« Beldar's take on the second presidential debate | Main | At least three in the room, but the wrong three »
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Stalwart defined: Australia hangs tough, re-electing John Howard
With a margin of 52.4 percent to 47.6 percent, and more than 72 percent of the official vote count complete, it appears that John Howard's Liberal/National Coalition government will retain power, holding off Mark Latham's Australian Labor Party. Mr. Latham has conceded defeat, and Mr. Howard's own (small-c) conservative party (named, confusingly to us Yanks, the "Liberal Party") may end up with effective control of both houses, whereas previously the conservatives were obliged to rely upon independents in the Australian Senate. Per the AP:
The outcome means Australia will make good on Howard's pledge to keep 900 troops in Iraq until Iraqi authorities say they are no longer needed. The opposition Labor Party led by Mark Latham vowed to bring Australian soldiers home by Christmas if it won power.
It would be a mistake for Americans to interpret this solely through a Bush versus Kerry prism. Despite the close ties between our two countries, through history and up through today, and the predominant focus of the pre-election debates in Australia on foreign policy and terrorism matters, there were of course other issues on the table besides Australia's ongoing participation as a principal bulwark in civilization's Global War on Terrorism. Indeed, it's precisely that shallow and callow self-centered viewpoint — of which John Kerry, famously nuanced and multilingual son of a career lawyer-diplomat, is astonishingly and consistently guilty — that leads to characterizing proud, independent countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, and so many other of America's allies as being "some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted."
And indeed, I strongly suspect that some portion of Mr. Howard's margin of victory came from Aussies who were disgusted by Mr. Latham's own denigration of Australia's independence by painting Mr. Howard in words substantially more offensive than "Bush's poodle." As quoted in this October 4th pre-election article from the UK's Telegraph, mistakenly entitled "Tough talker has poll win in sight" (boldface added):
Explaining his political credo, Mr Latham has said Australia is not "a namby-pamby nation", but one that is happy to call a spade a spade, "and, if need be, pick up the spade and whack someone over the head with it".
But it is his comments about Mr Howard's support for President George W Bush which sealed his notoriety, and established his credibility in a country where the Iraq war, and the current US administration, are highly unpopular.
Referring to Australia's token military commitment to the Iraqi operation, the Labour Party leader has called Mr Howard an "arse-licker", and said the prime minister returned from one recent visit to the United States "with a brown nose and a lot of skin off his knees".
Mr Howard's cabinet colleagues were described as "a conga line of suck holes", an Australian colloquialism better not explained, nor visualised.
It's not "all about Bush." It's not even "all about us, the Americans." It's "all about us, the civilized world." The Australians, like the Spanish, have been, and are, and will continue to be targets of the Islamic extremists not only because they've been America's allies but because of who and what those countries themselves are, and what we all, collectively, represent. Attempts to appease the terrorists will, like all appeasement, only invite further abuse in the middle and long run.
A narrow but decisive majority of Australians realize this, as the voters of Spain did not. Indeed, as The Belmont Club's Wretchard notes, it appears that Mr. Howard's government will not only hang on, but improve its current position. Australia will remain an aggressive and stalwart bulwark for civilization and against the terrorists — an ally of the United States' own efforts not because Australians have been bribed, coerced, bought, or extorted, but because of a clear-eyed and sober evaluation that their own long-term interests and America's run parallel.
The results of the Australian election are thus something that all Americans who are serious about fighting the Global War on Terrorism — including that subset of Sen. Kerry's supporters who are serious, who believe their own candidate's rhetoric — should celebrate, because those results are indeed in our independent self-interest as Americans.
Australian bloggers Tim Blair, Arthur Chrenkoff, and The Currency Lad have more links and punditry. Tim's summary:
Never again will I doubt the wisdom of Australians. I called this election all wrong, essentially because I couldn’t believe — despite a powerful economy, correct views on the war, and a lame opposition campaign — that John Howard could win four elections in a row.
I love this country for proving me wrong. I love Australia.
I definitely ditto that sentiment, on behalf of myself and many, many other of my own admiring and grateful countrymen. I'm put in mind of the words of Ben Franklin at the signing of the American Declaration of Independence, on the subject of interdependence: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Our current common enemies, of course, prefer beheading to hanging. But surely we — the civilized world — will be more effective in fighting them together if we all keep our heads screwed on straight.
(A thankful hat-tip to my emailing reader from down under Stan Blogg, who sent me some of these links and wrote, "I hope that puts a smile on your face!" Yes, indeed it does, sir!)
Posted by Beldar at 01:17 PM in Global War on Terror, Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Stalwart defined: Australia hangs tough, re-electing John Howard and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
Comments
(1) JuanB made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 2:38:08 PM | Permalink
I saw elsewhere that Australia's election wouldn't have a favorable impact on Bush, given that most Americans can't name the Prime Minister of Australia, just as people down under can't name the governor of Texas.
