| Dear Colleagues
The ABC had argued in its recent Triennial Funding Submission to Government that we would not be able to maintain our current level of activity without an increase in funding for content. Having failed to secure that additional funding in the May budget, I foreshadowed the impact this would have on ABC services and programs. You will be aware I had previously announced the closure of our digital multichannel services as a result of funding pressures. As you will understand, the Corporation must live within its budget funds as appropriated by Parliament. Our primary objective in examining how to achieve this has been to retain programs wherever possible. No decisions were easy. Every effort was made to determine fairly which programs and services are to be affected, bearing in mind our Charter obligations and my determination to minimise impact on our staff and audience. The five overarching objectives which underlined managements budget strategy were: – minimise impact on staff On Thursday of last week the Board approved a budget strategy for the 2003/04 financial year which I believe enables us to achieve the above objectives. Faced with the task of having to bridge a recurrent funding gap of some $26m, management had made proposals for reductions to programming and non-programming budgets. In brief those reductions covering a full financial year and which include the previous decision in respect of the multichannels, are: Corporate Support and other non-program functions: $5.04m Although we will endeavour to redeploy as many staff as possible, unfortunately it is anticipated that some twenty to twenty five jobs will be made redundant as a result of our budget pressures. This impact is subject to the agreed consultation process. Those staff that may be impacted directly by the budget outcome have been separately advised by management. Details of the program and service reductions are provided in the below media release to be issued shortly. Staff may very well question the need for program and service reduction when the Government has maintained our funding in real terms. As I have endeavoured to explain publicly on a number of occasions this problem we find ourselves having to confront has generally been brought about as a result of: – The costs of broadcasting and television program acquisition costs increasing at a higher rate than the increase in our funding base, Staff will also be aware of expansion in other areas over recent years including Online and NewsRadio, again for which we received no additional funding. As difficult as any decision is to reduce programs and services, the ABC has no option other than to operate within the level of funds provided by the Parliament. While the resources of the ABC are diminished, its responsibilities are not. I am confident that we have made the best arrangements to meet those responsibilities – both to our staff, and to our audiences whilst we continue to grow our audiences and discharge our obligations as Australias National Broadcaster. It has been recently suggested in the media that the ABCs funding difficulties could be overcome if the ABC were to modify its News and Current Affairs programs, or modify its response to Government complaints. That in return, the ABC may be favoured with additional funding. Doing that would not protect the ABC, but bring about its demise. ABC journalism is not for sale and I am confident staff understand that. Furthermore, I think the Australian people understand it, and generations of Australians have placed their trust in the ABC’s independence from political and commercial influence. We must not betray that trust. If continued funding difficulty is the price of proper editorial independence, then the ABC must be prepared to pay it. Although it has been an extremely difficult period for ABC staff, both leading up to the announcement of the Federal Budget in May and the period since, I am confident that the professionalism, dedication and resilience of ABC staff will prevail and the Corporation will continue to deliver quality programs to our audiences. As we progress this matter I will keep staff informed. Consultation with staff has now commenced and consultation with the Unions will commence shortly. Russell Balding |
Monthly Archives: August 2003
Gulliver unbound: can America rule the world?
 |
Josef Joffe, a contributing editor of Time magazine and publisher-editor of Die Zeit, delivered the twentieth annual John Bonython lecture at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney last night.
There has never been a Gulliver as Gulliveresque as 21st century America. It dwarfs anybody in the present as well as in the past. Of all the former greats, only Rome fits the description although, for precision’s sake, it should be classified as an empire. For at the height of its power, after it had subjugated the lands between the British Isles, Carthage and the Levant, Rome was virtually identical with the then international system itself. Its successors – the Papacy or the Empire, Habsburg-Spain or the France of Louis XIV, 19th century Britain or 20th century Germany – were only would-be hegemons.
True, the sun never set on Charles V’s empire, Britain ruled the waves in the 19th century, and Nazi Germany went all the way to the gates of Moscow and Cairo. But they were vulnerable to combinations of other powers which prevailed over them in the end. Nor was Britain a real exception. To uphold its exalted position, it depended on allies all the way to World War II, when it was almost done in by a single foe, Nazi Germany.
America is unique in time and space. Others might be able to defy the US, but they can neither compel nor vanquish it – except in the meaningless sense of nuclear devastation that will be mutual. The sweep of its interests, the weight of its resources and the margin of its usable power are unprecedented.
None other than Hubert Vedrine, the French foreign minister, has made the point in all its glory – though grudgingly, one must assume. “The United States of America”, he proclaimed, “today predominates on the economic, monetary [and] technological level, and in the cultural area . . . In terms of power and influence, it is not comparable to anything known in modern history.” In short, the U.S. is a hyper-puissance, a ‘hyper-power’.
Indeed, just to mention two numbers. When in the spring of 2002, George W. Bush asked the Congress for a supplemental defense appropriation, the sum requested – $48 billion – represented twice the annual defense outlays of Germany or Italy. If US defence spending proceeds as planned, by 2007 this ‘hyperpower’ will invest more in defence than all other countries combined.
This giant, a kind of Uber-Gulliver, is different from its predecessors in a number of other ways.
First, unlike Rome et al., he can intervene – without the help of allies – anywhere in the world, and almost in real-time, as those B-52 bombers that rose in Missouri, dropped their bomb load over Afghanistan and then returned home, all in one fell swoop, demonstrated. Bases, as during the Second Iraq War, are useful and important, but not vital, as the closure of Turkey to the passage of American troops demonstrated earlier this year. No other power could ever project so much might so far so fast and so devastatingly.
