I have a piece published at The Drum today which suggests that we, in many respects, appear still to be living in Howardia.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
Kevin07 campaigned as “Howard Lite” – a fiscal conservative. The main two reasons for a change of government were the Australian electorates long established trend of giving the otherside a crack after a few terms and the highly effective +$100 million campaign by the ACTU against WorkChoices including a highly effective and wel funded marginal seat campaign.
Anybody expecting anything different from “Howard Lite” must think the ALP were liars.
Howard was PM for nearly 12 years so it’s not surprising that his ghost still lingers. Indeed, Howardism had been large part of policy and political fabric since he became Treasurer in 1977, so it’s really not surprising.
However, all bad smells go away eventually. The key dynamic at play is the new Senate. We have the carbon tax which is as important for what the cultural shift represents and the people it offends (fuck the lot of ‘em) as what it will actually do. We will soon after marriage equality – ditto.
Labor and the Greens have the chance to concrete into place some real changes before the inevitable deluge. Indeed my friends in Canberra tell me that something strange has hit the Government. Because the political situation is so hopeless, the feeling in senior circles is that they might as well do something serious in the time they have left.
Howard’s ghost is still setting the political agenda. We have his favourite loony leading the Liberal Party after
- aiding Pauline Hanson to articulate her One nation policy and providing David Oldfield to run the party
- conducting the anti-republic referendum that has retained the monarchy
Australian society continues to be formed by him
- backing Labor into a punitive corner over imprisonment of refugees
- failing to recognise global warming
- legislating for carbon trading rather than cutting carbon emissions – and using his colleague who wrote his thesis in support of carbon trading to argue against it
- using the proposer of the NBN as the spokesperson againt the NBN
OK, I hate the man who I don’t think can lie straight in bed or do Australian womanhood any favours
@bILLIE
“aiding Pauline Hanson to articulate her One nation policy and providing David Oldfield to run the party”
I may have misunderstood but are you saying Abbott was a hanson fan?
OBR said:
Indeed. Recall Garrett’s “short jocular conversation” and the angst over that? Joe McDonald? Dean Mighell? ABCC? Picking your cabinet?
As Sam says above, 12 years is a long time, a significant portion of many journalist’s career.
Personally, I feel that there is a widening lack of meaning for politics in ordinary people’s lives. Politics is becoming less and less public, or social and more and more a mixture of institutional bureaucracy and media space.
There no longer seems to be anything behind politics. The only people still feeding on the corpse are careerists (not only strictly political), so that everyone else just passes on over, looking for a better source of nourishment. A bit like Jay Rosen or Lindsay Tanner says, politics has been over analysed, not only by the commentators and the pollsters, but it now exists in this abstract dimension, where politics is an artificial game of political tactics and strategy.
This is actually a case where we need a kind of simpler, more direct politics– not as some kind of sentimental grasp at the past, but because recent development has actually taken politics away from it’s actual function. We can’t expect good outcomes from a politics, which does not really represent the people. Tactics and Strategy, are relics of post modernism, they are based on implied positions, on an analysis by the messenger of, for example, how a listener, interprets a message. Nobody, today takes the messenger seriously and so there are no serious listeners either.
Howard’s wedge strategies and his use of the “Culture Wars” to manufacture political talking points, of ostensibly no policy value (see Mark’s link above) — ala US politics– certainly went a long way to destroying the credibility of the political institution. (And it wasn’t only One Nation, but also the Family First movement, etc. It was in many respects a dark period.)
Even the last election, overshadowed by leaks and the Grinch affair. Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Craig Thompson, Tony Abbott– Australian politics stinks more than usual atm.
Please read the article more carefully.
As I said:
There were two constituencies he had to unite.
It’s wrong, and reductionist in the extreme, to suggest that had it not been for WorkChoices, Howardism would happily have sailed on forever, subject only to the “desire for a change” swing of the pendulum.
Governments have to govern for minorities as well as majorities, which is something Tony Abbott does not understand. The notion that everyone will jump for joy, or simply acquiesce, if he tries to undo everything done by the current Labor government is an absurdity, and one which will be his undoing, if indeed he ever becomes PM.