I'm from California, and I can't name the governor of Texas. I do, however, know who John Howard is. He is the leader of one of our greatest allies. I offer my congratulations and respect.
(2) Beldar made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 2:57:35 PM | Permalink
Heh, I can name the governor of California, and I'll bet most Australians can too. But I don't disagree with you, JuanB I applaud this result on its own, and view it as a favorable development for the United States regardless of whether Bush or Kerry wins. I doubt that it will have much impact on the U.S. election, except for some tiny fraction of the American public who may have been wondering whether, as Sen. Kerry suggested at the debate Friday night, America's allies are likely to continue deserting the global coalition that America leads.
(3) geezer made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 3:05:21 PM | Permalink
Would that the people of Spain had as much courage as the Aussies -- congratulations to John Howard and his nation.
(4) Lysander made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 4:40:19 PM | Permalink
Aussie politics is something else, and I learned that first-hand. (I was told the look on my face was priceless when I was told that there was right-wing unions. Truly an amazing country ;) ). The relationship between the US and Australia (and the UK and Australia) is complex, and dare I say, nuanced, but if my memory serves, every single time the US has engaged military forces where allies were present, the Aussies were right there with us.
Onya, mates. Have a New or two for me. *starts humming Chris Franklin*
Lysander
(5) Stan made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 10:03:42 PM | Permalink
Thank you gentleman for your kind words about Australia.
It's true there were many issues at play in this last Australian election, and so the result may reflect many things besides the war on terror. But I think what is equally as important is that a Western leader took a principled stand on Iraq and it was not an albatross around his neck when he came for reelection. People will elect a strong leader who stands for something even if they may disagree with him on occasion.
Anyway, I hope the American people see President Bush the same way. Cheers.
(6) Polaris made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 10:38:56 PM | Permalink
Stan,
Thanks. As an American I want to congratulate all of you 'Down Under' for making such a principled choice. I also don't think that Americans are that different from Australians when it comes to standing up to terror.
Thus I predict that PM Howard's reelection can be considered a leading indicator of our own election on 2 Nov.
-Polaris
(7) MOz made the following comment | Oct 10, 2004 3:43:34 AM | Permalink
As a liberal voter downunder I am very happy with the result of the election. What does concern me is the 'Kerry' prospect. He has deeply offended Australia and the other nations in the coalition of the 'Willing' and I hate to think it but it is most likely that our governments would work with him should he become President. But consider this, he will build 'his' coalition and it will be a fair dinkum coalition of the 'bribed' (France, Russia, Germany) and the 'coerced' (the US). I think Kerry must have found the same tailor as the 'Teflon Don' coz nothing seems to stick to him .... dammnit.
(8) David Blue made the following comment | Oct 10, 2004 2:07:53 PM | Permalink
As a first-time straight-ticket Liberal voter, and thus I learn as a neo-conservative (new-conservative) I'm very, very happy with the result of the elections.
Thanks for all the fine words from our American friends. I look forward to saying the same sorts of things to you on 2/3 November, 2004. That will be sweet.
I strongly agree with your point, Beldar, about us voting for our government for our reasons. These reasons include our own interests.
They also include our own values. These values include mateship. You stand by your friends, or if you make excuses and duck out the back, you are worthless. If we ran out on our allies at this point, the honour of the Americans would be intact, but ours would be in shreds. It's not about the Americans, ultimately, it's about us.
Mainstream media tripe like this makes me hostile: The Age, 22 July, 2004, _Howard's obsequiousness to America exceeds even Holt's_. Which is pretty much what it sounds like, or worse. (Holt was the prime minister who said "All the way with LBJ", summing up a commitment to a common cause in Vietnam that didn't work out too well.) Right or wrong, fortunate or unfortunate, these are our choices.
And we never got, and never wanted, a cent in US aid (including disguised aid like expensive and useless US bases in Germany), which is more than I can say for a lot of the anti-American countries our would-be-moral teachers in the media regard with puppy-like deference.
Anyway - all smiles today! :D
(9) Todd made the following comment | Oct 11, 2004 2:04:40 PM | Permalink
I'd like to add my thanks to the Aussie readers of Beldar's blog for their and their country's support in the War on Terror. Thanks again for your support and kind words.
(10) Noel made the following comment | Oct 16, 2004 7:07:50 AM | Permalink
George Bush and John Howard are great men. Great, great men. Really great. And voting for your own interests (at the expense of others) is not only a practical positive, but morally the only choice. If Iraqis were interested in living (instead of being shot by Coalition of the Wiling forces, whilst siting in their own homes) then they would have been born as upper or middle class Americans or Australians, instead of lower order middle eastern natives. Long may the Bush and the shrub reign.
The comments to this entry are closed.