This is why fundamentally the argument that "John Howard lies" is a very weak one. In the context of Walletgate, it's not too dissimilar to McLachlan and Costello's misunderstanding that they had a deal frozen in stone that should be honoured come what may. John Howard is in fact right to say that such arrangements are always provisional, and that politicians don't have a right to pass on public office through private transactions (even if his own behaviour might belie his words).
And politically, for those wanting to hold the Howard Government responsible for its disservice to the public good, it doesn't work. If Howard could win the 2004 election based on a slogan of trust, after all the accusations levelled against him, it does indicate that there is a difference in the public mind between personal honour and public performance.
The Labor Party, and Howard's other opponents, would have done better to make a strong case as to why they ought to be entrusted with government. The fact that they resorted to various forms of raising the "character" question - for instance, Costello's arrogance, and the fact that this failed, is proof again. Contra George W. Bush, feeling comfortable having a beer with someone is not a good argument. I've met politicians who were honourable in their own way, and who achieved good things guided by a set of convictions, who were quite distasteful as people in many ways. But I wasn't picking a friend or a business partner, but supporting a political leader.
Advertisement
Pragmatically, as well, the evidence that the moral critique of Howard doesn't convince is that it's easily turned around by the Right into the accusation that the Left are out of touch and more concerned with issues of process than issues of policy. It does seem to follow from the claim that Howard lies, but nevertheless is re-elected and maintains his popularity that there's some sort of higher morality available to those sitting in judgment that transcends that of the majority of Australian citizens.
It's easy again to see how this is translated into the "Howard-hating lefty elitist". The fact, though, is that nice considerations of truth telling and lying are just not the issues that move the electorate. To claim they should be is also to make a claim, however implicit or downplayed, of a superior moral position.
That's why Costello's "my parents taught me never to tell a lie" line was rightly scorned by most who heard it. In saying it, he was himself trying to manipulate opinion and achieve position. In other words, he wasn't making a moral accusation, but playing out a political tactic. It's just that he's rather bad at it, and Howard's rather good.
So it's not a good political argument. If Kim Beazley is indeed more honourable than John Howard, is that a good enough reason to vote for him?
Nor was there ever a golden age of accountability and honour. Did Keating, like George Washington, never tell a lie? How many Ministers did Whitlam sack? How many should have been sacked earlier? Didn't Fraser betray Gorton? Wasn't he, now often held up as a pillar of rectitude, a ruthless power politician? What in Westminster conventions gave Whitlam the right to force a Speaker from office? Politics has never been a pleasant game.
Public standards have declined. You won't get any argument from me. But to counterpose an (anti) politics of morality to an ethic of conviction just doesn't work. It's a recipe for opposition. It doesn't lead to responsibility and accountability.
Advertisement
I'd rather see Howard ousted for political reasons, and replaced by a prime minister with convictions. He doesn't have to be a nice cuddly avuncular bloke. But he or she has to be a good politician with a sense of what that means. It doesn't mean "whatever it takes", but it does mean that you should focus your ammunition where it actually hits the target. And remember that you need to persuade the people.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
8 posts so far.