Yep!

JameH

That is the most insightful comment ever

Chris Lewis is right to point out that the Howard government had support on many of its policies. In fact, many of them were supported by the Labour Party (or not directly opposed).

Lewis omits to mention two things which might affect academics' views.

First is that some of the electoral support was achieved dishonestly - think 'non-core promises', the Tampa affair, the flirting with Hansonism while claiming to dismiss it. Even his own party president said he was seen as 'mean and tricky'. We can't know how he would have gone if Labour had had even minimally effective leadership. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that people finally woke up to this and tossed out not only his government but him as well.

The second point more directly affects academics. During his tenure, Howard oversaw an appalling failure to fund university education. It is likely that some of this was ideological. If academics were less than sympathetic, what else would you expect?

Howard was correct on morals and family small 'c' social conservative issues. He was however completely wrong on social and economic issues just like the ALP who not only ape him but who joined the Liberal Party neo economic policy agenda from the 1980s era onwards.

The media too are THE problem in that they support the destruction of the family unit, support the privatisations and takeovers of our companies and the sell offs of all our public assets. The media do all of these things and support the big political parties in all of this. The media pose as a social conscience yet just belwo the surgace they support unnatural unions, abortion, are against the superiority of protectionism and all that working class Australians rightly cherish.

There is a way out of this mess. It is to support the DLP.
Visit us today and make a difference.
http://www.dlpnsw.com/

You seem to be saying that since there is an underworld of racism, meanness and bigotry in Australian society, a leader that exploits it shouldnt be condemned as a divisive, dog whistling scumbag.
Beg to differ there mate.

OZYMANDIAS

mikk,

You said "You seem to be saying that since there is an underworld of racism, meanness and bigotry in Australian society, a leader that exploits it shouldnt be condemned as a divisive, dog whistling scumbag.
Beg to differ there mate".

No, I am not saying that all. While I am much more generous than you in my views of the Howard govt, I would argue that Aust remained progressive (as indicated by many facts), and that the Howard govt merely addressed some of the concerns that are evident about race and culture in all societies. It was not a centre-right party in the mould of One Nation, albiet that it was willing to take up some of the more controversial issues.

"Australia was just one of four OECD nations in 2005 where the gap in income between the richest and poorest regions was less than double" Oh really? So what? One appropriate measure of income equality is the Gini coefficient and Australia has one of the least equal income distributions in the OECD. Another monument to Howard's economic policies.

Mac

Aust's GINI rating only slightly worsened from mid-1990s. Australia also enjoyed one of OECD's highest economic growth rates, albeit fuelled by more and more private debt.

I am not here saying that the Howard govt's record was perfect.

Rather, the article is about the need for many political scientists to get over its hatred of the Howard govt and note all the facts about why a govt got a lot of support in four successive elections. In other words, they need to adequately explain all the factors that helped the Coalition win four successive elections, albeit that it will require much more work.

Ozymandias indeed ocm and academics have every right to be peeved.

2006: Professor D’Arcy Holman of School of Population Health at the University of Western Australia, surveyed 302 academics in 17 institutions across Australia, who reported experiencing or witnessing 142 cases of suppression on health and environmental issues.

In truth the suppression orders were administered, not only by the federal government but also every state (and territory)where affected researchers had their research reports blocked, faced abnormal delays in pursuing or publishing their research, or were directly requested to modify or sanitise their results by a government agency. Some were refused funding.

Separately, "Australia's Right to Know" report found 500 pieces of legislation and at least 1,000 court suppression orders restricting media reporting.

A request for documents about the effect of global warming on the Great Barrier Reef involved 538 hours of "decision making time" at a cost of A$12,718.

A two-year request for information on a politician's travel was abandoned when a newspaper was quoted a fee of A$1.25 million -- a cost related to contacting everyone the politician met.

The report said new anti-terrorism laws in Australia had prevented the media from reporting details of detention warrants and allowed for the detention and interrogation of journalists believed to have information on terrorist activities.

While some of Howard’s policies could be regarded as for the common good, his supreme insult was his eleven year denial on the state of the environment. That's when he lost support.

WA's Liberal Premier, Barney Rubble is also too arrogant to offer an apology whilst plundering his state with great rapidity, offering polluting licences to all and sundry whilst over-ruling EPA environmental impact assessments!