It is a signal mistake, as I argue, to think that there is not a very large portion of the electorate that wants Howardism over and done with. As I also argue, many of the reactionary features of Howardism become harder and harder to realise as social reality itself moves further away from them.
‘Anybody expecting anything different from “Howard Lite” must think the ALP were liars.’
News Ltd doesn’t agree with that assessment. Robert Manne notes that in the beginning of his Premiership they chortled that the Left were expecting a social democrat while the Oz ‘knew’ he was really a Labor Howard. But by 2010 they were denouncing him as the second coming of Whitlam.
For me, despite the great lack of advance on progressive isssues there is one reason alone that stands out why the liberals simply cant be trusted (no matter how bad the right wing Gillard labor leadership is).
Its called workchoices and if Australians backtrack now..they deserve completely what they get (because they will get it).
Pauline Hanson entered Parliament as a Liberal Party member. She was a protege of Tony Abbott and the Liberals later adopted One Nation policies
David Oldfield worked for Tony Abbott
When One nation started David Oldfield became campaign director
“political hatchet man Tony Abbott – the bloke who hand-picked the appalling David Oldfield to work in his Canberra office – was involved in destroying One Nation.
“Abbott got disaffected One Nation member Terry Sharples a barrister with close Liberal Party connections to mount a civil case against the registration of One Nation and promised Sharples he’d help fund the case.
SMH http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/22/1061529330032.html
I had forgotten about work choices despite Peter Wreathe’s public campaign for its reintroduction.
I expect Captain Catholic will struggle to keep his hands off Australia’s ovaries, expect contraceptoin,morning after pill and abortion to become more difficult to access.
Victorian PremierTed Baillieu’s reversal of environmental policy indicates what the feds will do, he has
1. reneged on water buy back
2. returned cattle to Alpine National Park
3. stopped wind power overlooking his mates weekenders
4. permitted Hazelwood to expand instead of closing – brown coal burns dirty
5. issued coal mining permits next to suburban Bacchus Marsh for brown coal
6. cut funding for vocational education
7. trashed Health agreements jeopardising hospital funding
Tony Abbott has said he will rescind legislation restricting how much money pokies can extract from a gambler. I don’t think Howard would do that.
Mark @ 7 – are you sure it wasn’t more about a desire for an end to Howard rather than an end to Howardism? Eg. the government had just been in power for too long and people wanted someone else in charge.
Well he’ll do a pretty good job of governing for the climate change denier minority
Chris, as I said, for some people it was about one, for others about the other.
We shouldn’t forget that even in 2004, 47% of the electorate voted against Howard.
“Governments have to govern for minorities as well as majorities, which is something Tony Abbott does not understand.”
…and the Gillard Government is currently governing for the minority. Long may it remain that way.
In fact, Mark, no – you are wrong. It always makes me want to puke when a Pollie wins an election and in the victory speech says they will govern for all – no they won’t – it is humanly not possible – someone will always be unhappy and the pollie never means it anyway.
Gillard isn’t governing for communists, libertarians, deep greens, christian fundies or islamicists etc. – or if she is then she is doing it in a funny way.
Mark, I’m wondering how you see the continuing casualisation of the workforce in the framework of your thesis. It seems to me a case where social reality continues to move in the direction of Howardism.
KRudd was also a victim of political tactics, when he thought he would just let the Libs stew in their own juice as they were undecided about the carbon tax. His strategy was to win the next election, poor chap.
Sometimes you can see the wheels in Rudd’s mind turning– a truly horrible sight, this kind of clever-boy calculating, ‘they’re gonna hate me, but how much are they gonna hate me?– well, I can live with that.’
Keep it simple stoopid, would have been better, for the poor old Ruddster…
OBR, I know you’re trying, but governments do govern for everyone who they govern over per definition. It’s just like you to not get the joke about for.
Brian, I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but I’ve been hearing about the “continuing casualization of the workplace” since at least 1991. I don’t think this is a peculiarity of either Howard or Rudd or Gillard. It’s a feature of neo-liberalism, which has been around since Keating.
My view is that Rudd moved away from Howard style policies to the extent that it spooked the ALP so they rolled him. Gillard continues most of the Howard government ideals I dispise but the majority of the population want such as the treatment of boat people and people on the dole.
