If the symbolic roadblocks are out of the way for Rudd to “really act”, then I eagerly await his action. If it is stuff like re-establishing ATSIC, then all of us who didn’t vote for him will be proven correct.

the volunteers I had in mind were such as volunteer firefighters, trained first aid persons, carers of disabled people, carers of elderly, volunteers in opp shops, etc with emphasis on community safety, poor and homeless, addicted, elderly folk, Aboriginal unemployed, etc

yeah, bloody do-gooders, but those who do rather than those who only speak.

The lottery aspect should match Aussie traditions [as someone on a recent Republican thread said alottery for Pres would ]

ummmm just a thought

Rudd carried out each of these acts, not to accomplish a material change in itself but chiefly as an emblem of something else.”

Hartcher worked pretty hard to stretch his argument, there.

It’s pretty funny when you think about it. Rudds’ physical body will be in Canberra, predominantly, rather than Sydney. That is a material change. It just so happens that is where the P.M. was meant to reside.

If he decided to sell Kirribilli House it would become “symbolic” and a bloody good idea, as well.

It will be interesting to see where this thread goes, or more importantly what it uncovers.

Symbolism as a governing tool, as commonly used. Symbolism as illusion, misread, for what is really unknown. Symbolism as has grown, in respect of an ‘economy’ (not ‘the economy’ for that is a red herring as much as it is thrashed into a sort of mad clarity otherwise), and how that bespeaks or attempts as much the daily bread.

And for LP, that knocked-out articles [and would it be faced at smh: for his seminal moments otherwise, Hartcher got it so wrong about Howard] get that second look.

Discussions about rent controls etc. are a bit of a furphy in this context, as is the alleged opposition of “the left” (particularly if that is meant to include the ALP) to the “dynamism of capitalism”.

What we’re actually seeing happen is a collapse of some of the narratives about state control over the domestic economy, as David alludes at #1. This is a contrast to the dirigisme and laziness of the Howard/Costello years, where a basically do nothing economic policy (except wrt labour markets) was somehow spun into a wonderful economy that the Libs had created. The debate at the moment on the business pages about inflation targeting, and the increased awareness that any Australian state institutions - Reserve Bank or government - are unable to influence factors which are shifting in the configuration of the global economy is symptomatic of this. The voters are actually way out in front of the commentariat here, I’d argue, and Rudd’s message is tailored to them - we’ll try to do our utmost to buffer you from the shifting sands of world economic factors, and in order to compete, we have to get smart. A whole lot of diversionary rhetoric will go precisely nowhere in what is a very new context for the Australian political debate.

The debate about “symbolism” is yet another legacy of Howard’s animus against Keating, and his tactics and strategy with the “culture wars”. All governments use symbolism to make points and create political capital. Howard did too. The idiocy of dichotomising symbolism and pragmatism or practicality is itself symbolic - it’s a particular lens through which to scrutinise politics which John Howard wanted as a frame. It’s an indictment of the collective wisdom of the Parliamentary press corps that they’re not capable of escaping yet another tedious set of stale dichotomies. A bit of a historical perspective might be useful. Did Fraser eschew symbolism? Did Gorton? Did Menzies? Did Billy Hughes?

Let’s let this hang a moment:

One of the most notable features of Rudd’s symbolic acts is the stunning rapidity with which they have been deployed.

Modern video editing might provide a visual example of governments changing at the hands of voters. Thinking of the video transition here. Pick any type of transition you like; what happens is the once-prevailing state of play recedes in time, and the new one takes over.

Where that is interesting regarding change of government is that the once-prevailing state of play actually creates in significant part the next scene. What prevailed becomes a backdrop. It is crucial in helping to clarify and define. A new contender cannot be a chance until that backdrop has formed. Of course it’s up to the newbie to get it right, but that backdrop - that it has formed, and the way it has formed - is essential for change to take place.

Voters, in their own way, see, hear, feel or intuit this. They may do so of their own accord, or as response to the influences around them.

It helps to see a government congealing as a backdrop, against which the new scene takes place. From that we can deduce what will live on, and what doesn’t have to.

At this time, Rudd is still playing against the backdrop of the previous regime.

The transition hasn’t as yet fully taken place.

Everything he does and says is regarded at some level by the electorate according to what was once the way. This is the normal way of things, and mention of Whitlam here is just as apposite today to enlighten the process, and what is very different this time around is that we don’t really know who Rudd is.

So in effect we have an unknown - and a powerfully driven one at that - in an as yet unformed government.

