On August 17 Crikey reported with some relish the unfortunate timing of the release of John Howard’s new book: A Sense of Balance. It was more or less the exact moment revelations of Scott Morrison’s multi-ministries came to light.
Howard had booked himself on 7.30 that night to spruik his tome, but instead faced a barrage of questions from Sarah Ferguson about Morrison. He was not happy.
There is some divine justice in Howard’s acolyte, Morrison — as the one who, more than any other, has shaped the contemporary Liberal Party — managing to bugger up Howard’s big moment. The fact also that the book missed out on any mention of the Morrison intrigues almost certainly guarantees its rapid despatch to the remainder bins — if that fate wasn’t likely anyway.
But before it disappears entirely into irrelevance, it and Howard’s continuing role in national politics is worth considering. There’s one notion I wish to focus on, which relates to the book’s title.
It has been an uncanny conjuring trick of the former prime minister that as possibly the country’s most right-leaning federal leader, he has managed to effect some image of himself as the sober and balanced centrist. During his time in office this came about through a range of rhetorical techniques: the supposed pragmatic appeal to the Aussie everyman; the plain speaking; the faux modesty.
Another key element, one not often commented on, was a pattern of communicating policies and positions — often highly contentious ones (e.g. refugees; industrial relations; foreign policy) — via a distinctive two-part formulation.
The first part, proposition one, would typically see some worthy, reassuring quality about the nation invoked (the fair go, the fundamental decency of Australians, etc). This would be followed by an emphatic BUT, whereupon Howard would insist — often against his better judgment — that circumstances compelled him to embark on some course starkly at odds with the sentiment expressed.
The method was evident in what was probably Howard’s most significant rhetorical moment: the notorious declaration in the Tampa election:
We are a generous open-hearted people. We have a proud record of welcoming people from 140 different nations.
BUT…
We will decide who comes to this county and in the circumstances in which they come.
This tried and true formula was used regularly in his prime ministership — always to make palatable to the public some more extreme measure.
Thus in a press conference announcing the country’s entry into the Iraq War, Howard prefaced the moment by talking about the horrors of war: “I mean we all hate war.” His preference overwhelmingly, he said, was to be talking at the time about health policy and water policy.
“BUT I can’t do that,” was his grim conclusion, before launching into a systematic laying out of the “evidence” for weapons of mass destruction.
The same again in the way he prepared the public for the government’s major IR reform, WorkChoices:
It is people’s right to join a trade union and it will never be the policy of this government to deny people a choice … BUT we do need still more flexibility, and I think we need a more nationally consistent industrial relations system.
This was a large part of Howard’s success in his years in office, to be able to push through a radical agenda on many fronts while managing to appear — at least to a sizeable segment of the community — the reasonable, pragmatic and “balanced” leader.
These same rhetorical manoeuvres are in evidence in his new book. Thus on climate change he eschews any suggestion of denialism — “I am not blind to the scientific arguments” — but then devotes the next pages to explaining why far less should be done on the issue, including citing some of his favourite denialists and sceptics: Bjorn Lomborg and William Nordhaus.
On the question of a Voice to Parliament, Howard spends some time acknowledging the aspirations of Indigenous peoples but then happily provides a kiss of death for any prospects of the Voice getting up: “My suspicion is that anything that carries the taint of divisiveness will fail as a referendum question.”
The book rails against many issues, but with these always couched in this tone of affected moderation. There is opposition to constitutional change; to the promotion of diversity; to action on climate; to any positive role for unions; to any mechanism to enhance female representation in the party. Regret is even expressed seemingly for women’s increased participation in the workforce.
There is a good deal of praise for Morrison’s leadership — and, of course, for his own record of achievement in government.
The “sense of balance” in the book is a con, as was the calculated projection of this notion during his prime ministership. Eventually the public got wind of the con — WorkChoices was where the façade finally fell away — and the voters not only tipped his government out of office, but also out of his seat. Mungo MacCallum’s “unflushable turd” was finally gone.
Yet in all this time there’s never been any flushing out in the Liberal Party. It remains a mystery that the Liberal Party clings to the notion that Howard is still the man. It blithely despatches him to every election campaign to lure the voters — with seemingly zero impact. And then when everyone else is seeing him as more likely an electoral liability than an asset, he is brought into the defeated party room to help point them — oracle-like — towards some shining road to success.
The timing alone of Howard’s book has rendered it virtually irrelevant in national debate. For however long the Liberal Party continues to embrace the “sense of balance” outlined in it, a similar fate looks likely for it.
Do Howard’s opinions mean anything to you? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Good analysis. One aspect of Howard’s rhetorical self-positioning that might deserve more in-depth scrutiny is how he learned to be increasingly skilful in deploying racially-tinged wedge politics through “dog-whistling”. After his clumsy intervention in the politics of immigration from Asia in the 1980s backfired, Howard got much more devious and subtle in how he appealed to the prejudices of certain parts of his base. Thanks to demographic and other changes, that kind of politics should be on the way out.
“A lot of Australians believe (some controversial right-wing tosh)” was another of is suite of MOs.