Second, the US economy is the world’s largest, but in a fundamentally different way than, say, Habsburg’s. The Habsburg Empire was like Saudi – Arabia-essentially an extraction economy, a one-horse hegemon. When the silver from Latin America dried up, so did Habsburg’s power. For all of its failings – from the Enron scandal to the rising current account deficit – the American economy seems better positioned to conquer the future than any of its current rivals, for at least two reasons.
One, it is more flexibly organised, hence better prepared to respond to ever more rapid shifts in demand and technology. Two, it enjoys an enormous competitive advantage in the acquisition of today’s most important factor of production – knowledge. It is not just the global predominance of Harvard and Stanford, Caltech and MIT, but something more profound and less obvious.
This is a culture that keeps drawing the best and the brightest to its shores – which, by the way, is true for the English-speaking nations in general. No longer is it Metternich, Hitler or Stalin who are driving talent across the Atlantic. It comes entirely unpropelled, attracted by the wealth of opportunity and the speed of advancement. How this most precious resource will be able to clear the barriers of the Patriot Act is an issue America has not yet begun to tackle.
A third mainstay of American preponderance is cultural. This is another significant contrast with past hegemons. Whereas the cultural sway of Rome, Britain and Soviet Russia ended at its military borders, American culture needs no gun to travel. If there is a global civilisation, it is American. Nor is it just McDonald’s and Hollywood, it is also Microsoft and Harvard. Wealthy Romans used to send their children to Greek universities; today’s Greeks, that is, the Europeans, send their kids to Roman, that is, American universities – and to British boarding schools.
Why this peculiar twist? Maybe, it is the fact that America is the ‘first universal nation’, one whose cultural products appeal to so large an audience because they transcend narrow national borders. It all began a hundred years ago when Russian Jews from the Pale started making movies in Hollywood that interpreted the ‘American Dream’ to the rest of the world.
To recapitulate: This Uber-Gulliver packs a threefold set of uniquely big muscles – military, economic and cultural – and there is nothing on the horizon of political reality that suggests the speedy demise of his hegemony.
Certainly, it will not be the kind of over-extension that felled Rome, Habsburg et al. In the last hundred years, average military spending as proportion of GDP has been four percent – with the Second World War and the Vietnam War as significant exception. Four percent is a far cry from the estimated 25 percent spent by the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the decade before its collapse.
After Bipolarity: Must Go Down What Comes Up?
Nonetheless, history and theory suggest that this cannot last. In the international system, power will always beget counter-power, usually by way of coalitions and alliances among the lesser players, and ultimately war, as in the cases of Napoleon, Wilhelm II. and Adolf I. Has this game already begun? The answer is ‘No, but’.
It is ‘No’ for two reasons. First, America irks and domineers, but it does not conquer. It tries to call the shots and bend the rules, but it does not go to war for land and glory. Maybe, America was simply lucky. Its ’empire’ was at home, between the Appalachians and the Pacific, and its enemies – Indians and Mexicans – easily bested. The last time the US actually did conquer was in the Philippines and Cuba a hundred years ago.
This is a critical departure from traditional great power behaviour. For the balance-of-power machinery to crank up, it makes a difference whether the others face a usually placid elephant or an aggressive T. rex. Rapacious powers are more likely to trigger hostile coalitions than nations that contain themselves, so to speak. And when the U.S. attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, it was not exactly invading an innocent like Belgium.
Nonetheless, Mr. Big is no pussycat, and he does throw his weight around. Why is it so hard to balance against him?
My answer: Counter-aggregations do not deal very well with the postmodern nature of power. Let’s make no mistake about it. ‘Hard power’ – men and missiles, guns and ships – still counts. It remains the ultimate, because existential, currency of power. But on the day-to-day transaction level, ‘soft power’ is the more interesting coinage. It is less coercive and less tangible. It grows out of the attraction of one’s ideas. It has to do with ‘agenda setting’, with ‘ideology’ and ‘institutions’, and with holding out big prizes for cooperation, such as the vastness and sophistication of one’s market.
‘Soft power’ is cultural-economic power, and very different from its military kin. The US has the most sophisticated army in the world, but it is in a class of its own in the soft-power game. On that table, none of the others can match America’s pile of chips; it is American books and movies, universities and research labs, American tastes high and low that predominate in the global market.
This type of power – a culture that radiates outward and a market that draws inward – rests on pull, not on push; on acceptance, not on imposition. Nor do the many outweigh the one. In this arena, Europe, Japan, China and Russia cannot meaningfully ‘gang up’ on the US like in an alliance of yore. All of their movie studios together could not break Hollywood’s hold because if size mattered, India, with the largest movie output in the world, would rule the roost. Nor could all their universities together dethrone Harvard and Stanford. For sheer numbers do not lure the best and the brightest from abroad who keep adding to the competitive advantage of America’s top universities.
Against soft power, aggregation does not work. How does one contain power that flows not from coercion but seduction?
Might it work in the economic sphere? There is always the option of trading blocs-cum-protectionism. But would Europe (or China or Japan) forego the American market for the Russian one? Or would Europe seek solace in its vast internal market alone? If so, it would forgo the competitive pressures and the diffusion of technology that global markets provide. The future is mapped out by DaimlerChrysler, not by a latter-day ‘European Co-Prosperity Sphere’.
This is where the game has changed most profoundly. Its rivals would rather deal with America’s ‘soft power’ by competition and imitation because the costs of economic warfare are too high – provided, of course, that strategic threats do not re-emerge. To best Gulliver, Europe et. al. must do their work-out at home.
