12 February 2007
John Howard's hubris
Australian PM John Howard stunned many people on both sides of the Pacific with his ferocious attack on US Democratic presidential nomination hopeful, Barack Obama. In one fell swoop, Howard has probably helped to harden US and possibly Australian public opinion against Bush's Iraqi disaster rather than help his beseiged master in the White House.
Not only that, imagine the knives that would be out for Howard were he to win re-election in Australia while a Democratic Party ruled both the Congress and White House! Chi Hua-Hua John will surely get booted up his rear end by the rightly outraged Democrats.
In a reverse incident some years back, many Australians were angered when a Bush crony, the then US ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer, saw fit to tell Australians that voting for the then Labor Party opposition leader, Mark Latham, would be a disaster for the country. Australians on both sides of politics regarded Schieffer's intervention as arrogant interference in Australia's domestic politics.
Howard's bemusing outburst against Obama is fascinating for its possible motives. Let's be clear, Obama is just one of the majority of US voters, presidential hopefuls, senators and congressmen who oppose America's continuing involvement in Iraq. For example, even Republican senator John Warner (one time secretary for the navy) is opposed to the troop escalation and questions continuing involvement in Iraq.
So what on earth prompted Howard to single out Obama and not for example, Hillary Clinton - who has also pledged to bring US troops home? I think the answer lies in Obama's broad-based bipartisan appeal to US voters. His charisma and perceived sincerity project much greater gravitas and credibility than his brief government experience would suggest.
Howard quite rightly perceived that Obama's views would play very well to a nation cynical about long-time politicians, and therefore have great capacity to shift public opinion even more resolutely against Bush and his policies. Were this to happen, then anyone strongly associated with the war-criminal would also be similarly discredited in the eyes of their own voters.
Let's deconstruct Howard into the hypocrite that he is, shall we? As the BBC reported,
"Mr Howard said any withdrawal of US troops by March 2008 - the date Mr Obama believes should be set - would mean defeat for Washington.
And of course last but not least, if Iraq is so vital to Australia's national security, then Howard should have far more than the paltry 1400 Australian troops in Iraq, and they should be in the Baghdad frontline instead of the safe southern province. Better still, Howard should demonstrate the courage of his apparent convictions by getting his sons into the army (instead of one working for the US Republican Party), and ensuring they serve in Baghdad. It's all about leadership by example, Chi Hua-Hua John.
Instead, what do we see? Bush's little lap dog yaps from the sidelines, committing very little to his bullshit. What a strange and twisted set of moral values Chi Hua-Hua John possesses.
So how are Australian voters likely to react to Howard's hypocritical dummy spit?
What about the Howard regime's economic management credentials? In the important swing states of Victoria and New South Wales, mortgage defaults are sky-rocketing due to recent interest rate increases. Mortgagee-in-possession sales have strongly affected the swing voters who gave Howard his last election victory.
And now that these voters have lost their homes, they are certainly feeling less wealthy than before. If my observations of these voters are correct (again see False dawn or a real sea change?), then Howard's economic management credentials have a stake through the heart as far as these voters are concerned. So if Obama rings true with US voters on Iraq and it flows through to Australian voters, then Howard's two advantages over his Labor rival Kevin Rudd, would be neutralised.
A final possible motive for Howard's attack on Obama, is that he fears a parallel appeal with Australian voters in the Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd. Since Rudd's ascension as leader of the opposition, Howard has been focussing on the former's lack of government experience. Indeed, if Howard can successfully play up voter fears about Rudd's inexperience, then voters are likely to re-elect the devil they know rather than the acolyte they don't know.
On the other hand, if voters see Rudd's inexperience in the same positive light as Obama's - ie the cleanskin untarnished by cynical power broker plays in dim backrooms, then Howard would represent all that is bad about the old ways.
The coming federal election will be a genuine "at-a-crossroad" experience for the country. While there's much to dislike about Rudd, there's even more to dislike about Howard.
Not only that, imagine the knives that would be out for Howard were he to win re-election in Australia while a Democratic Party ruled both the Congress and White House! Chi Hua-Hua John will surely get booted up his rear end by the rightly outraged Democrats.
In a reverse incident some years back, many Australians were angered when a Bush crony, the then US ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer, saw fit to tell Australians that voting for the then Labor Party opposition leader, Mark Latham, would be a disaster for the country. Australians on both sides of politics regarded Schieffer's intervention as arrogant interference in Australia's domestic politics.