Part of me is starting to think she’s almost paving the way for an easy transition of Australia to an Abbott government. At the very least she’s making sure as hell she doesn’t upset the important voters. The Coalition ones.
@15 OBR, Shirley you cannot be that obtuse.
Maybe a tyranny of the majority is more your speed, but personally I’m happy with representative democracy. That’s why, in the NSW Upper House for example, the Shooters, the Christian Democrats and the Greens all sit together under one roof and scrutinise bills passed by the Lower House, all present based on a proportional share of the electorate whose support they attract.
Democratic governments can and do routinely pass both positive and negative laws that protect minorities and interest-groups from oppression by hegemonic groups in the community.
Christ on a pogo-stick, it’s not that difficult a concept to grasp.
As the quip goes — democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others that have been tried from time to time.
Or the other quip — in a dictatorship one person gets their way, in an oligarchy a few people get their way, in a democracy nobody gets their way!
Mercurius quoted:
Which raises questions about what kind of regime Australia is in practice … oligarchy? Arguably so.
Nope, a plutocracy that runs a Punch and Judy show entitled “Democracy”.
Consolingly, Punch and Judy appear to enjoy the sensation of Plutocracy’s fists up their clackers.
Howard was PM for a (brief–relatively) moment in history when corporate hegemony was bedding itself firmly as a ‘reality’ we apparently had to concede. He and Costello were able to make GDP look like the ant’s pants with their complete twaddle of “you’ve never had it so good” that in the main the majority took on stupidly and proudly, regardless of the inexorable downhill slide of their own finances or job security. The world shifted substantially under Howard and he simply accommodated and couched it to his own advantage. He was personally however (as the majority also knew), a lying, conniving, prick and he and his cabinet became puppets and poster boys for a society where individuals and nations were considered moronic if they don’t first and formostly act out of self-interest.
Rudd vanquished him but economically and socially the horses had already bolted and I don’t believe there’s much that any politician can do or will do to spare us from the inevitable fall of a dodgy and corrupt capitalist system–least of all Julia Gillard who seems to constantly if obliquely reference Howard era policies aided and abetted by Abbott who does likewise less obtusely.
It may not be entirely satisfying for us to have no clear leading party, and annoyingly government-by-committee is probably the best we can hope for in the short-term.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for capitalism to fail, if by “fail” you mean that capitalism will be replaced by something else.
There are two likely outcomes of the present crisis:
1. A quasi fascist corporatism underwritten by government in the interests of corporations deemed to be too big to fail. This is more or less the situation that pertains under the Obama/Geithner administration today.
2. Liquidation of the zombie entities, bankruptcy of the bondholders, significant deflation, transfer of ownership of assets at knockdown prices to entities that have preserved their liquidity — ie., East Asian banks.
Politically, I believe that option 1 is more acceptable to most western voters. Americans and Europeans will vote for corporatism in preference to Market capitalism with an Asian face. Australians are in a much more ambiguous relationship with Asian capital.
That is an elegant summary Katz. At the beginning of the GFC I recall seeing one wily old Republican making an impassioned speech against the proposed bank bailout on the grounds that it would only entrench the kind of behaviour that led to the crisis in the first place, the PBS News hour correspondent then pointed out that the alternative was essentially your second option, and that was never going to happen.
@16 – Brian, yes, but there’s no policy framework to deal with the negative aspects of it.
Alice, #9, they are that stupid (and vile), go check the opinion polls…
Thanks su.
To make the connection with the subject of the OP, recall Abbott’s extraordinary bribe over parental leave wherein he was prepared to tax the large corporations (read the mining sector) to buy some votes. This was an example of Howardism on steroids.
The voters didn’t buy it (just). This was an example of populism funded by Australia’s export sector. Abbott thoroughly wedged the big corporations who could not pass the extra costs onto their Asian customers. Instead, probably, they argued that they were on the cusp of a huge boom and were therefore prepared to carry the cost rather than to turn on Abbott, thereby favouring the ALP.
Narrowly, the electorate preferred to tax themselves directly for parental leave rather than to endanger the export sector.
This was a close-run thing, however, and it wouldn’t take much to persuade sufficient voters to change their minds on this question.
However, I think it can be argued that Australians are favourably inclined to the alleged benefits of market-driven globalisation. Was this a characteristic of Howardism? The answer to that question is a qualified “yes” only, and less so in the case of Abbott.
