Wallace provides an extremely solid historical account, some interesting political theory and informative economic analysis. But above all, she should be praised for explicating the single most frustrating aspect of the Howard Government from the point of view of anyone who maintains any regard at all for the integrity of the intellectual conscience: namely, the reality/rhetoric gap in its approach to politics. Those with intellectual integrity have known the true nature John Howard's ideological platform all along. However, as Wallace demonstrates in her article, Howard has persistently dressed his policies and principles in populist, socially friendly rhetoric - and the public has bought it again and again! Work Choices has been the hidden telos towards which Howard has been heading from day one. Indeed, if he were able to get away with it, Work Choices would have been only the beginning of his libertarian revolution. Yet only since his ideological platform has become more explicit have people (i.e. lower-middle-class-working-families) begun to finally learn what the Howard Government is all about. This is why many left-leaning intellectuals were actually secretly satisfied when the Liberal Party won control of the Senate in 2004; we knew they'd let fly (as they have) and the public would finally become aware of what we have been trying to tell them from day one!

Agreed, this is an excellent even-handed analysis. However, I'm not sure about Wallace's contention that the libertarians are intent on policing cultural practices. I would have thought the combination of economic liberalism and social conservatism is a characteristic of Howard the individual, not the libertarian movement.

As an aside, I would be interested to hear Chris' assessment of Peter Hartcher's piece in the SMH that the rock solid perception of Howard as a superior economic manager virtually assures him of security a fifth term later this year.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/babushka-politics-tough-to-crack/2007/06/14/1181414459633.html

Personally, I think Hartcher has grown a little two fond of his theory of Howard's unassailability on this issue. I detect a sense that the electorate is cottoning onto the fact that the economy's good fortune in recent years has been globally driven and that the government's role is minimal.

I can still remember the exact moment Australia became a libertarian nation. I was in hell, practicing my double axel.

It appears that libertarianism is going to be the next political philosophy distorted by attacks made by people who know absolutely nothing about it, until it is equated with a philosophy that bears no resemblance to what the term actually means whatsoever. The first of these was "liberal," as in "one that follows the tenets of liberalism." Yet nowadays, as the result of attacks made against it, the term "liberal" is now equated with "left-leaning person."

Now libertarianism, essentially the modern incarnation of classic liberalism, is being equated with a form of heirarchical conservatism that allows the abuse of the rights of minorities by the tyranny of the majority - never mind the fact that the idea of the "tyranny of the majority" was coined perjoratively as a view of the inevitable result of democracy and majority rule.

By your assertion, "The libertarian logic is that, since personal freedom and the existence of free markets are inextricably entwined, and since - as Bork puts it - "vigorous" economies are vulnerable to being "enfeebled" by particular cultural practices, then the champions of personal freedom have a licence to police cultural practices - in the interests of freedom and economic vigour.

Thus libertarians can reason that difference (for example, multiculturalism, homosexuality) must be eliminated so that the economy can function better - reasoning that is absurd, to say the least."

The reasoning is only absurd because it's not just wrong, it's been plucked out of nowhere, and imposed on a belief system that is completely incompatable with it.

CONTINUED>>

In fact, this reasoning is shot to pieces by some of the very core beliefs of the libertarian; self-ownership and individual choice (INCLUDING sexual choice). Self-ownership, or self-determination, holds that every individual, REGARDLESS of race, creed, religion or orientation, should have the right to do what they want, as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others (eg by abuse, by criminal behaviour against them, and ESPECIALLY what you suggest libertarians want, which appears to be either mass genocide, forced deportation, or marginalisation, of all homosexuals or people of different ethnicity. The reasoning that libertarians want the eradication of difference for the benefit of the economy is ridiculous; to put it at the most base level possible, just because libertarians believe in a free market, doesn't mean they want to get down on their knees and fellate it).

I'd continue this rant by pointing out that the granting of special privileges to some businesses at the expense of others, and their consumers - a Howard government hallmark - is also opposed to libertarianism, but I think if I went that far I'd run the risk of taking you seriously. I sincerely suggest, though, that if you're going to use philosophical terms with any sort of authority, you'd best find out what they mean first.

The real shame here is, if you take away the horrible misuse of libertarianism for a byword of the evils of Howard, Reagan and Thatcher, this really has the potential to be a probing, well-argued piece.

Oh well.

Christine you are so right.A most appropriate framework to place Howard, and it is just Howard.There can be no successor to his idiosyncratic 'vision', agenda and style.
I don't see him as being modestly bright rather moderately bright and as cunning as a fox. Guided as he was by public reaction and opinion he seemed to me to be an incremental achiever.
But he appears to have become bolder and sooner or later a bold fox is a dead fox provided of course that the hunter is determined and skilled.
Moving further and further from his old bolt holes he does not appear to have anywhere to retreat over climate change and Work Choices.
Howard is a product of this environment and as such we all share some responsibility for his success.He has been aided and abetted by a media which is one of the more compliant amongst the countries we like to compare ourselves.
Bruce Haigh

I think the explanations of Howard's election successes lies somewhere among the intelligent thesis lodged here by Chris Wallace and those of Judith Brett ('Relaxed and Comfortable: The Liberal Party's Australia'), Peter Harcher ('Bipolar Nation: How to Win the 2007 Election'), and David Marr ('His Master's Voice: The Corruption of Public Debate Under Howard').

