Saturday, August 21, 2004
Trust
Running out of trust credit
Tuesday, 10 August 2004
THE PRIME MINISTER, John Howard, has defended himself as best he can against strong criticism by retired military, intelligence and diplomatic figures. But the slur remains. Wiping it does not turn, as he seems to suggest, on fine points about the state of popular belief, or his own beliefs, about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the invasion last year. It turns rather more on the Government's, and his own, reputation for honesty. It is a reputation John Howard has allowed to be chipped away for years, whether with denials about his goods-and-services tax intentions, misleading statements about the conduct of his ministers or himself, claims of ignorance once inconvenient facts come to light, cuteness and deception about children being thrown overboard, and, over Iraq in particular, the propagation of claims stripped of the caveats, uncertainties and conditionals upon which they were based. And by spin, by silence when words were called for and by babble when directness was demanded.
The Government, in short, has a reputation — and a well deserved one — for being slippery with the truth. It can hardly complain when some senior former officials — now safe beyond any official retaliation — point it out. Nor when they also point out that a government which cannot be trusted by its own people can hardly expect to be believed or trusted by other nations either. Mr Howard correctly points out that almost all of those who signed the statement have been out of the action for some time — in all but one case before the events of September 11, 2001. But quite apart from the statements of a number of the signatories that their views are shared by many of their old colleagues still in the service of government is the fact that all of those involved have had deep experience in government, diplomacy and military affairs. They are in some position to judge whether, say, the international prestige of the United States and its presidency has fallen precipitously in recent years. Or that Australia's habit of unquestioning support for the US over this period, has adversely affected our reputation as well. Mr Howard may cavil at questions of our vulnerability to terrorism —- pointing out, accurately enough, that we are always a target because of what we are — but there are many who disagree with his claim that our vulnerability is not affected by what we do. Indeed the evidence has been that terror groups have been as interested in targets for their propaganda value as for any direct impact on people or property. In this sense, our high-profile support for the US may well have made us more exposed, as the signatories claim.
Mr Howard has been careful not to attack the bona fides of his critics, though some of his sillier supporters have not hesitated to insult them, either as dotards or Labor Party hacks, or both. It is true that some of the critics have been close to Labor, but others have not. The statement probably gives some measure of aid and comfort to the Opposition — though in form its message about the importance of giving priority to truth in government was as much directed at it as to the Government. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition, Mark Latham, in drawing comfort from the statement made pious statements about his intention to always be honest with the electorate, but one might expect that the voter will take it with a grain of salt.
Indeed there is opinion poll evidence that voters have become more and more cynical about politicians, almost expecting them to mislead and deceive. In the short term that can almost become convenient, since it sometimes appears that the public has given up the expectation or the demand that those who lie, mislead or dissimulate be punished. Political leaders will neither set a personal example or punish bad examples under their control. In the long run, however, a government or a political system in which there is not trust between those who are elected and those who are governed simply cannot work effectively. Trust is, literally, credit. One can run it down at the bank. And if one has exhausted one's credit, it is simply impossible to call upon faith in one's leaders in any sort of national crisis. John Howard is pretty much at that stage now. And even a new government, if the people are to choose one, will start with little automatic credit. It will have to earn it before it can dissipate it.
© The Canberra Times
Tuesday, 10 August 2004
THE PRIME MINISTER, John Howard, has defended himself as best he can against strong criticism by retired military, intelligence and diplomatic figures. But the slur remains. Wiping it does not turn, as he seems to suggest, on fine points about the state of popular belief, or his own beliefs, about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the invasion last year. It turns rather more on the Government's, and his own, reputation for honesty. It is a reputation John Howard has allowed to be chipped away for years, whether with denials about his goods-and-services tax intentions, misleading statements about the conduct of his ministers or himself, claims of ignorance once inconvenient facts come to light, cuteness and deception about children being thrown overboard, and, over Iraq in particular, the propagation of claims stripped of the caveats, uncertainties and conditionals upon which they were based. And by spin, by silence when words were called for and by babble when directness was demanded.
The Government, in short, has a reputation — and a well deserved one — for being slippery with the truth. It can hardly complain when some senior former officials — now safe beyond any official retaliation — point it out. Nor when they also point out that a government which cannot be trusted by its own people can hardly expect to be believed or trusted by other nations either. Mr Howard correctly points out that almost all of those who signed the statement have been out of the action for some time — in all but one case before the events of September 11, 2001. But quite apart from the statements of a number of the signatories that their views are shared by many of their old colleagues still in the service of government is the fact that all of those involved have had deep experience in government, diplomacy and military affairs. They are in some position to judge whether, say, the international prestige of the United States and its presidency has fallen precipitously in recent years. Or that Australia's habit of unquestioning support for the US over this period, has adversely affected our reputation as well. Mr Howard may cavil at questions of our vulnerability to terrorism —- pointing out, accurately enough, that we are always a target because of what we are — but there are many who disagree with his claim that our vulnerability is not affected by what we do. Indeed the evidence has been that terror groups have been as interested in targets for their propaganda value as for any direct impact on people or property. In this sense, our high-profile support for the US may well have made us more exposed, as the signatories claim.