There are many good quotes in the post above, but coming back to the early one as remarked at the top of this comment, part of the reason why Rudd’s actions are viewed as symbolic is because we don’t really know him. And because he’s unknown, and because he’s operating still against a congealed, nay, cemented-stone backdrop, he can act swiftly here, there, and there again, dipping in and out, flighty and flaring as he likes, without real (political or otherwise - and that’s not necessarily a bad thing) consequence.

This is not to say what he’s doing is flippant. But the way he can play it right now is quite unusual. He can lay waste to past misdeed, past ideas, past constrictions. He can build castles. He can do all of this while suffering no consequence electorally or for others, building ideas to be cemented or discarded with equal ease, all the while gaining information from response, to put in place later what can - should he get it right, politically and for others - be enacted.

Come the budget, and that transition will have effectively taken place. You’ll be seeing the Rudd Government as that.

If that is true, then you’ll also see the Liberals.. well, you won’t see them. They’ll have receded in effect completely. Without policy background - in that new age, just a month or two away - and without leadership substance to carry the day when their cupboard is bare, you’ll have a ‘Simon Crean’ carping is all. Nothing is more vague and useless than a carping opposition for the sake of carp, and nothing vanishes more swiftly in the public regard. (But the aftertaste lingers!)

In this context Rudd has an incredible opportunity. We’ve seen how quickly the electorate can willfully disconnect, once they feel their bases have been covered - whether they actually are or not.

Rudd was brilliant from day one in quieting the suburbs. To his minions:- “work 15 hour days, through weekends and Christmas, visit upon the homeless, visit upon the schools, insinuate into the hearts and minds, for we have hit the ground running and we are in the business of looking after what you wanted”.

While it’s now phase three (two being the overseas tour), and still unformed, so many doors have been opened - symbolic? be careful with that - for extreme political ascension.

This includes the wiping or dissolving away of the old scene ‘culture wars’.

And that - the extremeness of it - is the real cause for reflection, if not concern or worry.

What is brilliantly inspiring about Government Rudd, when it truly forms and goes forward, is that world events will make it or break it, before our countryfolk do. Rather than eleven years of internally-unchecked mayhem, Government Rudd will be called to account by the world itself. Inspiring? Because it just may - at least culturally - do something very valuable indeed.

To state the bleedin’ obvious, Conservatives don’t like change. They want to conserve and protect the structures and rituals with which they are familiar and comfortable.

Though one thing continues to puzzle me, it appears the same people, who oppose the agenda Rudd is setting, are quite comfortable with the change in structure and symbols of their firms and understand the need for renewal and transformation of their companies to ensure continued growth. Why don’t they perceive the same benefit in the social and governance environments? Is it because of their acceptance of change with the economic sphere they require the other spheres to remain stable?

I don’t know the answers - just asking the questions.

On the kulturkampf, I think it matters much less to most of the punters than the belligerents on either side think. It’ll be economics that makes or breaks this government, and on that I’m fairly pessimistic - I think international conditions will make them unlucky.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I reckon the Libs best strategery would be to be very small-l liberal on social issues (Rudd’s government has a lot of small-c social conservatives in it which is preventing it properly exploiting the political space here) while running a pretty pure free-market (not crony capitalist) economic agenda. The latter will make it easy to exploit any economic woes.

I think Rudd has gone for the big symbolic and empty actions to shut up the loony left who are after all, more dangerous and potential derailers to Rudd than they ever would or could be to Howard. How can they complain now?

If they are easy, why didn’t Howard do them?

If they are obvious, why didn’t Howard do them?

If they are popular, why didn’t Howard do them?

Or did Howard only take actions which were hard, obscure and unpopular?

The next silliest aspect is that the Liberals are publicly sledging Rudd for doing (a) what many are publicly claiming they wanted Howard to do (b) what he was elected to do. Just what the voting public think of this hypocrisy - and just how much they wanted these so-called symbolic steps to be taken - are clearly shown in opinion polls.

Kulturkampf - the whole stupid, state-down forced (and ultimately failed) cultural as well as political and religious unification “wars” ought to have died with the war-mongering Prussian martinet who let the German militaristic genie out of the bottle c150 years ago - Otto von Bismarck. Not that the Kulturkamf didn’t achieve great things for other countries! By the time Bismarck died, he’d managed to populate SE Qld & the Darling Downs, SA’s Barossa Valley, other Oz areas (as well as tracts of the Americas, Africa etc) with refugees from his Kulturkampf.

Ironic, though, that Peter Hatcher would use Anzac Day to discuss it!