Was the 1996 election, in part at least, more a rejection of Keating and the subsequent elections a successive rejection of me-too Beazley and bover-boy Latham than an enthusiastic embrace of Howardism? Did voters vote more against the ALP than for Howard?

It's interesting in that context to watch the hysteria of Howard and his attack dogs when the new kid looked to be gaining the traction in the electorate (and in the Parliament) that former Opposition leaders never gained.

The focus on Howard as a clever politician may yet bite the Coalition when the inevitiable question arises in the campaign: will we in fact be electing de facto Peter Costello, Malcolm Turnbull or Julie Bishop as PM? How much will that question - which Howard will find increasingly difficult to fob off this time - neutralise the so-called Howard factor?

I'm not sure, but I think the age-tenure question could become the ALP rabbit-out-of-the-hat. The Coalition's 'best asset' may by pure effluxion of time become a liability. Time can be a treacherous thief.

every once in a while i plow through some pieces, to make sure that the keyword still signals turgid nonsense.

"libertarian"?

yep. no change, although i was disappointed that ayn rand wasn't cited as the guiding hand in the howard ascendancy.

Howard's Australia is a long way down the road to facism, if he is re-elected this nation won't be worth living in unless you are wealthy.

I agree with Jonathan and Mr Denmore, John Howard's political philosophy bears little resemblance to libertarianism. It's high taxing, pays record levels of benefits and subsidies to households, is pro big-business, regulatory, puts the so-called "war on terror" ahead of civil liberties, and is opposed to fully equal treatment for gays, against liberal drug and euthanasia regimes ... This is conservatism, not libertarianism.

John Howard lives in the real world. This is yet another attack by Howard haters. Mr Howard is smart enough to know that the 'freedom' that so many of his detractors dream about really lead to bondage. Look at Mr McGinty's attack on the rites of a child to have a mother. Look at France's dumb idea to allow Muslim ghettos to create chaos in a once civilised place. This article is a joke. It belongs in the ABC shop were all their bandwagons are promoted. THankfully John Howard leaves in the real world with real people and is not guided by fanciful philosophy.

A quick browse of runner’s posting history reveals that s/he is nothing but an anti-intellectual, red-neck shock-jock who is incapable of spelling correctly, let alone stringing together a paragraph that is in the least bit logically coherent or philosophically sound. Runner demonstrates the use of an overwhelmingly juvenile approach to reasoning that is premised on a simplistic set of dualisms drenched with the stench of small-town parochialism.

Runner, insofar as you have bought Howard’s rhetoric, your concept of freedom will inevitably remain undeveloped and distorted by the obvious presence of an Orwellian inversion of meaning. The so-called real world you talk of is nothing but a world of puerile philistinism, in which the cost of petrol is deemed more significant than matters of global urgency, such as climate change, world poverty, weapons proliferation, and so on. As for your thoughts on the ABC, claims of bias – such as those you have made – need actually to be backed by evidence, which you might find a little hard to come by.

If anything or anyone is a joke, runner, it is you and you childlike ramblings. No doubt you will respond with more unreasoning jargon, but just keep in mind that in doing so, you, too, are employing philosophy - even though you attack philosophy as not being concerned with the ‘real world’; remember, it takes philosophy to argue against philosophy. So seeing as you will no doubt be engaging in more philosophising in the near future, you may as well learn how to do it properly…

LHS

I agree with your assessment of runner, but he lifted my spirits when he wrote:

"THankfully John Howard leaves in the real world..."

Has he told Peter Costello yet?

Just so happens LHS and Frankgol the majority of voters have disagreed with you for the last 3 or is it 4 elections. Your intellectual superiority might make you feel better and you may judge the majority of the electors naive but the fact remains that people have elected Mr Howard not the Democrats or Greens to govern. I am pleased for you to pick up my bad grammar and spelling errors as you are likely to be the first to point out their are no absolutes in this world. How then can you say that spelling live as leave is wrong? Again it fits the warped logic of this article.

Runner, there could not be a more ignorant defiance of history than your claim that the French have "created Muslim ghettoes to create chaos in a once civilised place". The history of France, and Paris in particular is one long saga of open revolt and discord from the modern day to the Fronde and beyond, most of which were far more violent in their manifestation and far reaching in their consequences than the relatively minor contretemps of late 2005. Indeed such is the French way. Not for them the passive observance of rights being subjugated to the corporatist good such as has been done in Australia to a largely unobservant and uncaring citizenry.

That France remains a beacon of civilization to the world reflects well on the readiness of its citizens to take to the barricades whenever they feel threatened. What do we offer the world? Stolid complacency as our anti intellectualism slowly but surely sucks us down the the rankings of sucessful nations into the quicksands of second world standards, temporarily held up by our finite reserves of minerals.

