Disgusting, disgraceful, despicable -- you pick the adjective you want to use about John Howard and his government. Personally, I'd use all three, and then some.
A few weeks ago, Mr Howard was reported as saying he didn't detect a mood in the electorate to change the government. I've got news for him: whether that's right or not, there's a mood to get rid of him. Personally.
And for very good reason. This is the mild-mannered gentleman who's made an artform of lying through his teeth throughout his political career. Look at just the highlights of his litany of deceit: core and 'non-core' promises (announced after he'd won an election); the children overboard' who weren't (and whose refugee parents have never been apologised to); the 'weapons of mass destruction' that didn't exist, and a war we signed up for that we should never have gone near; and the abandonment of David Hicks to the tender mercies of the US army, only to have the damp squib of a single, pathetic, retrospective charge being proffered against Hicks after he's endured five years of hell [for my view on the Hicks' case, see my previous blog].
There's also the small matter of global warming that Howard never believed in, but is suddenly keen to be seen to be doing something about, now that everybody else is worried about it. Typically, his solution is the catastrophic one of nuclear energy -- a nice political squeeze on the opposition, but a disaster for us all if we ever went down that path.
This is the politician and, latterly, the prime minister, who's been wrong on every major problem he's had to decide about. He was wrong on Vietnam (and still is); he was obdurately opposed to putting pressure on the apartheid policies of the South African government; he opposed Asian immigration to Australia; he refused to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol; and, infamously, he committed Australia to the war in Iraq for bogus reasons. Even his supposed support for the independence of East Timor was not what he intended at all.
This is the prime minister for whom no policy backflip is too strenuous if it serves his partisan political purposes. This is the prime minister who's waged a relentless, Nixonian war on his perceived enemies and opponents in the media, the ABC, the universities, and community organisations. This is the prime minister who, for his own hidebound reasons and in his typical deceptive way, has made every working Australian anxious about their -- and their children's -- wages and conditions, This is the prime minister who forgets no slight and tolerates no dissent within his own party.
How ironic that this quintessential social conservative should so betray classic conservative values. The party that once stood for the liberty of the individual, the rule of law, due process, federalism, and the importance of continuity has now been laid waste by Howard and his cronies. Howard now presides over a political fiefdom that rewards servility and punishes opposition. He and his News Limited cheer squad stigmatise and sneer at all those who disagree with him -- no matter how principled they are -- and no matter how much his stance trashes traditional Liberal values. No instance better exemplifies this hubris than his -- and his ministers' -- appalling handling of the David Hicks case.
And lately there's been the small matter of the Kevin Rudd problem. For the first time in his prime ministership, Howard faces a leader of the opposition who's energetic, disciplined, calm, decent, and smarter than him. Rudd also happens to be conservative, Christian, and ambitious -- which is a difficult trio of core attributes to smear.
The immediate result has been a significant lift in Labor's poll results and prospects, and in Rudd's personal standing. I think what this is telling us is that the electorate has been waiting for an ALP leader they can trust and believe in, so they can finally do what they've wanted to do for years -- get rid of Howard. The odd thing about this politically is that it's purely personal: a significant majority of the community can't stand Howard. I suspect they would support a Liberal Party with a more centrist, honest leader.
Howard's response to this serious threat has been classic: he's been rattled by the competition, and then had to resort to focus-group polling to aver that Rudd is 'a bit full of himself'. Then, when news broke of Rudd's meetings with the disgraced ex-con and former premier of Western Australia, Brian Burke, he set loose his bovver-boy and heir-apparent, Peter Costello. The treasurer, who loves a stoush, has gone in boots-and-all. 'Anyone who deals with Mr Brian Burke is morally and politically compromised', Costello thundered in parliament on Thursday. Two days later, Costello's over-the-top vaudeville act had caused collateral damage to his own side: the erstwhile human services minister, Ian Campbell, had to resign after admitting that he'd met Burke in his (Campbell's) office.
Rudd, in the meantime, has admitted an error of judgment, has been straightforward about it, and has stayed calm. This latter quality is like pure gold, and I sense that it is this feature above others that gives electors the confidence to feel that they can trust him to act reasonably on their behalf.
As for Mr Howard, he has besmirched his office, reduced his party to a shell of its former self, and made ordinary Australians feel bad about their own country. To put it mildly, he has overstayed his welcome.
As Oliver Cromwell said to the rump parliament in April 1653, 'You have been sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god, go!'
Henry Rosenbloom