It ain’t just the economy, stupid…

Keith Jackson

So what is it that seems to be propelling John Howard and his ‘team’ (I use the word in preference to ‘rabble’) towards what seems like an inevitable Federal election defeat tomorrow. And a big election defeat at that. Shall we essay a 20 seat Labor majority? After all, although Kevin Rudd has picked up ten points in the polls over the last six months on ‘who can best manage the economy’, he’s still 15 points shy of Howard on this criterion. And economic prosperity and economic management have been, in the currency of election wisdom over the past 30 years, considered congruent with political success.

Well, in tackling this matter, let’s consider these ‘it ain’t the economy’ theories:

The ‘three enoughs’ theory. If you offend enough interest groups (no matter how small or weak, they all vote) over enough time you can build enough enmity to well and truly do yourself in at the ballot box.

The trust theory. If you deceive (core v non-core promises), pursue hidden agendas (WorkChoices), play dumb around public corruption (Australian Wheat Board), exaggerate (phoney rationale for Iraq), play the race card (soft on Hansonism), ignore legitimate public concern (climate change), foment alarm (boat people), and exploit fear (counter-terrorism as a political stratagem) – then expect people to lose trust as it dawns on them they’re being played off a break.

The theory of plausible deniability. ‘Don’t tell me what’s going on because then I can’t plausibly deny I knew nothing about it. Just don’t tell me!’ The art of ensuring the bad news stops far enough away so as not to directly contaminate you. This revolutionary leadership theory, which seemed to work so well for a while, encountered a problem. Voters woke up to it. Not that Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock realised this on Lateline last night. Interviewer Tony Jones: “Why don’t you know [the names of the perpetrators of an unlawful pamphlet]?” Ruddock: “I didn’t ask”. Game. Set. Match.

The luck’s a fortune theory. After more than eleven years of Howardism, Australia doesn’t have a clue about where it’s going or what it’s trying to do as a nation. It’s a poker machine vision: pull the handle and see what happens. It helps if we have big friends who think they know what they’re doing (even if they’re self deluded). Then we can tag along, preening and whistling as if it was our idea.

The theory of generational change. Australians remain basically the same, this theory goes, so we can keep pulling the same rabbits out of the same hats and they will deliver the same outcomes. It’s one of life’s great dilemmas: each day seems deceptively like the one before, yet each day moves us incrementally somewhere else. The kids who first voted in 1996 when Howard beat Keating are now 29. The kids who are voting for the first time on Saturday were seven when Howard became Prime Minister. Nothing stays the same. Including the electorate. To remain successful, politicians have to pick these generational shifts.

The ‘Aussies like biffo’ theory. We’re great competitors. If global power was a sport, we’d be invading countries in our own right, we’re just that good. So we like a contest; we like it robust; we feel cheated if blood isn’t spilled. But we like all of this on the floodlit fields of the sportsground. Or in the sweaty atmosphere of the change room. Or in the blustering ambience of the bar. When it comes to politics, though, negativity, slagging off, attacks, put-downs and sneers just turn us right off. Which makes Howard v Costello a bad look, and Kevin Rudd’s genteel campaign a sign of how well he understands how discomfited the Australian people feel about public bad mouthing.

There are many other theories. These are mine. Feel free to offer yours in the Comments section below.

The Australian Federal election will be held tomorrow. Kevin Rudd’s Labor Party is expected to win office after more than eleven years in Opposition.

Comments

[Richard E Jones]

I'm happy enough to see Kevin 07 take over The Lodge, but my concern is that he appears virtually indistinguishable from his political opponents. That might be a surface impression. Still, anyone who says he's going to celebrate an historic election victory with a cup of tea and a biscuit has got to be a bit of a worry.

Okay, so I'm a lot further left of centre than the smiling, moon-face we now call PM. I'm old enough to remember attending Arthur Calwell's ALP policy launch in Melbourne in the late 1950s, when it was a virtually insurmountable task to topple ol' Pig Iron Bobbie Menzies at the polls. Those were the days. The ALP was a real people's party, with blue collar workers its backbone. Not the carefully coiffed and suited apparatchiks of 2007!

Australia was, make that 'is', an inherently conservative nation, so I took my bat and ball in the early 1960s and hightailed it to Papua New Guinea. On a crackly shortwave radio link at Sogeri (very close to the start of the Kokoda Track) I listened to Menzies' resignation speech in 1966. He'd racked up 17 years as PM by that stage, but at least by '66 we Aussies - expatriates in PNG included - didn't have to put up with him any longer.

[Simon Jackson]

An excellent piece. Thank you for putting into such clear prose what so many of us are feeling. Here's hoping Saturday will be a great night - perhaps as powerful as '83?

[Dr John Hey]

What about the theory that the consummate politician found an "honourable" way of dumping Peter Costello. To assume otherwise is to deny that he ever knew what he was doing and I cannot see Lazarus as politically stupid.

[Brad Hooper]

I am holding my breath but I think Kev’s going to do it. It’s hard to believe Howard could have run a worse campaign.