‘Soft’ Balancing
These two reasons help to explain why ‘hard’ balancing – alliances and war – has not set in against the American Uber-Gulliver. But remember the ‘No, but’. The ‘but’ is a shorthand for saying that ‘soft balancing’ against Mr. Big has already set in.
Is there a date? It is Christmas Day 1991, when the hammer-and-sickle flag over the Kremlin was hauled down for the last time, when the Soviet Union committed suicide by dissolution. From this point onward, the structure of international changed from bipolarity to unipolarity. Gulliver’s power was no longer neutralised and stalemated by another player of equivalent weight. The ropes were off, so to speak, and that had political consequences.
What is ‘soft balancing?’ The best example is the run-up to the Second Iraq War when a trio of lesser powers – France, Germany and Russia – all ‘ganged up’ on No. 1 diplomatically in their effort to stop the Anglo-American move against Saddam Hussein. What was their purpose? To save Saddam Hussein? No, of course not. It was to contain and constrain American power, now liberated from the ropes of bipolarity.
And why not? Assume this American victory, swift as it turned out to be, is also sustainable – that it intimidates rather than inflames Arabs and Iranians, relieves dependence on dangerous clients such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and finally loosens up the dysfunctionalities of Arab political culture that spawned Al Qaida. Such an outcome will finally consecrate the US as arbiter over the Middle East, over its oil and politics. This prospect can hardly enthuse the lesser players, for it would certify what is already the case de facto: the global primacy of the United States.
So it should not come as a surprise that America’s rivals and quondam allies would try to balance against No. 1 by enmeshing him in the ropes of institutional dependence, that is, the UN Security Council. This was a classic instance of ‘soft balancing’ against No. 1 – spawned by the profound shock to the international equilibrium caused by the demise of No. 2, the Soviet Union.
Another kind of balancing, let’s call it ‘surreptitious balancing’, had begun much earlier, in the mid-1990s, when the US regularly found itself alone and on the other side of such issues as the ABM Treaty or the International Criminal Court. Au fond, all of these duels were not about principle, but power. If the United States wanted to scratch the ABM Treaty in favor of Missile Defense, Europe, China and Russia sought to uphold it on the sound assumption that a better defense makes for a better offense, hence for richer US military options than under conditions of vulnerability.
And so with the International Criminal Court (ICC). In the end, even the Clinton team correctly understood the underlying thrust of the ICC. Claiming the right to pass judgment on military interventions by prosecuting malfeasants ex post facto, the Court might deter and thus constrain America’s forays abroad. All the Liliputians would gain a kind of droit de regard over American actions.
Europe and others cherished this expansion of multilateral oversight precisely for the reason why the United States opposed it. Great powers loathe international institutions they cannot dominate; lesser nations like them the way the Lilliputians liked their ropes on Gulliver. The name of the game was balancing-on-the-sly, and both sides knew it, though it was conducted in the name international law, not of raw power.
Can Gulliver Go It Alone?
To recapitulate. One, Gulliver is an Uber-Gulliver. Unique in time and space, he has the largest pile of chips on all significant gaming tables: military-technological, economic and cultural. Second, hard balancing, the anti-hegemonial tool of choice in history, has not set in because this Gulliver, for the time being, is more of an elephant than a T. rex. Third, as the last decade has shown, the international system will exact its revenge, and so, ‘soft balancing’ and ‘balancing-on-the-sly’ has already set in, as international relations theory correctly predicted once bipolarity – the mutual stalemating of nos. 1 and 2 – was dead. Now, to my fourth and final point: Can Gulliver go it alone?
The answer is no. Given No. 1’s exalted position in the international hierarchy of power, one must assume that he would want to remain what he is – Gulliver forever. If so, he has two, and only, two choices. One would seek to undercut or outmaneuver countervailing coalitions, a latter-day British grand strategy, so to speak. The other is a strategy that would emphasise cooperation over competition, a kind of retake of the Golden Age of American diplomacy of the early postwar decades.
Strategy I is the ‘Rumsfeld Strategy’ en vogue right now, one that follows the Secretary of Defence’s famous injunction: “The mission determines the coalition, and not the other way round.” This is the logical counter to the attempts on the part of nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. to tie down Gulliver with the ropes of institutional dependence, where it is ‘one nation, one vote’. The essence of the game is to pick ever changing coalitions of the willing within which the word of No. 1 is the writ of the whole. This strategy actually antedates Don Rumsfeld; George Bush the Elder enacted it in the First Iraq War and Bill Clinton assembled a NATO posse for the Kosovo intervention. The rule here is: Act only with those you can dominate.
A complementary strategy is ‘counter-counter-balancing’ to neutralise the kind of anti-American coalition France, Germany and Russia tried to organise in the run-up to the Second Iraq War. Against this ‘Neo-Triple Entente’, the Bushies engineered the ‘Wall Street Eight’ and the ‘Vilnius Ten’. And so, on January 30, Messrs. Chirac and Schroder woke up to an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal/Europe where the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Denmark and Portugal told Paris and Berlin in so many words: “We are not amused that you are trying to gang up on the United States. Saddam must be disarmed, by force if need be.”
Repeated more harshly by the ‘Vilnius-10’ on February 5 (“We are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce…”), the message was that 18 European countries (from A like Albania to S like Slovenia) were not ready to take on the ‘hyperpower’ – and even less ready to submit to the French and Germans as would-be gang leaders.