LSH. I find any page with the words integrity and Howard to be an oxymoron. No one could have known Howard's full platform all along as he didn't. His platform and ambition grew until the 1 July 2006 Senate changes since when he has carte blanche.

This reference to Howard being a libertarian has some credence but there are a number of areas he is exactly the opposite.

Wikipedia states libertarian politics "...provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid abusing their liberty". Not true in any sense. Ask those that went to Iraq. Ask the Iraqui people. Ask the workers of Australia. Ask Costelloe. Ask the homeless and the poor. Doesn't fit.

Also it states "....it is morally imperative that all human interaction, including government interaction with private individuals, should be voluntary and consensual. " When a PM brings in laws and sends our troops to war without the public knowing about it then again it doesn't fit.

There are other differences too.

I think he is unique and his whole political career and aim relates to one thing. The little man syndrome. Big chip, little shoulders. That's why he constantly dresses in uniforms of services he could never belong to. He needs the people standing behind him as support as alone he is nothing. And will be hated forever once he is carried out of office, however that may occur.

This constant desire of people to label everything is simply because they don't understand it.

Simply, he is a little bastard who for some reason works against Australians on almost every front. We don't need to know why, we just need to know that's what he does.

Wikipedia also states the libertarian is against the welfare state. Given that how do you explain Howard's creation of more welfare recipients than there have ever been? Just doesn't fit at all does it?

In the same way that the "Left" and "right" no longer exist as they were, neither does this label.

Rodents need one label only. A label on their furry little heads saying "Feed me Ratsak".

"That the libertarians’ pursuit of their vision of personal freedom could therefore involve liberticide (sic) for others ..." is utter nonsense.

How on earth does the Howard Government's approach to multiculturalism, immigration, border security and indigenous policy amount to "liberticide"?

I thought that this article was a further illustration that the Left in this country is fast becoming an irrelevant rump, but the comment "...the most impressive treasurership in Australia’s history, Keating.." was delightfully droll.

This writer doesn't seem to know what the hell Libertarian politics is...

I have reached a similar conclusion to the author

The Liberal Party has been clever over the years with the virtue of the current Senate Majority.

It has continued the selling off of all government (public owned) assets. It is a deal nearly complete with only Australia Post and Medibank Private since it has more or less completed the sale of Telstra.

It has maintained its ascendancy by pandering to the middle class masses with middle class welfare. The Liberal Party can thank the Conservatives within the party for this role as it is rather opposed to any Liberal ideal. Or it could be argued that the party was simply pragmatic.

When the Liberal Party is returned to office, it can then complete such initiatives and assuming the Conservatives in the party let them, focus on other Liberal ideals such as small government.

If we assume success of these ideas, the next step will be overspending on defence and upping parliamentary perks as in the past. Without public assets providing any returns, the people will pay for these costs by having our taxes raised. It is a practical and logical step for the government of the day to take when trying to recoup costs especially since they will have no more assets to sell off and avoid the embarrassment.

Would someone please explain how Howard's recent moves on Aboriginal rights and welfare square with the theory that he's Libertarian?

Another toxic , snide little piece from a veteran Howard-hater...no doubt the precursor to another nasty little tome in the pipeline for the pre-election indoctrination of the 'masses'.
She admits a decade of Howard reform...so I presume she refutes Keating's claim that this unprecedented prosperity is all his own work.
Like all of the Left, Wallace supports nothing with evidence...knowing the evidence is to the contrary.
Wallace seems to have suffered some sort of a mind snap...or is being deliberately deceitful re staff and board appointments by this government....considering the Labor crony appointments like those of Hills, Johns, Holmes a Court, Abeles etc.

Does she forget Keating's dominance of the grants for cronies and other favorites...to the extent that they were called 'the Keatings'?
The snide comparison of Howard with Hewson and Keating is just the usual sneering venom ...the hallmark of the Left and Labor...as are the ravings re a Howard assault on race, lifestyle, multiculturalism and homosexuality etc.....all demonstrably untrue.

Contrary to Wallace's propaganda, Hawke/Keating benefited from the ending of the world recession and of the catastrophic drought that had plagued the Fraser government...and of course they could switch off the union blowtorch that had done enormous damage to Australia and Australians, when Hawke, and later Dolan were running the ACTU.
Hawke and his union lackeys were the real architects of the deficits, high interest rates, high unemployment and double digit inflation of the early 80s...and the recession in the term of their own government was all of their own making.
Howard/Costello, on the other hand, weathered the Asian downturn, (when all the media were forecasting doom)...the worst drought ever....Sars....the terrorism crisis...poor internationalconditions , before the socialist policies were ditched...and chronic obstruction from Labor, and other parties in the Senate,to their attempts to clean up the awful mess left by Labor.
Like all on the Left, Wallace knows the prosperity preceded the commodities boom ( it's a matter of public record), but like most other journalists, she thinks the Australian people are stupid...and hopes they will believe the lie.