John Howard Gets the Boot Down Under
Yesterday’s national election in Australia could provide a blueprint for the Democratic Party leadership on how to approach the 2008 election season. More importantly, it could provide hard evidence that Dems need a stiff spine - and that they’ll be amply rewarded for exhibiting a stiff spine in the coming months. Will any of the Dem presidential candidates actually pay attention to how Kevin Rudd trounced incumbent PM (and Bush lapdog) John Howard?
U.S. Democratic Party leaders, please pay close attention:
The Liberal Party of Australian Prime Minister John Howard received a true lashing at the polls yesterday. Not only did Howard lose his prime ministership, but he won’t even have a seat in the newly elected Aussie parliament. He’s done. Cooked. Fini.
Howard has long been a lapdog of George W. Bush, much in the mold of Tony Blair, and that hasn’t been sitting well with his constituency. Many pundits will be pointing to his unfettered support for Bush policies in the middle east, and the continued deployment of a few hundred Aussie combat troops in Iraq as the primary reason for his defeat. But it’s more than that - it’s the Howard administration’s total intransigence on almost all social and economic issues affecting the working class in Australia.
Also, consider this: while Australia suffers through its worst drought in a millennium, Howard continued to give mere lip service to the global warming debate, and the sense is that his refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol (thus acknowledging the issue) was part of the reason for his party’s trouncing at the ballot box. The newly elected Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has a nice majority to work with in Parliament, and has promised that his first act as Prime Minister will be to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
Guess which country that leaves as the only major industrialized nation in the world that is holding out signing the treaty? Jesusland. The U.S. of A.
The depth of Howard’s defeat can’t be explained in mere references to populist-driven regime change. No, this was truly a “throw the bums out” movement. Even as recently as a couple of days ago, the world press was characterizing the election as too close to call. In the end, it wasn’t even close. A tidal wave of political change swept ashore down under, and rolled through the outback.
One of the most frustrating political dynamics for progressives in the U.S. is the sense that the Democratic Party leadership just. doesn’t. get. it. Poll after poll tells them the same thing that the Labor Party in Australia listened to: Get us out of Iraq, become a full global partner in dealing with climate change, pay attention to the working class back home, and return to the constitutional values that once defined our nation.
Lastly, let’s put one more reason on the table for John Howard’s crushing defeat:
David Hicks’ detention at Guantanamo Bay.
The Hicks case brought home to Australians the topic of torture and unlawful detention in a way that America hasn’t had the opportunity to consider. For the better part of Hicks’ five year detention, the Howard administration was AWOL, and did nothing to press for his release. The absolutely kangaroo court nature of his legal proceedings played out nightly on Australian news, and Howard took much of the blame for lack of action on behalf of one of his citizens.
You won’t hear much about the Hicks case today as the U.S. press does a post election analysis. But it was a big - very big- piece of Howard’s defeat.
So, what about it, U.S. Democratic Party leaders? What about Guantanamo? What about torture and illegal wiretapping and cell phone triangulation? Yeah, those pesky little “civil liberty” issues. Ms. Clinton? Mr. Obama? Mr. Edwards? [[crickets]]
Damn. Maybe Ron Paul is actually onto something.





Well said and a nice read…thanks!
“Many pundits will be pointing to his unfettered support for Bush policies in the middle east, and the continued deployment of a few hundred Aussie combat troops in Iraq as the primary reason for his defeat.”
That’ll be because pundits are worthless idiots who provide nothing of merit when it comes to reporting news accurately.
What’s an issue that so far no candidate, interviewer, TV or print advert has mentioned even once during the entire US election campaigns? Think of one. That’s what Iraq was in the Australian election. An issue that nobody bothered referring to at all.
“You won’t hear much about the Hicks case today as the U.S. press does a post election analysis. But it was a big - very big- piece of Howard’s defeat.”
I assume not hearing about it once during the entire election campaign will also be an indication of how big of an issue it was.
By the same token, Bush’s policy of sending people to Mars and Howard’s failure to support or opposer this was a big - very big - piece of Howard’s defeat.
What an utter fraud you are.
I would have to second that, you are completely full of crap, ASZ author. The issues you mention haven’t been political issues here for years and neither party (while running almost nothing but attack ads) mentioned them at all during the election campaign.
Why would you bother to lie about having insight into something you have clearly never bothered reading a single article about? What did you think the odds would be that you would either be correct or nobody would notice?
I really don’t understand why Howard was elected out. David Hicks and Iraq really weren’t issues. The economy is going well, and the Coaliton’s policies seemed much more coherent than Labor’s. Howard’s industrial reforms haven’t had that much effect on most workers. Howard isn’t a very likeable person, although this hasn’t impeded him before. I guess the Australian public just wanted a change.
Looks like a few disaffected Howard supporters showed up…
Actually Canada’s Stephen Harper-another Bush fan-is still holding out on Kyoto,and paying a BIG political price for doing so.