Mr Howard has been careful not to attack the bona fides of his critics, though some of his sillier supporters have not hesitated to insult them, either as dotards or Labor Party hacks, or both. It is true that some of the critics have been close to Labor, but others have not. The statement probably gives some measure of aid and comfort to the Opposition — though in form its message about the importance of giving priority to truth in government was as much directed at it as to the Government. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition, Mark Latham, in drawing comfort from the statement made pious statements about his intention to always be honest with the electorate, but one might expect that the voter will take it with a grain of salt.
Indeed there is opinion poll evidence that voters have become more and more cynical about politicians, almost expecting them to mislead and deceive. In the short term that can almost become convenient, since it sometimes appears that the public has given up the expectation or the demand that those who lie, mislead or dissimulate be punished. Political leaders will neither set a personal example or punish bad examples under their control. In the long run, however, a government or a political system in which there is not trust between those who are elected and those who are governed simply cannot work effectively. Trust is, literally, credit. One can run it down at the bank. And if one has exhausted one's credit, it is simply impossible to call upon faith in one's leaders in any sort of national crisis. John Howard is pretty much at that stage now. And even a new government, if the people are to choose one, will start with little automatic credit. It will have to earn it before it can dissipate it.
© The Canberra Times
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
The Osama Rap - Appealing to Youth????
Over the weekend, forty three distinguished Australians - ex-diplomats and ex-military personnel - published an Open Letter to Prime Minister John Howard criticizing the Liberal/National Party Government's policy on the invasion of Iraq. The PM, however, and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, rejected the criticisms as ingenuous and ill-informed, the work of long-retired has-beens.
Eminent and well-informed Australians have criticized the Governmen's shameful Iraq policy as wrong-headed. Yet John Howard and Alexander Downer reject that criticism as "merely" the opinion of old fogies and retired Senior Citizens!
I can imagine the first act at the next Young Liberal/Young National [the conservative Coalition governing Australia is composed of the Liberal and National Parties] fundraising concert, a rap band named "Amerikan Krawl." The lead vocalist, dressed in thongs, oversize shorts, "muscle shirt" and a bandanna to cover his receding hairline, would of course be John Winston Howard; second vocalist (making that spitting sound into the microphone), dressed similarly but with shaven head, would be "Wee Sandy" Downer; also on stage, riding around on miniature bicycles, like members of Snoop Doggy Dog, would be [Defence Minister] Robert Hill and [Attorney-General] Philip Ruddock, dressed similarly but with reversed baseball caps.
Backing groupies? Hmm, [Immigration Minister] Amanda Vanstone would look HOT in ripped T-shirt and biker boots, while anti-peedofile (sic) campaigners Trish Draper and DeAnne Kelly would be appropriately dressed as ex-virgin Britney Spears.
The "Kumminatcha" DJ, spinning the vinyl backwards? None other than George W himself.
And the song? "9/11 Muthafukkas Gotta Die!"
Eminent and well-informed Australians have criticized the Governmen's shameful Iraq policy as wrong-headed. Yet John Howard and Alexander Downer reject that criticism as "merely" the opinion of old fogies and retired Senior Citizens!
I can imagine the first act at the next Young Liberal/Young National [the conservative Coalition governing Australia is composed of the Liberal and National Parties] fundraising concert, a rap band named "Amerikan Krawl." The lead vocalist, dressed in thongs, oversize shorts, "muscle shirt" and a bandanna to cover his receding hairline, would of course be John Winston Howard; second vocalist (making that spitting sound into the microphone), dressed similarly but with shaven head, would be "Wee Sandy" Downer; also on stage, riding around on miniature bicycles, like members of Snoop Doggy Dog, would be [Defence Minister] Robert Hill and [Attorney-General] Philip Ruddock, dressed similarly but with reversed baseball caps.
Backing groupies? Hmm, [Immigration Minister] Amanda Vanstone would look HOT in ripped T-shirt and biker boots, while anti-peedofile (sic) campaigners Trish Draper and DeAnne Kelly would be appropriately dressed as ex-virgin Britney Spears.
The "Kumminatcha" DJ, spinning the vinyl backwards? None other than George W himself.
And the song? "9/11 Muthafukkas Gotta Die!"
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Gang of 43
[The "Gang of 43," ex-politicions, diplomatas, military personnel and other public figures who criticized the Australian involvement in Iraq, were roundly criticized - by Coalition supporters - fo "daring" to speak out, especially since the were no longer "current." Some even suggested that they had broken some sort of law in so doing]
So, [name withheld] thinks the “Gang of Forty-three” have broken an unwritten law of the Public Service, which requires that, after retirement, ex-officers should keep their mouths shut forever.
What a quaint idea — especially in this Brave New World where the Public Service is supposed to be a group of ersatz private companies, and where public servants are employed under contract to carry out the will of their “CEOs,” whether that be for the good of the public or merely the whim of the government.
It’s almost as quaint an idea as that which led us to expect that retiring government ministers were going to be satisfied to live on their massive payouts and superannuation!
What a quaint idea — especially in this Brave New World where the Public Service is supposed to be a group of ersatz private companies, and where public servants are employed under contract to carry out the will of their “CEOs,” whether that be for the good of the public or merely the whim of the government.
It’s almost as quaint an idea as that which led us to expect that retiring government ministers were going to be satisfied to live on their massive payouts and superannuation!
