 |
| Can Howard beat Bush? Image by Sydney Morning Herald online news editor Richard Woolveridge. |
Related: Will Howard beat Bush? |
Two Webdiarists sent me pieces of the highest quality over the weekend. Harry Heidelberg offers his take on the extraordinary rise and rise of anti-war US Democrats candidate Howard Dean – courtesy of internet activism. Daniel Moye explores the reasons why genuine conservatives fear John Howard.
Harry’s piece is Will Howard beat Bush? Daniel’s piece, ‘Understanding boundaries’, is published below.
What I love about these pieces is that the writers come across as clear eyed, engaged and intellectually rigorous. Harry, a small ‘l’ Liberal, and Dan, a conservative who votes Liberal, supported the war on Iraq. The aftermath of victory has helped crystalise Dan’s concerns about John Howard’s agenda, and his piece is a call to action by conservatives to reassert a central place for conservative principles in Liberal Party governance of the nation. Harry hasn’t yet revealed his stance on the war in hindsight: his essay is about the strengths of democracy United States’ style as evidenced by the Howard Dean phenomenon.
Dan has agreed to become a Webdiary columnist. I hope his archive will be ready to publish this week. Thank you, Dan.
***
Understanding boundaries
by Daniel Moye
Disclosure: I’m one of those over-represented, much maligned minority groups – conservative white male. Love my footy (any and all footy), cricket, beer, bourbon and horse racing. My left-over brain cells from years of party hard in Sydney’s pubs and clubs have been used to work over-time (without union representation) and to consume history, philosophy and espionage books. I’ve worked in dodgy $2 shops and as a disability support staffer, a failed pool hustler, a battered and bruised bubble stockbroker and a resident jack of all trades in an industrial technology company in the United States. Pet hates – bad jockeys and self-servicing politicians. Ambitions – to write a decent novel one day and to own a Melbourne Cup winner. (Daniel lives in the blue ribbon Sydney north shore seat of Bradfield.)
At a time when John Howard stands supreme upon the Australian political stage it is perhaps ironic that I believe conservative Australians need to reflect upon whether or not the Howard Government is upholding our traditions. By outlining what I think it means to be a conservative Australian and contrasting conservative principles with the recent Howard agenda, I hope to underline the threat that his government poses to our traditional values.
Having been educated in the Humanities, I have come across and flirted with many political ideologies. I settled upon a conservative democratic position because of my belief in two guiding Conservative Principles:
* Conservative philosophy defends the institutions, ideas and freedoms that have served us so well now because conservatives believe that the best traditions of our democracy need to be preserved whenever change is needed to meet new challenges.
2. Conservative philosophy seeks to create a balance between the national interest and that of the individual citizen because it is important that government does not overly intrude upon the aspirations, expectations, energy and enthusiasm of individuals to prosper in our democracy. Conservatives believe that we need a strong government limited to areas where there is a compelling national interest to be served.
Understanding the boundaries between government and the individual, government and the national interest, government and civil society, the national interest and the rights of individual and the national interest and a prosperous economy are at the heart of all meaningful debates in conservative circles.
When assessing these competing interests, conservatives tend to the view that the boundaries need to be skewed towards individual rather than collective responsibility, except where there is a compelling national interest at stake. The areas that encompass ‘national interest’ define not only the debate in conservative circles but also more generally the broad political debate in Australia.
For many conservative Australians, including myself, it is difficult to encapsulate our objections to the Howard Government. I supported the downsizing of government and the further deregulation of the Australian economy and I acknowledge excellent management of that economy, so it is not as if the Howard Government has overwhelmingly got it wrong.
Similarly, presented with the daunting challenges of controlling illegal migration and the threat and reality of War and Terror, John Howard has shown strong leadership.
It is the blurring of the boundary in this government’s mind between ‘the national interest’ and that of the Liberal party that the heart of my objection lies.
Boundary blur one – unnecessary diminution of civil rights
In confronting the domestic challenges of the War on Terror the Howard Government has unnecessarily sacrificed the rights of the individual over the national interest in defending our citizens from terrorist attacks. The ASIO legislation has strengthened already strong powers of surveillance and interrogation and in so doing has removed critical rights of Australians.
It is necessary for government to more actively know more about hostile and potentially violent political terrorists in our post 9/11 world, but are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater by allowing our authorities to hold suspects without charge or representation for an extended period of time? This big government approach, however well meaning, provides an unnecessary slippery slope that less benign future Australian governments could exploit.
The domestic political landscape of the War on Terror sees competing interests jostle – a compelling national interest and the sovereign rights of individual citizens. It is at the boundary between the two that Howard has got it wrong. Whether he got it wrong due to his political or his personal need to do more, or a combination of both, John Howard has unnecessarily further diminished the institutions and ideas that conservatives have strongly defended and that thousands of Australians have died to defend.
Boundary blur two – misleading citizens on the reasons for Australia invading Iraq
The Howard Government quite rightly argued that an active interventionist approach to confront rogue states is the only way to meet the challenges of WMD proliferation and terrorism. But by arguing for intervention in Iraq the way he did he blurred the boundary between ‘the national interest’ and the political interest of the Liberal Party.
By pursuing a political saleable WMD approach to the War on Iraq Howard has put in jeopardy the long-term goal that that war is trying to achieve. Whilst not wholly his fault, Howard has provided unnecessary ammunition to opponents of his approach to the War on Terror and of our crucial relationship with the United States.
Boundary blur three – Actively seeking to stifle dissent
The Howard government has pursued an unrelenting attack on his opponents, including indigenous rights groups, the ABC and non-government organisations with alternative viewpoints. I don’t necessarily support the views such groups profess, but by continuing this war of attrition the Howard Government is encroaching over the boundary between government and civil society.
Just as I do not want large government welfare, I also do not want large government imposing its views on civil society. The health of our democratic tradition depends on breathing space for alternative viewpoints on government policy. This approach is not in the conservative tradition of limiting governmental power and influence.
Boundary blur four – Reducing government accountability and transparency
Whilst not originating with the Howard Government, the continued decline of accountability and transparency under its stewardship threatens the institutions that conservatives have defended for so long. The coterie of spin doctors protecting ministers, the de-toothing of Senatorial inquiries and the attacks upon the functioning of the Senate have all contributed to the cynical attitude of the Australian people to our parliamentary system.
The mandate of the Liberal party does not extend to both Houses of Parliament, and this is not a quirk of the system but a judgement of the Australian citizenry. Any democratic government should never confuse the interest of itself as the governing party with that of ‘the national interest’. This is the most dangerous boundary for a government to cross.
I could extend my argument into other domestic areas like cross media and the narrowing influence of economic rationalism, but I will refrain.
I don’t know whether my concerns will be heard by other conservative voters or by conservative backbenchers, but if they are, I ask conservative voters and politicians to assess mu view that it is not only the destruction of conservative institutions and ideas that are at stake here, but also the long term relevance of conservative politics.
The Liberal Party under John Howard has progressively alienated many conservatives and at the same time widened the gap between himself and the traditional centre of Australian politics. Sooner or later the tide will turn. We conservatives need to consider the current political position of the British Tory party and that of the Conservatives in Canada – do we really want the centre of Australian political life to be dominated by Social Democrats?
Conservatives should understand the boundaries we are creating for Australia and ourselves under Howard. You may support Howard in varying degrees on particular issues, as I do, but let’s not confuse the trees for the forest.