A clever counter-move, but such a strategy – balancing a la Britain – has not been America’s greatest forte. Nor will it take care of the underlying dynamics of the post-bipolar world. Great power will keep generating counter-power sooner or later. Better, and probably more economical in the long run, is a strategy that undercuts the incentives for ganging up – to soften he hard edge of America’s overwhelming power with the soothing balm of trust. In his State of the Union Address of 2003, George W. Bush did not hold out such relief when he asserted that, in the end, “The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others.”
Hence, Grand Strategy II – updating the Golden Age of American diplomacy. America’s core role then was institution-building, as illustrated by a whole alphabet soup of acronyms: UN, IMF, GATT, OEEC/OECD, NATO, World Bank, WTO, PfP, plus a host of subsidiary Cold War alliances like ANZUS, SEATO and CENTO. Think of these not just as international institutions , but as international public goods, and the point is that these institutions took care of American interests while serving those of others. This was an extraordinary break with centuries of power politics. For previous hegemons were in business for themselves only.
What is the advantage of such a strategy? I would argue that nos. 2, 3, 4 … will prefer cooperation with no. 1 to anti-American coalitions as long as the US remains the foremost provider of such international public goods – call them security, free trade, financial stability and an orderly procedure for conflict resolutions.
The essence of public goods is that anybody can profit from them once they exist – like a park in the neighbourhood or an unpolluted river. That gives the lesser players a powerful incentive to maintain the existing order and to accord at least grudging acceptance to the producer of those benefits. At the same time, it diminishes their incentives to gang up on him.
While the others surely resent America’s clout, they have also found it useful to have a player like the United States in the game. Europe and Japan regularly suffer from America’s commercial hauteur, but they also suspect that the US is the ultimate guarantor of the global trade system. Britain and France were only too happy to let American cruise missiles bludgeon the Serbs to the negotiating table in 1995 and 1999. The Arabs hardly love the US, but they did cooperate when George Bush mobilised an international posse against Saddam Hussein in 1990 because they could not contain him on their own. And so again in 2001 when Bush the Younger harnessed a worldwide coalition against terrorism.
When lesser powers cannot deter China in the Straits of Taiwan, or persuade North Korea to denuclearise, it is nice to have one special actor in the system who has the will and the wherewithal to do what others wish but cannot achieve on their own. Indeed, he is indispensable. In the language of public goods theory: There must always be somebody who will recruit individual producers, organise the startup and generally assume a disproportionate burden in the enterprise. That is as true in international affairs as it is in grassroots politics.
But now you will ask: Why continue to pay a disproportionate share of the bill? Here are some answers. By providing security for others – in Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific – the US has also bought security for itself. Stability is its own reward because it prevents worse: arms races, nuclear proliferation, conflicts that spread.
Enlarging NATO, though costly to the American taxpayer, brings profits to both Poland and the United States because anything that secures the realm of liberal democracy benefits its leading representative.
Shoring up the World Trade Organisation (WTO), even when it pronounces against Washington, is still good for America because, as the world’s largest exporter, it has the greatest interest in freer trade.
Are the costs of ‘public goods’ production intolerable? The problem is that the bulk of the world’s great institutions were built during the Cold War when it was clearly in the interest of no. 1 to shoulder the burden and sign the checks. Since then, it is no longer so clear that the United States puts more resources into international institutions than it seeks to draw from them.
America’s old penchant for free trade is now diluted by preferences for ‘managed trade’, which is a euphemism for regulated trade. Having regularly castigated the EU for its protectionist agricultural policy, the US has now handed out billions in largesse to its own farmers, adding a nice dollop for steel producers, too. And if it cannot achieve consensus, the US will act unilaterally – or bilaterally, as most recently in the Second Iraq War.
The costs of a ‘communitarian’ grand strategy are clearly high. First, Gulliver has to pay a disproportionate share of the institutional maintenance fee. Second, he will have to resist those domestic forces – steel, farmers – who would maximise their welfare at the expense of global welfare. Third, he will have to expend an inordinate diplomatic effort to persuade and cajole. Finally, he may sometimes find himself immobilised by the Lilliputians.
On the other hand, the costs of a ‘Rumsfeld Strategy’ may be worse. As the US diminishes its investment in global public goods, others will feel the sting of American power more strongly. And the incentive to discipline Mr. Big will grow.
Short of that, the aftermath of the Second Iraq War seems to suggest that it is easier to go in by yourself than to leave by yourself. There are just too many players in this game who would love to see the US and Britain fail, starting with the remnants of the Baathist regime and continuing with Iran, the Arab dictatorships and the Palestinians. Presumably the Neo-Triple-Entente that tried to stop the war would not mind either if the US had its nose bloodied in the Middle East. The long and the short of this is: The most sophisticated military panoply in history cannot quite substitute for international legitimacy.
But let’s look beyond Iraq and generalise the point. The most interesting issues in world politics cannot be solved even by an Uber-Gulliver acting alone. How shall we count the ways? Nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, international terrorism, free trade, global financial stability, mayhem in places like Liberia, the Congo or the Sudan, climate control, the AIDS epidemic in Africa, China’s transition from totalitarianism to the rule of law and perhaps even democracy, the political pathologies of the Arab Middle East that gave us Al-Qaida. These are all issues that, almost by definition, require collective responses.
So Gulliver’s choices seem all to clear. Primacy does not come cheap, and the price is measured not just in dollars and cents, but above all in the currency of obligation. Conductors manage to mould 80 solo players into a symphony orchestra because they have fine sense for everybody else’s quirks and qualities – because they act in the interest of all; their labour is the source of their authority.
