellent posts by Cristy and Laura and a great reality check comment from Mel.
I did make it to Riverbend books at Bulimba today, though, which I believe is Ruddy’s coffee shop of choice after he goes to the Anglican Church on Oxford St on Sundays.
Cliff, you must read Sunzi!
Oh, and I wish to note my agreement with this part of Jack’s comment (which will no doubt horrify him):
The culture war, I’m increasingly coming to believe, is an artefact of almost pure discourse though. It’s ethereal, somehow disconnected from the reality of lived experience. Which is proved by Hendo’s only connection to that experience being his imagination - fuelled by the same media consumption that he deplores.
Self-referential, tedious, but like cs, I think he’s done some good work in the world today (or rather Cristy and Laura have) by inspiring some good discussion.
Does it come with Coke Zero, Cliff?
I think you’re just avoiding the issue, CS. I think Laura got it, though without really admitting it. Henderson has your lot bang to rights.
No-one cares about your vote, not even Labor. It’s in the bag, locked up, and it still didn’t count. It didn’t win government for Labor. Labor has to win back a majority of the swingers. Anti-Howard rhetoric won’t do the trick - the last few elections have proved that. So how is Labor going to do it?
Henderson has your lot bang to rights.
Who is “your”?
I agree that Labor has to win the swingers, but what does “Henderson has your lot bang to rights.” mean?
Lefties, luvvies (assuming there is a distinction).
You’re no threat, no danger. Howard doesn’t need you. The only successful strategy for Labor is to take votes from Howard - the votes that Howard does need. I think the smart people in Labor realise it, but they balk at ditching the liberal commentariat. It’s one thing or the other, in my view.
I think Rob seems to mean to somehow imply that Hendo has a right bead on us Tah supporters.
Rob, I refer you to my comment at the top of the post.
Hendo deals in stereotypes.
Classic inner city seats like Adelaide and Brisbane were only just won by Labor in 2004. The latter is where I live. Lots of leafy streets, but a fair bit of poverty, and lots of Liberal voters who like lattes too. Labor got a higher primary vote in regional Capricornia than in inner city Brisbane. Wayne Swan’s seat of Lilley is much less latte than Brisbane and Swan did nicely. Much of Emerson’s seat of Rankin is classic mortgage belt/young families and he won nicely as well.
Kim’s right - Hendo is just noise.
I’m not saying that you couldn’t find inner city seats that were more solidly Labor, and obviously suburban ones that the Libs won, but the extreme polarisation that Hendo posits is rubbish - it’s a reflection of stereotyping and to be honest, Sydney-centricity.
To win next time, Labor needs one - or both - of two things. Another charismatic figure like Bob Hawke. And/or a suite of good public policies, excellently sold. I can’t see either even remotely on the horizon at this stage. Reality, people.
Any labor functionary worth (his) paypacket should know that they need to win votes off howard to win elections - there ain’t many votes left on the “left” for labor to garner, and they’d keep practically all of them (via preferences) if they moved a bit to appeal to swingers. I’m implicitly assuming a one-dimensional political continuum here.
What is a “luvvie”?
Also, I’m sorry, but Hendo’s writings don’t resonate with me at all - I try to understand things and so read publications that challenge my ideas.
Eloquently argued Rob. I give up. What was the argument again?
Or the Libs could just fall over. Howard wasn’t a charismatic leader and he appropriated most of Keating’s policy position - cleverly running on “we won’t change much, but you won’t have to put up with that bloke”. Having said that, yes, I’d like to see Labor have good leadership and good policy. But as I’m suggesting, Hendo does not provide the key. Most of his readers are probably Labor voters or small l Libs anyway.
Labor was in office for 13 years. The Libs will have had 13 years by the next poll.
Mark, is your gravatar FDR?
Sacha, unfortunately, the way Labor has been carrying on for the past few years you’d think their idea of winning was to take votes from the Greens. There’s no electoral mileage there. The Greens will vote Green - it’s a visceral thing now, beyond the strategic alliance Richardson was able to forge with them in the 80’s (he fooled them anyway, and if they don’t know it, they’re doubly fools). But their preferences will flow to Labor (or to the Dems, and thence to Labor). So as far as it’s possible, Labor has that vote locked up. There’s no point courting them.
And it’s suicide to try. For every Green Labor wins over, they’ll lose a thousand of the swingers.
Howard understands the brutal electoral logic, and exploits it. I’ve yet to seen any sign that Labor does.
I thought this was a post about Hendo and Howard-hating, Howard-hater-hating and Howard-hugging, not what the result of the next election will be and what could make the difference.
I mean, I don’t really care. Just sayin’
Yep, it’s FDR.
I suppose it’s tangentially on topic because Hendo refers to the last election.
But having done my 12 hour day today with only one large flat white and some crummy refec sandwiches to keep me going, I’m off to bed now. Gotta back up again tomorrow - fortunately only 9-5. Night all!
It’s what flows naturally and unf