JOHN Howard is Australia's most successful prime minister. He has out-served, and maintained his popularity longer than, Labor's longest-serving prime minister, Bob Hawke. He has outperformed the Liberals' longest-serving prime minister, Robert Menzies. And for his pains he has had more vitriol directed towards him than any prime minister since Billy Hughes. This is the Howard whose record, complete with backflips, blemishes and blots, they accept as legitimate. This is the Howard who has established two-way communication with the Australian people and who instinctively understands their concerns, interests and aspirations like few leaders before him. These contradictory images of Howard coexist because his opponents have never conceded his success. To suggest that Howard could win an election with other than luck would be to acknowledge his legitimacy.
According to this narrative, Howard did not win the 1996 election - rather, Paul Keating's tired Labor Government lost it; Howard fluked back in 1998 against Kim Beazley with less then 50 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote; Howard robbed Beazley again in 2001 by playing on prejudice and fear; in 2004 he beat Mark Latham by running an interest-rate scare campaign. These excuses hide the terrible bitterness at being beatenby somebody who, the opponents profoundly believe, should never have won the partyroom ballot for Liberal leader, let alone four federal elections.
It is to Howard's advantage to allow all of this vitriol to continue, to encourage the view of a Neandertal, frozen in ice, because the longer his opponents wrestle with this delusion the longer it will be before they recognise Howard's strengths and contest him at ground level, which they must if they are to defeat him. Much of what is thrown at Howard is, by extension, thrown at the Australian people: they are too stupid to vote the right way, they are racist, they are boorish, apathetic and conservative.
The people take exception to this elitist view, and Howard understands them instinctively. When Howard refuses to accept that Australian society is inherently racist, the vast majority agree with him. They consider themselves to be hard working, tolerant and prepared to give generously to those in need - and Howard agrees with them. Herein lies the true wedge of Howard politics: Howard has used hostile media to cement his relationship with the voting public and reinforce the view that he is one of them.
By portraying Howard as a prisoner of his own conservatism, his opponents profoundly underestimate his capacity to change. Sometimes openly, sometimes with stealth, Howard has ditched the baggage from his doctrinaire days of policy purity, inexperience and ineptitude.
The clearest examples of Howard's ability to change are Asian immigration and Medicare. These are also perfect illustrations of how, 10 years later, Labor is still fighting a straw man instead of challenging the real Howard for the middle ground. For Howard, Asian immigration became a totemic issue that haunted him for years and put the fire in the belly of many of those who opposed him. On August 1, 1988, while Opposition leader and after a long debate on the merits of Asian immigration, Howard was asked in an ABC radio interview whether he thought the rate of Asian immigration was too high. He replied: "I wouldn't like to see it greater. I am not in favour of going back to a White Australia policy. I do believe that if it is, in the eyes of some in the community ... too great, it would be in our immediate-term interest and supportive of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little."
Those remarks stamped Howard as anti-Asian and, despite expressions of regret in September 1989 for his "loose language", the image stuck. Keating reminded everyone of Howard's words in the dying days of the 1996 election campaign when he suggested that Asian leaders would not deal with Howard.
Howard was accused of racism again in 2001 when he rigorously enforced the mandatory detention of asylum seekers who, as his critics pointed out, were mostly non-European.
Notwithstanding the disgraceful abuses of power and human tragedies that were allowed to unfold under the detention policy, the attempt by his critics to portray Howard's stance as anti-immigration matches neither the available facts nor the perception of the majority of Australians.
Tighter border protection, coupled with a strong economy and confidence about finding a job, has lessened opposition to immigration under Howard and allowed a reversal of the immigration trend under Labor and under the Liberals in their first year. Australia's current annual immigration intake is 130,000 to 140,000, excluding the humanitarian intake-much higher than it has been for decades. While accused of being anti-immigration and anti-Asian, Howard has actually overseen the greatest Asianisation of Australia since the gold rush.
After years of opposing Medicare and promoting private health insurance, Howard decided that the universal health insurance scheme was a pillar of Australian society that could not be undermined.
Howard has an intimate knowledge of the workings of the media, he understands the production challenges and difficulties, he can talk with ease to proprietors and editors and he has a forensic knowledge of the working lives of individual journalists. But he has no delusions about how many friends or supporters, even people who would respect or accept his legitimacy as Prime Minister, he has in the media.
As a result, Howard did not try to charm or coerce members of the press gallery to his cause, as Keating had done. Instead he adopted a deliberate tactic of bypassing the media gatekeepers in the press gallery and on the opinion pages.
Conversely Howard has made himself more accessible than any leader in modern times, giving doorstop interviews at the drop of a hat or holding press conferences in the prime minister's courtyard where he will sometimes take questions until the journalists virtually give up.
Howard's critics allow themselves to be blind to his success and his support and to look at issues without real reference to what the electorate is feeling or thinking. As Howard said: "I think what a lot of my critics have missed, what they overlook, is what the real world is about."
That is the reality and, like it or not, that's the secret of Howard's success. Howard has recognised the conservatism of Australians. It's a small-"c" conservatism that supports a welfare safety net and public health systems to protect the vulnerable and paradoxically has a high respect for institutions and a low regard for those who put on airs in office.
There is also a pragmatism that rates results ahead of symbols and for 10 years Howard has rejected symbols and concentrated on results.
There are two John Howards. One, a caricature born of the frustration of his opponents and critics, is both an illusion and a delusion. This Howard is divisive, a master of poll-driven wedge politics, a 1950s conservative, too old, inflexible, out of touch with modern Australia, anti-Asian and anti-immigration. The second John Howard is a far more complex and successful character - someone the Australian people have elected four times. He is the one the people identify with and he is the one they trust (even if they disagree with him) to be steady and to admit mistakes.
DISCLAIMER: All information provided is of a general nature only and does not take into account your personal financial circumstances or objectives. Before making a decision on the basis of this material, you need to consider, with or without the assistance of a financial adviser, whether the material is appropriate in light of your individual needs and circumstances. This information does not constitute a recommendation to invest in or take out any of the products or services provided by SMATS Services (Australia) Pty Ltd or Australasian Taxation Services Pty Ltd.
COPYRIGHT: All information provided is protected by international copyright laws. You may not copy, reproduce, distribute, publish, display, perform, modify, create derivative works, transmit, or in any way exploit any such content, nor may you distribute any part of this content over any network. Copying or storing any content is expressly prohibited without prior written permission of SMATS Group or the copyright holder identified in the individual content's copyright notice. For permission to use the content on please contact info@smats.net.