And so a truly great power must do more than merely deny others the reason and opportunity for ‘ganging up’. It must also provide essential services. Those who do for others engage in systemic supply-side economics: They create a demand for their services, and that translates into political profits also known as ‘leadership’.
Power exacts responsibility, and responsibility requires the transcendence of narrow self-interest. As long as the United States continues to provide such public goods, envy and resentment will not escalate into fear and loathing that spawn hostile coalitions. But let’s put this in less lofty terms.
Real empires routinely crush their rivals. But America is only an ‘imperial republic’, as Raymond Aron mused decades ago. Presumably, democracies pay ‘decent respect to the opinions of mankind’ because they cherish that respect for themselves. They are better off leading by heeding because they cannot sustain the brutish ways of Rome for any length of time.
Unwilling to conquer, this ’empire’ still needs order beyond borders. The objective is the right ‘milieu’. To achieve it, America must sometimes use force; to sustain it, the sword is not enough – and too costly, to boot. But to build the right coalitions for peace, the United States must not forsake the ‘co’ in ‘coalition’ – as in ‘consensus’ and ‘cooperation’. As Gulliver learned, it is hard enough to live even as friendly giant among the pygmies. It is even harder to escape their slings and arrows when strength is untempered by self-restraint. For power shall be balanced.
Democracy’s meaning
G’Day. The themes we explored in July – Howard’s anti-democratic agenda, spin, lies, the suppression of free speech, unholy alliances – are rolling right into into August. I’ve inducted ABC managing director Russell Balding into Webdiary’s Taking a stand honour roll for his fiery commitment to editorial independence no matter what Alston and co throw at him or how much they try to starve the ABC to death (ABC slashes shows but defies Alston). Get this: “If continued funding difficulty is the price of proper editorial independence, then the ABC must be prepared to pay it,” he said in a memo to staff. It’s digging in time, folks.
This week education minister Brendan Nelson, the bloke who threatened to cross the floor to preserve a free media when Howard wanted Packer to take over Fairfax in 1997 but says nothing at all on Howard’s current desire to see Packer buy Fairfax and Murdoch buy a TV network, has been exposed gutting a report on the state of higher education (Ugly details cut from uni policy report). This story was a Sydney Morning Heraldscoop, perhaps one of those stories you won’t hear about if Howard’s cross media plan gets through the Senate next time.
Nelson’s media minder is none other than Ross Hampton, the bloke who did the spin and suppress work for Peter Reith during the children overboard cover-up, refused to give evidence to the Senate inquiry and, of course, kept his Liberal Party job.
While Nelson censors, Howard misleads, again. He’s been exposed misleading Parliament, one of those little things that used to trigger a ministerial resignation (PM misled Parliament on ethanol talks, says Crean).
On cross media, Packer has taken a stake in the top-rating online jobs search site Seek (Farewell Monster, hello Seek.) There’s now three major competitors – Packer, Fairfax and Murdoch. Wouldn’t it be great if Packer took over Fairfax? Down to two players, and that equals duopoly and that equals monopoly profits. The government’s cross media agenda is beyond scary – it would transform this nation’s democracy, politics, business world and sports world into playthings for the big two.
July’s top five referring sites (except for news.google) were whatreallyhappened, bushwatch, thesquiz, bunyipblogspot and sievx.
The ten most read Webdiaries in July were:
1. Faultlines in Howard’s plan for absolute power, July 8
2. Howard’s roads to absolute power, June 30
3. The new global mosaic, July 29
4. It Matters!, July 22
5. Webdiary’s ethics, July 23
6. Howard worries liberals, too July 3
7. Good one John, but why stop at the ABC?, July 25
8. Once bitten, twice bitten?, July 17
9. Anger as an energy, July 22
10. Australian crimes against humanity, July 8
This Webdiary is about democracy and how citizens might help save it, so I thought you’d be interested in re-reading John Howard’s preamble to the constitution which he put to the people at the same time as the republic question. It’s empty words, of course – Howard hates the idea of a citizen’s bill of rights because that would limit his power to trample them.
With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good. We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution
* proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;
* never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;
* upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;
* honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation’s first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;
* recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;
* mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;
* supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;
* and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.
Daniel Moye’s ‘Understanding boundaries’ in Why conservatives fear John Howard has got me thinking. Daniel, who describes himself as a conservative, set out four issues of concern in Howard’s way – an unnecessary reduction in civil rights, misleading conduct on selling the war on Iraq, actively suppressing dissent, and lessening government accountability and transparency.
Harry Heidelberg, a small ‘l’ Liberal, concurs with Daniel’s four points, as do I, a novice Greens voter. I wonder – what say Daniel, Harry, greenie Jack Robertson and ALP member Guido Tresoldi got together to nut out the issues they all agreed were both crucial to democracy and under threat from John Howard. They could come back with their list and the rationale behind it for publication on Webdiary. The parameters of the discussion could perhaps be set by a question Daniel poses in a piece published below: “What is at the heart of democracy that makes it so sustainable, valuable and worth fighting for?”
They could, if they wished, imagine it this way. You all live in a community in Australia. Naturally you disagree on many things. Are there issues of concern to all of you that you could imagine working together on in your community to keep your local, state and federal politicians honest and let your community know what’s going on?
A fantasy: ‘Save our democracy’ groups develop all around Australia to work together on the ground. There’d be local websites, local input and questions to political representatives.
