billyduckworth wrote:Looking at this from a history point of view (yes, folks, I used to be a high school history teacher in a previous life)....
Are we looking at a repeat of 1969 or 1972?
1969 (for those of you who haven't seen the movie "Don's Party"):
public tired of Vietnam War, tired of Liberals in office for so many years, but Libs portray themselves as the experienced economic managers and somehow scrape back in (Labour scored over 50% on two party preferred, but failed to win a majority of seats, thanks to quirks in our system).
1972 ("It's time"):
public even more tired of Vietnam War (even the US had basically decided to get out by this time), public even more tired of Liberals in office for a record 23 years (exactly double the current Howard era), Labour comes up with many visionary new policies (health insurance, recognise Communist China, end National Service etc), Labour wins narrowly.
I personally hope it's a repeat of 1972, as I think we are ready for a change, but has Rudd presented a good enough alternative? Even with all of Whitlam's visionary ideas in 1972, Labour only JUST won the Reps and failed to get a majority in the Senate, sowing the seeds of the "constitutional crisis" in 1975.
At least in part because we have compulsory voting (the only country in the entire world to have this), the issues usually come down to the lowest common denominator...the hip pocket nerve. People could be stupid enough to vote for Howard on the basis of tax cuts and better "economic management".
Perhaps this will be a 1969, when Labour put up a very good show but didn't quite get over the line. I hope not.
I'm no student of history and obviously i wasn't around in either '69 or '72, but there's a (slightly tongue-in-cheek) article in today's Age that i think sums up this election reasonably well. The article (below) outlines that although in form only this election seems similar to '72 (long time Liberal government sailing to a heavy electoral defeat), there's a world of differences. This actually came up around the dinner table last night and my old man was of the same opinion - said when people voted for Gough in '72 they had reason to feel good about themselves because he was a highly intelligent, confident leader with an exciting vision for change that was long overdue. At the moment Rudd, on the other hand, is going to easily assume office mainly on the back of people's growing hatred and exasperation with Howard.
So it's apt to ask: should there be more to it than hating Howard?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/t ... 82911.html
The left needs to stand for more than just wanting Howard out.
I'VE now got three invitations to parties being held on November 24. I'm expecting more to arrive. I have no delusions about my popularity. It's not me that's got everyone so excited. It's the election.
Hosting an election party can be risky. If the wrong side gets up, you're stuck with a houseful of depressed inebriates, with some bore inevitably pontificating about how he knew they couldn't win.
For my generation of left-leaning thirtysomethings there has only been one election party that satisfied since we came of age — Keating's 1993 "unwinnable" victory. But this year my rapidly growing pile of invitations shows how confident my friends have become. The possibility that our Prime Minister might also lose his seat is the ultimate accompaniment to the victory so many of us crave.
When I was growing up, my parents regaled me with stories of another legendary election party held on the night of the 1972 Whitlam victory (I was in-utero at the time, so in a way I was actually there). Finally, after 23 years, the Coalition was ousted and a New World Order was heralded. No matter how brief his tenure and ignominious his downfall, Whitlam's win was remembered by them as a moment of promise, a cultural turning point.
Yet the thought that I'll one day follow in my parents' footsteps, impressing my own son with stories of the famous '07 election party, when Australia finally changed direction, doesn't quite ring true.
My friends and I are classic Howard-haters — the latte-dependent, over-educated, bleeding hearts that you've read so much about. The PM recently acknowledged that many people hate him. Not just his politics but him, personally. And when it comes to the so-called educated elites, the reason for our venom is simple. There have been many decisions by the Howard Government, from its handling of the Tampa incident to jackbooted indigenous intervention that we regarded as more than simply politically distasteful. These were moral questions.
But as deep as our disgust with the Prime Minister runs, we latte-sippers are essentially an impotent bunch. As Waleed Aly recently noted on this page, we've actually been a "self-renewing gift for the Coalition" as swinging voters have swung even closer to Howard whenever we've voiced opposition to him on moral grounds. Our self-righteous, chardonnay-soaked moralising has helped to sharpen Howard's wedge.
What's changed for us this year is the Liberal Party's catastrophic poll results. They've been feeding us Howard-haters with a weekly dose of blood, like droplets along the forest floor leading inevitably to the kill. But, in our excitement, are we becoming intoxicated by this blood lust and forgetting what really matters?
I was recently at a dinner party where everyone was gloating over the Government's poor polling. When one guest cautiously suggested that Rudd's me-too-ism is also disconcerting, she was immediately shot down. And yet no one really defended Rudd's policies, aside from reminding the dissenter that he speaks Mandarin.
Rudd has proved himself a skilful Opposition Leader but he, and his vision, remain elusive. It has been frequently observed that rather than taking the fight to the Government he has employed a strategy of avoiding confrontation. Troublingly, this has been particularly acute when it comes to the very moral issues that so incensed us Howard-haters in the first place. His spin is so well-spun that it's hard to be certain whether he intends to shake up the nation's consciousness or simply give us more of the same.
Perhaps, as Robert Manne argued, Rudd's reluctance to challenge the Liberal Party is really just a clever way of dodging the "rabbits" that Howard keeps pulling out of his hat. After all, it's the vote of "ordinary people" that will get the ALP over the line, as opposed to us "prosperous, professional 'elites' ".
But where does this leave us Howard-haters? Supporting the Opposition simply out of spite against the Prime Minister, without asking what we're getting instead? Perhaps we're wrong and we're not the moral voice of the nation. But if we're right and we are, then aren't we abrogating our responsibility? It's as if we've stopped caring who or what we vote for, as long as Howard loses.
If you don't believe that this is really happening then try this experiment: ask any self-identified Howard-hater why they're excited about the election. Will they reply with a list of the ALP's initiatives and policies, or will they simply say: "It looks like Howard's finally going to get it." Mandarin may or may not be mentioned.
Call me naive, but I like to imagine that back in '72 the discussion on election night focused on the positive vision of "It's Time" rather than the somewhat less dignified "Die, McMahon, die!" Of course, our '07 election eve celebrations could still go the way of that other famous shindig, Don's Party. Perhaps this wouldn't be all bad. Maybe next time we'd demand a bit more from the opposition.
Melbourne writer Monica Dux's book The Great Feminist Denial, co-written with Zora Simic, will be published by Melbourne University Press next year.
