Howard on reconciliation: not humble pie but hubris

While Howard may claim that “the crisis of Indigenous social identity and cultural disintegration requires a stronger affirmation of Indigenous identity and culture as a source of dignity, self-esteem and pride”, he makes no suggestion as to how government could facilitate this other than via the Preamble.

As I point out in the 2007 edition of my book, Governing Change: From Keating to Howard, federal government policy actively encourages a more Liberal, entrepreneurial, property-owning concepton of Aboriginal identity. Will Howard now reconsider some of his government’s policy including, as the recent intervention in the Northern Territory revealed, undermining traditional Aboriginal identities based on communal land ownership and custodianship? It seems unlikely given his statement that, while “some will no doubt want to portray my remarks tonight as a form of Damascus Road conversion. In reality they are little more than an affirmation of well-worn liberal conservative ideas.”

In short, Howard seems to be repackaging, rather than substantially reforming, his ideas on reconciliation. Presumably, Howard is attempting to appeal to the wet, small “l” liberal voters he fears losing to Kevin Rudd and, more immediately in his own electorate, to Maxine McKew. At the same time, his words reassure “mainstream” Australians who reject feelings of guilt or apologies.

Furthermore, Howard may assume that voters who are more right wing on issues of race will still stick with him anyway because they’ll prefer him to Kevin Rudd - just as Labor has tended to assume that the preferences of the left will eventually flow back to the ALP. Meanwhile Howard can depict himself as a compassionate “big idea” politician with a vision for the future.

Howard may also be attempting to use Rudd’s “me-too” strategy to his advantage. Howard could have rightly assumed that Labor would respond to this proposal immediately with bi-partisan support for a well-worded preamble but without pointing out that Howard’s current position is not new and contains major limitations. Labor’s response then feeds into Howard’s line that changing public opinion now makes him a consensus, not divisive, politician who can bring both the left and the right together to support the Reconciliation Referendum.

Later, Howard has the option of attempting to wedge Labor on the actual wording of the Preamble. Labor is particularly vulnerable to being wedged because ten years of electoral caution have contributed to Howard’s framing of issues on race being reinforced, rather than contested, among some of Labor’s traditional voters.

Either way this scenario suggests, as I pointed out in an earlier On Line Opinion piece that Rudd has failed to recognise that Howard’s identity politics is more than just a distraction or masking device. Rather, identity politics is an integral part of Howard’s broader election strategy, along with economic and security issues. As I’ve argued elsewhere, Howard’s strategy has never just been about fear or marginalising minorities (although that has certainly been one feature) but also about electorally mobilising a mainstream Australian identity that can feel good about itself.

Now Howard’s hubris has led him to believe he can resolve: “the anguish so many Australians feel about the state of Indigenous Australia and the deep yearning in the national psyche for a more positive and unifying approach to reconciliation". However, in 2007 Howard is in deep electoral trouble and his latest mobilisation of identity politics may well be too little too late.