I first discussed the gradual emergence of ‘unholy alliances’ in Faultlines in Howard’s plan for absolute power, a piece republished in part in a new bi-monthly local magazine in the Tweed called The Mindreader. It was set up by local dissidents to expose the developer backed and funded “Balance’ team which controls Council. The Four Corners transcript of the dire state of play in the Tweed is at Ocean views. I’ve seen one issue ofThe Mindreader, in which opposition councillors – Liberal, Labor, National and Green – got together to advertise their common goals, namely a level playing field for residents and transparency in decision making. Imagine independent local community papers run by local citizens all over the place – now wouldn’t that be good for democracy!
Today Harry Heidelberg’s response to Daniel Moye’s ‘Understanding boundaries’, a piece by Daniel on why media diversity and a strong Senate are vital to our democracy, and a response to ‘Understanding boundaries’ by Webdiarist Philip Hewett.
But first, here’s a nice exchange between Harry and Bill Condie, who liked Harry’s Will Howard beat Bush?
Bill: As an old hack who never compliments anyone, can you pass on to Harry Heidelberg my view that his piece was fabulous. Really one of the most intelligent things I’ve read in months. There always has been an uneasy tension in America between people who have read and understood Voltaire and the freaks on the Mayflower. It’s just so very hard to see when Kingaroy seems to win so much more than Surry Hills (an inner city Sydney suburb).
Harry: I am not so sure that Kingaroy wins more than Surry Hills. There’s a Surry Hills revolution taking place in America and George Bush can’t control it no matter how hard he tries. The coasts are going to take back the hard centre! Anyway, I can’t wait to get to Florida, the land of the dangling and dimpled chads, the land where Al Gore was robbed. Without 9-11, there would be an ongoing debate right now about the legitimacy of this president. As it is Bush still may have to face up to that one
***
Harry to Daniel:
Daniel is right. There are certain boundaries, and while as an individual I don’t like to be bound, I quite like it when the powerful are bound. Then there’s the individualism he speaks of. It’s also very Aussie. I shiver when I see people cow-towing to authority.
Those in power need to remember they are duty bound. This lapses after a long period in office and it’s the reason why democracy and the constant urge for change and reinvention is so healthy. People are always insisting they don’t like change – but when they decide it is needed they decide in DROVES.
I’m with Daniel on all his issues:
1. Civil rights. I concur with his slippery slope argument, and don’t have much tolerance for diminution of our rights. Near to zero tolerance actually. The rights are our essence and that’s how we define ourselves. Chuck that out and you’ve lost everything. Simplistic? Not really – check out other places that quickly changed. History proves it can happen when you least expect it.
2. Misleading re Iraq. I am deeply dissatisfied with where we stand on this right now. We need an investigation. The argument is not about whether or not Saddam should be in power. He’s gone and that is good. I need to know what my government stands for. We are at first base on this. The point is what happens next time? This is my own private Vietnam. – I trusted them before but now I’m not sure.
3. Actively seeking to stifle dissent. Of course the ABC is biased. There is nothing new in that. All of the media are biased in one way or another. I don’t trust Alan Jones and I don’t trust the ABC. Sadly – or happily, if you think about it – there remains diversity, and I am happy for the ABC to present an alternative. I don’t get hassled by it at all. Dream on, Government, if you ever, ever believe the ABC will be friendly. This debate is tired and old. Let them do what they like – as long as we have diversity this is fine. Let Australian media be like the rich and deep London newspapers, let the people pick and choose from the smorgasbord knowing the agendas. The scary part is that we are VERY close to imploding on diversity and losing the whole lot. If nothing else, the ABC represents diversity and a refusal to be bullied by business or government. That’s pretty powerful.
4. Reducing government accountability and transparency. This is where I get mad with John Howard. I like the bloody system and he is least qualified to change it. During the Republic debate he said the system has served us well, yet now he wants to trash it by destroying the Senate. He can’t have his cake and eat it – either he likes the Constitution or he doesn’t.
I also find the Senate INFURIATING at times, but I am just that little bit capable of seeing beyond one electoral cycle. It’s also insulting to the people to say it is “wrong”, because PEOPLE VOTE THAT WAY FOR A REASON. Personally I wouldn’t, but others do and it is their RIGHT, which he messes with at his peril!! Leave the Senate alone and leave the States alone. We have an excellent federal system and it is to the shame of John Howard that he seeks to meddle with it.
Imagine that you have to be scared of a so called conservative Liberal trashing the Senate! Times have sure changed, but there’s Buckley’s chance of that one getting up. Aaaah, how ironic – the conservatism of the electorate teaches the “most conservative leader of the Liberal party” a lesson in conservatism. I’m almost of the mind to say “Bring it on” – bring on this stupid referendum and watch it DIE. That would be funny!!
Finally, Daniel worries about a doomsday scenario for the conservatives, as in the UK. The missing ingredient is Tony Blair. Simon Crean is no Tony Blair and noone else in the ALP is within cooee of him. Australian Labor has become pitiful and it is to the detriment of our country that there is no viable opposition.
PS: I’ll always call myself a liberal. In my mind there should be no confusion about that word.
***
What is at the heart of democracy that makes it so sustainable, valuable and worth fighting for?
by Daniel Moye
Two principles lie at the heart of democracy – government of the people, by the people, for the people and one person, one vote. Sovereignty is defined exclusively by the citizen’s will in our democracy.
When the federation of Australia was founded it required that the majority of citizens in a majority of states support the founding of our haven of freedom. We decided that we would inherit the bi-cameral Westminister system of government as well as the common law as the two pillars by which our democracy would stand and fall.
Many of the checks and balances that are heralded today as a principal strength of our and other democracies were put in place to restrain ‘the Crown’ or State, as well as the will of the mob or people.