Howard's bemusing outburst against Obama is fascinating for its possible motives. Let's be clear, Obama is just one of the majority of US voters, presidential hopefuls, senators and congressmen who oppose America's continuing involvement in Iraq. For example, even Republican senator John Warner (one time secretary for the navy) is opposed to the troop escalation and questions continuing involvement in Iraq.
So what on earth prompted Howard to single out Obama and not for example, Hillary Clinton - who has also pledged to bring US troops home? I think the answer lies in Obama's broad-based bipartisan appeal to US voters. His charisma and perceived sincerity project much greater gravitas and credibility than his brief government experience would suggest.
Howard quite rightly perceived that Obama's views would play very well to a nation cynical about long-time politicians, and therefore have great capacity to shift public opinion even more resolutely against Bush and his policies. Were this to happen, then anyone strongly associated with the war-criminal would also be similarly discredited in the eyes of their own voters.
Let's deconstruct Howard into the hypocrite that he is, shall we? As the BBC reported,
"Mr Howard said any withdrawal of US troops by March 2008 - the date Mr Obama believes should be set - would mean defeat for Washington.
He said that defeat for the US would end hopes for peace in the Palestinian Territories and cause widespread destabilisation in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan."
Well, let's see now. If Chi Hua-Hua Howard was really so concerned about stability in the Middle East, then he would have urged his partner in war crimes not to invade Iraq under the bullshit cover of non-existent NBC weapons. Saudi Arabia and Jordan were a whole lot less jittery when Saddam Hussein was in power - counter-balancing Iran. But after turning Iraq into rubble, Team Neo-Con opened the door for Iran to fill the vacuum.
And of course last but not least, if Iraq is so vital to Australia's national security, then Howard should have far more than the paltry 1400 Australian troops in Iraq, and they should be in the Baghdad frontline instead of the safe southern province. Better still, Howard should demonstrate the courage of his apparent convictions by getting his sons into the army (instead of one working for the US Republican Party), and ensuring they serve in Baghdad. It's all about leadership by example, Chi Hua-Hua John.
Instead, what do we see? Bush's little lap dog yaps from the sidelines, committing very little to his bullshit. What a strange and twisted set of moral values Chi Hua-Hua John possesses.
So how are Australian voters likely to react to Howard's hypocritical dummy spit?
In an earlier post, I observed (False dawn or real sea change?) that Australian and US voters are more similar to each other in their behaviour, compared to their British counterparts. And although Australian voters have proven they won't vote a prime minister out of office on the grounds of moral turpitude, a strengthening of voter perceptions that the Iraqi war is immoral undermines Howard's self-proclaimed national security credentials.
As Howard himself recently claimed, the Coalition government is more trusted than the Labor opposition on economic management and national security. But if Obama hardens US voter sentiment against Bush's policies, Australian voters could similarly react by increasing their distrust of Howard on national security issues.What about the Howard regime's economic management credentials? In the important swing states of Victoria and New South Wales, mortgage defaults are sky-rocketing due to recent interest rate increases. Mortgagee-in-possession sales have strongly affected the swing voters who gave Howard his last election victory.
And now that these voters have lost their homes, they are certainly feeling less wealthy than before. If my observations of these voters are correct (again see False dawn or a real sea change?), then Howard's economic management credentials have a stake through the heart as far as these voters are concerned. So if Obama rings true with US voters on Iraq and it flows through to Australian voters, then Howard's two advantages over his Labor rival Kevin Rudd, would be neutralised.
A final possible motive for Howard's attack on Obama, is that he fears a parallel appeal with Australian voters in the Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd. Since Rudd's ascension as leader of the opposition, Howard has been focussing on the former's lack of government experience. Indeed, if Howard can successfully play up voter fears about Rudd's inexperience, then voters are likely to re-elect the devil they know rather than the acolyte they don't know.
On the other hand, if voters see Rudd's inexperience in the same positive light as Obama's - ie the cleanskin untarnished by cynical power broker plays in dim backrooms, then Howard would represent all that is bad about the old ways.
The coming federal election will be a genuine "at-a-crossroad" experience for the country. While there's much to dislike about Rudd, there's even more to dislike about Howard.
Labels: bush, chi hua-hua, clinton, crony, democratic party, destabilisation, howard, iraq, lap dog, obama, republican, schieffer
