Spot the difference
The difference is that Rudd is younger, and less on the nose politically as a result.
Peter Hartcher this morning devotes four web pages to telling us that these two are different and does such a poor job of convincing me that I was moved to write this post in response.
He starts off by pointing out that in 2000 people said that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Hartcher grossly exaggerates the extent to which this was an accepted wisdom, and also the extent to which it is a popular view of the Rudd/Howard contest. Undoubtedly, there was a difference on the climate and tax-cutting, both very important issues, but on the most important issue, America’s imperialist adventures, there is simply no evidence Gore would have acted dierently.
In any case, I would point to a different contest as far more closely mirroring the Rudd/Howard contest, namely that between Tony Blair and John Major in 1997. British politics is more of a guide to Australian politics than American politics is; I think this has something to do with the fact that the Westminster system’s combination of executive and legislative power in parliament, leads to stable governments of a single stipe over periods that the US division of powers does not.
Blair took power with some key progressive policies: introducing a statutory minimum wage, equalizing the homosexual age of consent, made museum access free (although this benefited tourists more than Britons) and passing a Human Rights Act. He did all of these within a year of office. He also, however, in the same time period, introduced several key neoliberal policies, abolishing free higher education, making the central bank independent and introduced Britain’s workfare dole, the JSA. Over the next ten years, he presided over massive growth in inequality, introduced historically-unprecedentedly-Draconian legislation, and was at the forefront of imperialist assaults on three countries. It’s probable that the Tories would have cut tax more, but they never tried to introduce some of these measures despite being in power for 18 years.
What are the differences between Rudd and Howard? Hartcher points to three: Iraq, WorkChoices, “and the person of Howard himself.” No disagreement about the last of these, but this is precisely the basis for a contention that there is no real difference. Yes, Rudd is better than Howard on WorkChoices, but not as good as the system we had three years ago and would still have if Howard hadn’t got control of the Senate (compare Blair, who also hardly changed the “reforms” of Thatcher, and indeed hailed her as a hero). On Iraq? Yes, better than Howard, but, as with WorkChoices, hardly any different: he wants to pull most of Australia’s troops out, but not all. It’s quite clear, moreover, that Australia’s contribution to the occupation is almost insignificant, and that the troops never do anything much because of fear of the propaganda catastrophe of them getting popped. Moreover, the ALP’s policy is to put said troops into Afghanistan, an occupation with no more basis in natural justice, albeit one with a firmer basis in international law. We could go on: Rudd wants to sign Kyoto, a major bonus for his image apropos of Howard, but one which Howard is right to point out doesn’t mean all that much; Rudd wants to say “sorry” to Aborigines, unlike Howard, but all the while following through with Howard’s policy of Apartheid legislation, stealing children, forcing Aborigines to work, militarily occupying their land and suspending their land rights.
Guy wrote:
Mark, at least as far as the leadership goes, its probably fair to say that Rudd and Howard do have their similarities, particular in relation to the way that they campaign. But I don’t think there was any escaping that approach for Labor if they wanted to be competitive. People don’t want a big bang - they want stability and incremental improvements. I think its highly likely that a Rudd Opposition that ran their campaigns like a bigger, slightly shinier version of the Greens would have been shat on from a great height at the polls tomorrow.
It’s hard to see how that would have been a good outcome for Australia.
So, in short, of course there is reason for concern that a Rudd Labor Government is going to be more of the same with a few softer edges. However, I think its over-ambitious given Australia’s demographics and generally conservative social views to think that the Opposition can all but re-introduce old-school democratic socialism and go in hard on all the symbolic issues, if that is by implication what you think Labor should have done in this campaign.
Getting progressive issues up into the limelight is an ongoing battle. It has to be by definition given the conservative mindset of a lot of people in this country - if we really do have a democracy. Don’t forget, however, just how many members of a Federal Labor government would stand up for progressive issues - certainly there is much more prospect of such issues getting a leg up under Labor than the current government.
I expect these things to take time. A Rudd Labor Government does need to govern for everyone, as much as some of us (in a perfect world, myself included) would like for it to govern more specifically on behalf of a few select inner-city electorates.
Liam wrote:
Sorry, Guy, the last comment was caught for a long time in the spam filter. I promise to check more often.
Mark wrote:
The problem with the idea that the Rudd government is going to make Australia more progressive is, as Ross Gittens pointed out before the election, that Rudd actually is a conservative, hence there’s no reasonable expectation that he will use state power to pursue a progressive agenda – he’ll pursue a centrist agenda, which means that Howard’s assault on the truth-telling functions of the state media and education sector will be at least be stopped. Perhaps the education revolution will live up to its name in ideological consequences?
Post new comment