Plato, John Stuart Mill and the founding fathers of U.S. democracy repeatedly stressed that one of the main problems of democracy was that ‘mob rule’ and its appetites might not necessarily guide society down the right path. Thus, representatives of the people’s will have traditional as well as legal boundaries by which they can enforce our appetites, whether it be our need for security, our pursuit of happiness or control over our destiny.
It may be a quirk of history, but the Fourth Estate – the Press – flourished across Western democracies. Newspapers then and now focussed on high society gossip, the rise and fall of governments, war and peace – all with differing viewpoints. Governments have sought to control this powerful platform to the people’s ear from the start of the first journal. Why they did not succeed totally was as much to do with the suspicion that one day they might face the prospect that their opponents controlled the media, as with sustained resistance by proprietors and journalists alike. While this war has not ended, until quite recently a reasonable truce prevailed.
How is the functioning of our democracy and media diversity connected?
Readers – like media proprietors and journalists – have differing opinions. For the last hundred years or so in Australia different political viewpoints have been expressed in different newspapers. A dockside worker in Sydney might have read a politically conservative Mirror or Telegraph , or if more radically inclined a Daily Worker. A small ‘l’ liberal may have consumed a Sydney Morning Herald or a Sun. Many voices were heard.
A consequence of the diverse media landscape was that governments were able to connect with people on a daily or weekly basis. Citizens felt that they knew what the government was doing or not doing. This has become a critical element to the sustainability of our democracy because it maintains the enfranchisement of the people on an ongoing basis between elections.
What happens if few voices are heard in our democracy? What happens is nothing short of the disenfranchisement of the people.
A stretch, you might say. It is true that citizens will still be able to vote for or against our representatives, but what happens in between times? How do the citizens know what the government is doing and what the consequences will be? What checks are there to the representatives of the people’s will indulging in the worst appetites of the people’s will, even if for the best reasons? These questions do not even encompass the power and push of special interests of media proprietors or of political parties.
It is true that in a democracy the majority rules. But in our continual reaffirming of this noble truism we hide an equally important strength – that minorities have voices and influence too. It is not enough for democracies to let the majority reign supreme – the perils of not representing minority voices goes to the heart of its sustainability. History is littered with discontented minority groups hijacking governments, resorting to violent terrorism or demanding the dismantling of the state.
Media diversity underpins the sustainability of our democratic heritage, and the Senate also performs that function. It goes to the heart of our founding fathers’ vision of federation that all voices in all states of Australia be represented and have influence in Australian society. It is the blackest of betrayals to believe that only the majority of the House of Representatives have control over the Australian destiny.
The vision of our founding fathers is manifest in Brian Harradine gaining funding for Tasmanian issues or Democrats Senators helping the plight of South Australians. Our founding fathers’ visionary compromises have enabled Australia’s society and economy to function in a cohesive way, free from the former them-v-us, NSW-v-Victoria mentality.
Reforming the Senate will not necessarily mean revisiting past interstate battlegrounds but it will provide a slippery slope to new antagonisms. If Tasmanians, for example, believe that they are not getting a fair minority influence on the Australian political scene a ‘Tasmania first’ political party is not impossible. John Howard is obviously not a student of history – if he was he would have recognised how fragile our federation has been in its brief history. Western Australia has sought to leave the Commonwealth on more than one occasion and this, alongside the precarious federation referendums, should temper anyone’s enthusiasm for disenfranchising minority States.
The Senate also underpins the sustainability of the Australian democracy on an individual level. A sizeable proportion if not a majority of Australians are in safe seats. Within that safe seat a significant minority exists which does not want the preeminent party in that seat to represent them. It is through the Senate that this minority is heard and has influence. Some Australians also vote for different parties in the two houses. Thus it is through the Senate that all of us are enfranchised at the same time as the majority’s appetites are checked and balanced.
It may be uncomfortable for all concerned with the future of media diversity and the future of the Senate to form uneasy alliances across the political spectrum, but it is of paramount importance that these battles be won.
As a supporter of the Coalition of the Willing, fighting for democracy abroad and maintaining Australia’s territorial sovereignty, I sit uncomfortably against John Howard. But stand against him I must.
***
Philip Hewett in East Gosford, NSW
Whilst Daniel Moye makes a valid point in relation to Howard’s abuse of the concept of ‘national interest’, he unquestioningly and loosely uses loaded phrases like the ‘War on Terror’ as if they are accepted terms. He speaks of confronting rogue states, which is just more garbage speak to deflect debate from the role of US foreign policy disasters (now also Australia’s own disasters) and the greed of western corporations.
He talks of a post 9/11 world (another mindless catch-phrase) when the September attacks were no more than the trigger for the ultra-conservative (oil executive-dominated) push in Washington who wanted the Iraq scalp. These power greedy men profited and continue to profit from the WTO attacks, and as long as they do so the rest of the world will see only aggressive US self-interest writ large.
If Daniel had spoken of Howard’s’ subservience to US Foreign and Trade policy he would have hit at least one the nail on the head for me – but he didn’t. He presented lies as givens – for example describing the invasion of Iraq as ‘a war’. It was never a war – it was an invasion of a sovereign state, no more, no less – despite the propaganda he has swallowed.
How can an intelligent man believe he can see excellent management of the economy? The economy sits within ‘the national estate’ and it is in free-fall collapse – greenhouse is wildly uncontrolled, our environment is in an uncontrolled downward spiral and species extinction is travelling at the speed of light. Daniel, the economy comes to us at the expense of our national estate, and is Howard’s short-term expediency at work. The rest is smoke and mirrors and Daniel has been beguiled by the lot.