Katz, I don’t seriously think I will live to witness the complete breakup of capitalism, so yeah, I’m not holding my breath, but I am hoping it will happen. For all it’s good intentions in essence, capitalism is at best anti-life and at worst murderous.
Remembering we’ve got Peak Oil or the downside of, to deal with down the track a bit, I think the second scenario the most likely, but I think the interim period of complete social breakdown will come before that eventuates and quite quickly and dramatically in some places. Where once I thought it not, Anarchy is looking more and more viable at every turn.
Katz, I would argue it’s a characteristic of keatingism, and I vaguely remember when Howard was running against Keating that he argued (a la Rudd) that people were weary of reform and wanted a steady hand on the tiller for a few years. Sure, some of the reform he said people were sick of was social (especially immigration and land rights -related issues) but a lot of talk was also about economic reform. I remember him distancing himself from the Hewson model of leadership too, arguing that he was going to give Australians a break from economic reform.
Of course, he was lying through his teeth, and he kept the market reforms (or increased them in some cases), but he came into power in the middle of a long conversation about economic reforms and market-driven globalisation, that Keating had led. And, of course, neither he nor Costello offered a word of thanks or credit to a man who was their superior in every way.
I agree sg. Howard got a free ride on the tax proceeds of the mining boom. He didn’t have to make any tough choices.
He even bailed out his failed-businessman brother.
Good article Mark.
It does feel like we’re still living during Howardism first under Rudd (who was a disappointment) and now the appalling Gillard Labor government who seem to have bought into the myth even more than Rudd did and rightly find themselves locked in a game of a chicken with an iceberg.
They’re even trying on Howard’s wedge tactics with the whole ‘Malaysian Solution’ that thankfully blew up in their faces.
I’ve suspected for sometime that some of this stuff like the welfare “reforms” that would even make Howard blush are just really a postscript for the right-wing media (ala Paul Kelly at the OO) to supposedly write glowingly about in ten or so years time. Lindsay Tanner was right.
Katz –
Under either of your scenarios, it seems to me that economic depression is unavoidable in the medium term. How do you think the toiling masses will respond to immiseration in the interests of bondholders? Is there any chance the apparatuses of social control will fail to contain the upheaval this will entail, do you think?
PS Great article, Mark.
Hal9000, Option 1 may enable some economies to escape depression by resorting to autarky. Very few economies have that luxury. Australia may be one of them.
In reality, economies are now so thoroughly intertwined, the cost of unravelling them will almost inevitably result in economic depression. The interesting question is whether the punters can be persuaded that the short term cost is worth the long term gains of national self sufficiency and “salvation” from contamination from foreign corruption, I other words, xenophobia.
Related to the above discussion, European governments have just now agreed on their plan to resolve the Greek crisis. There are too many elements for a comment. But this is relevant:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/story/2011-10-26/eurozone/50945554/1
Here is the power of the state to use a certification process to compel the banks to comply. These banks have conceded a 50% haircut on Greek paper, up from 21% as of last July.
Now the banks must raise a whole lot of capital under adverse circumstances. The question now arises as to who will be able/willing/allowed to recapitalize these banks.
Howard has had a strong effect on Australian policy since he became treasurer in the Fraser government. Quite a lot of what Keating did was in line with what Howard wanted. The difference was that Keating could make these things happen while Howard struggled to convince his leader.
Kevin was elected in 2007 because he offered a change from the grey sludge of Howardism. Part of Labor’s current woes are due to their failure to understand this.
Bonus! Our Head of State can now be a woman, *even if* there’s another option. Plus she can marry someone baptised Catholic (though naturally, she can’t actually be one, like say, me – and all my relatives).
Thanks Commonwealth, for updating the irrelevance of the peevish and shitty Restoration prejudices we call our Constitution.
REPUBLIC NOW!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-28/commonwealth-agrees-to-change-of-royal-succession-rules/3607396
I for one welcome our new (protestant) feminine overlords.
I mean, seriously: what sort of critique of theocracy can we mount in good faith when we still prohibit Catholics from being our Head of State?
There’s a time when even the symbolic becomes too odiously stupid to tolerate.