Howard has always been misrepresented by the media. He was always a right wing wolf in centrist sheep’s clothing. And he was astute at employing a human shield for the controversial right wing agenda; eg the wharf IR dispute and Children Overboard where Reith was human shield on both issues. A real leader does not hide behind human sacrifices.
But he was cunning. I loathe him for strategically embedding in the Australian psyche xenophobia in relation to refugees, making the despicable views of Hanson part of the discourse in a corrupt attempt to steal her constituency, embedding the processes and landmines that facilitated the wasted decade of climate non-action, the way he sabotaged the republic referendum. That lying rodent has done more harm to Australian than any other Liberal PM in our history. His only ‘Sense of Balance’ was to sabotage the good in the Australian political psyche and make it last. I do think that spell was broken at the last election and Howard is now the symbol of utter political irrelevancy.
And Howard-Costello sanga and a milk-shake tax cut vote-buying, middle-class welfare (off-set/subsidised by the proceeds of the mining boom : rather than investing in infrastructure) albatross has left the vast majority of our kids up to their necks in hock, unable to afford owning a home, and, beyond that, the prospect of the very real chance of a dotage spent in a purgatory on earth.
Your “…. irrelevancy” : I tend to think of his as “selfish, myopic political malevolence”.
Well said.
He was also well supported by Murdoch and the main stream media.
Feted as some sort of deity by the conservatives but not so on the international scene.
When he stood for head of the International Cricket, I think his well known racist sentiments promptly put the skids under that one.
India were quite adamant about that.
At least he got his comeuppance in 2007 – unfortunately, for us, about ten years too late.
Thank you, Tim. I shall never read the book but I am grateful for your gelling us what is in it. The “communication policies” you mention seem like “deceit” to me.
Yes, it is timely that John Howard was studied a great deal more. I don’t think that this piece by Tim Moore cuts it. He hasn’t explored Howard’s role pre-1996. He was in opposition for 13 years and prior to that was both Minister for Consumer Affairs (before Treasurer Phil “Kidney Stones” Lynch ran afoul of the Tax Office over his family Trust) and Treasurer after said Phillip, resigned and “little Johnny” took over. In this formative and crucial period, Howard distinguished himself from the rest of the Fraser Ministry in good and not so good ways.
He was always a warrior of the Right but it was the neo-liberal, free market aspect of Right wing politics where he came to prominence in a government role prior to his becoming PM. People look too much to his term as PM and did not realise how that period was largely, not totally but largely at odds with his time as a Minister in the Government of Malcolm Fraser. In this government, he advocated against unions constantly and took every opportunity bash them. He wanted to de-centralise wage fixing at a time of high inflation when if that had happened, there would have been even larger real age cuts in the 1970s and early 1980s, than was occurring. He wanted to introduce a consumption tax, a goal which he finally achieved in 2000 with the introduction of the GST. Indirect taxes affect the poorer and those on fixed incomes hardest and deepen contractionary measures economically and would have deepened the 1982-83 recession. He supported small government and flat or flatter taxes. He prefaced the privatisation which were the hallmark of the Hawke and Keating governments and deregulation but he never had the courage of his convictions to confront the protectionists – Fraser, and the partially rehabilitated Lynch (sans kidney stones) who was Industry Minister – and urge financial deregulation urged by the Campbell Committee.
Howard rode the hard yards done by those before him and with him. No wonder Peter Costello (alias the smirk) was bitter. Howard could revert to traditional fiscal cutbacks with fewer repercussions courtesy of the hatred felt against the Federal Labor government of Keating’s last term from 1993-1996 and with the channelling of bitter memories of unemployment and wage cuts in real terms that characterised the Hawke and Keating Governments. Hawke and Keating crippled the union movement. Not just weakened them. Crippled them. Gutted them through the lengthy Accord process. They had no fight for anything after Labor left office in 1996. The wage fixing system was decentralised and becoming more de-regulated. The union movement was a shadow of its former self and Howard could reap the political benefits of such a process and a weakened opposition socially as well as politically. Low interest rates and immigration did the rest as well as off-shoring lower skilled and lower quality industries and technology assisted in its modernisation for the economy broadly, though the results here too were patchy. Howard got a good run through all the press and media outlets. It was Work Choices that finished Howard. Here he showed his true colours because the mining boom was boosting wages for all the workplace sectors and his business mates wanted this to be crimped drastically. He reverted to what he was during the 1970s and 1980s. He was definitely not a centrist. Perhaps a reluctant or accidental one. He was certainly a complex character, more so that at first appearances project. People around him made mistakes which they paid for and he got off largely scott free.
Excellent addendum to Tim’s piece. Thanks.
I remember many years ago my grandfather expressing a loathing dislike for Philip Lynch and John Howard, whenever they appeared on the television.
The Liberal Party thinks the IR environment is stuck in the 1970s and it hasn’t noticed that the majority of us rejected the culture wars at the May election, so we probably shouldn’t be terribly surprised that it hasn’t figured out most of the country has moved passed the Howard World View.