Daniel refers to an undefined long term goal of what the Iraq ‘war’ was trying to achieve. If he can detail that goal he should let us all know, including Howard. And why the euphemism of ‘spin-doctors’ for what are plain and simple propagandists – the former term has none of the ‘tending toward fascism’ baggage, I suppose.
Daniel Moyes would have more credibility in your column if he was less partisan. Cheers from a non-aligned person – I support good governance without the crap our parties wrap themselves in. Fat chance?
Will Howard beat Bush?
 |
Related: Why conservatives fear John Howard |
There seems to be a growing crazy feeling out there that Howard could defeat Bush! Not John Howard but Democrat, Howard Dean.
If this happens, America will be taking the next exit to the left. Off the Bush track and down a different highway.
It has been a big weekend for Howard Dean. All the Sunday US talk shows are talking about him and he’s on the cover of Time and Newsweek.
He’s even started a TV ad campaign in Texas. It opens with “I’m Howard Dean, I’m running for president and I approve this message because I want to change George Bush’s reckless foreign policy…. “. He goes on to ask the question “has anybody really stood up against George Bush and his policies? Don’t you think it’s time somebody did? Visit my web site, join my campaign because it’s time to take our country back”.
Many think Dean is a typical flash in the pan before the primaries start. Maybe so but then again maybe not. Last decade there was a southern Governor by the name of Clinton who many wrote off far too early. The comeback kid.
Dean’s certainly being talked about. He’s in contention and it’s worth considering not only his agenda but his methods. The agenda is very liberal and quite the opposite of the Bush path. He continues to be against the Iraq War:
” It only becomes more and more clear every day what a mistake this administration made in launching a pre-emptive war in Iraq. The evidence mounts that not only did the Administration mislead the American people and the world in making its case for war but that it failed to plan adequately for the peace.”
He maintains an Iraq Truth Center at:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq
The 16 questions for George Bush are quite good:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7000&news_iv_ct
Remember, this man could be the next President. He’s also in favour of gay marriage. As governor of Vermont he was early to pass the appropriate legislation allowing it. He outlines huge changes in health and education. He’s liberal all around and presents a clear choice for Americans.
Not a snow balls chance in hell of this guy getting up? I’m not so sure. Those who seek to belittle America more often than not simply don’t understand it. They don’t understand the demographics. I was there in June when it was announced that Hispanics now outnumber Blacks as being America’s largest minority. The point is not that every candidate should speak Spanish, although Howard Dean and George Bush do, the point is that the ever lasting cliche that “America is constantly re-inventing itself” is more true today than ever. America dumbfounds you as it confirms every stereotype and stops you in your tracks as you realise you dont know a damn thing about it at all. The wonderous diversity and complexity! You’ve gotta love it!
Al Gore won the popular vote at the last election. He was supported by both coasts and chunks of the middle. Call it the culture wars, call it what ever you like but America is far from being of one voice on any topic. Its critics too easily fall into the trap of charactarising in the most hideous way they would like it to be rather than the way it really is.
Last night I was stuck in an air conditioned hotel at Frankfurt International Airport in some of the worst heatwave conditions the city can remember. I saw some stupid program on BBC World “What the World thinks of America”. No point in regurgitating it because you’ve heard it all before. They did a run-around of world correspondents and Tony Jones of Australia’s ABC explained to the world why Australians consider themselves to be more “cultured” than Americans. Hhahahahhah yeah really. He made some passing references to the fact that Australians see cheap US talk shows and draw their own conclusions about the American society. I think he even looked down his nose and later sniffed a little. It seems the ABC still takes it’s cues from the BBC! It was superficial crap and once again I felt insulted “by proxy”. Being a friend of America is tough, you need to develop a really tough hide.
The point is that people go on and on about America’s conservatism, conveniently ignoring the coasts and conveniently ignoring that Al Gore won the popular vote in the last elections. To sum up America as illliberal is simply not true. Its all about cognitive economy. People can’t figure out something as big and complex as America so they just resort to lines they learned down pat over the years.
If you don’t like the conservative parts of America then go and live in a liberal part. If you dont like Kingaroy, go and live in Surry Hills. Do we say Australia is Kingaroy or Australia is Surry Hills? Of course not. It’s neither. Just as America is not only defined by San Francisco, California or Omaha, Nebraska.
I actually think the lack lustre economy, ongoing questions about the human and financial cost of Iraq and a bunch of other things will have conservative George Bush in trouble next year. Someone like Howard Dean may just be the man the Democrats have been looking for. He’s engaging, he uses the net, he seems different. Perhaps next year it will seem like time.
He’s raising bucketloads of money and he’s using the internet like no other candidate has before. He has a Blog of his own. He organises “meet-ups” online and all the rest of it.
All gimmicks? Perhaps, but then perhaps not. It depends who wants to engage. So far hundreds of thousands have.
America constantly re-invents itself. Just watch.
***
Clarification: American reader Matt Cezar in Maryland writes:
Harry wrote: “Remember, this man could be the next President. He’s also in favour of gay marriage. As governor of Vermont he was early to pass the appropriate legislation allowing it.”
Governor Dean does not support gay marrianges, he supports civil unions. There is a difference. If he is elected, Gov. Dean will promote civil unions, however the ultimate decision will be left up to the states. Governor Dean never passed legislation legalizing gay marriages. He passed legislation legalizing civil unions for homosexuals.
Why conservatives fear John Howard
|
| 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.