Australia's rampant salinity, soil erosion, mass fish and bird deaths, contaminated and drying rivers and out of control, hazardous industrial emissions tell the story!

"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".

Michael Moore, CEO of phaa and formerly the Health minister of the ACT published an interesting view on the subject of health and research. Most poigant is the fact that research that is not favourable to politicans was supressed.

"Australian academics say their work is being suppressed on what they call a system-wide basis, to stop the publication of unfavourable results, or because the work is controversial and could embarrass a minister."

Another issue on Howard is that the way the CPI was calculated had been changed, it was changed in such away that the new CPI was less than it would have been, had the old calculation remained.

Now it must be remember the Howard jet setted between Sydney and Canberra, costing us taxpayers, millions of dollars in unecessary air travel.

Now in retirement he had still managed to run up a million dollar bill for taxpayers. Meanwhile the cut backs in expenditure for welfare and health, meant that he was able to pay off the national deficit whilst enjoying a millionare lifestyle.

JamesH, has anything changed under the Rudd government? I think not.

David

well finally people are judging bonsai johnny(he is a little bush) i remember 12 years ago when i was in jail (supply of amphetamine)and he declared a war on drugs .i wrote to him and offered my expertize in solving the drug problem .i got no reply i have now started my own political party junkies against crime liberation front.in order to protect Australian kids from the people like john Howard who have a anti drug stance that spreads lies and ignorance and drags more people into drug addiction that is generally an incurable disease thanks to half wits like him that believe people can be punished out of this illness .we intend to try him for treason as he declared a war on an unarmed ,poor ,politically unrepresented ,unfit to fight (thru intentional denial of medical aid)section of his own people so if he is found guilty when we win the next election.and he is tried by a jury of his peers if he is convicted i will personally behead him with a samurai sword on the lawn of parliament house as an object lesson for all who exploit the weak in this society .as for academics and intellectuals judging him name one of them that has ever pointed out why the drug laws are not legal because people own governments and not governments own people these moral prostitutes have sat on their hands for 4 generations and let the lives and self determination of addicts be upseruped by the state because the states propaganda said they deserved it like the Jews in Nazi Germany and the witches in the Spanish inquisition deserved it.regards the motorcycle messiah.

Yes but ! The only Historical comparison , Howard "Henery the fifth" and Rudd "Puck".

Chris Lewis,

I understand, you were examining public perceptions rather than political or economic reality,however you introduced selective statistics into your article when they were in fact irrelevant. I'd say that if many political scientists and others indeed hate the Howard government it's because they can see behind the phoney debt fuelled "growth". I agree with you that the factors that led to Howard's success should be examined-I'd bet that these were 9/11,the Bali bombings and the minerals boom,just luck.You don't have to be a political scientist to understand that the voters give credit to, or blame the incumbent government for current economic or political conditions,even if the causes are international or due to the polices of some previous administration.

The Lying Rodent.

I miss the Rodent.

When I was living overseas (Hey did you catch that Romany?) I decided I wouldn't enter the country again while he was still PM. I hated him soooo much. I loved hating him. I could blame anything wrong with Australia on him. I could blame any human failings in other people like Bigotry and Racism and Selfishness and Materialism on Him. I'd read the SMH letters section and read coments by all these people who I didn't know, but I knew we had a special bond in hating John W Howard. The Rodent. They were great days!

I didn't keep to my word and came back to OZ while he was still PM. But, I was blessed to be in his electorate, or did I plan that? Now I can live comfortably on the knowledge I had a hand in ousting a fine politician who lead the country with distinction and replaced him with a some Journalist who looked quite attractive, who I have never seen since. It was sooo sweet at the time!

Such is politics. But Oh I miss him now.

The Chinese albino dentist isn't worthy of hate, just ridicule.

Motorcyclemessiah:

Just before you ascend bulli pass waving your boxing glove in the air, think on this. Maybe you and your ilk are the real issue and a greater threat to society than was ever John Howard

One has to suspect that this article is part of a current effort directed seemingly at moulding much of popular memory of the Howard years into believing they were somehow less appalling than they actually were.

That way it can be manipulated to accept another incompetent, yet nasty, "slash and burn" style Federal Coalition Government as less unpalatable than the current incompetent Federal Labor Government.

A number of articles in Rupert Murdoch's Australian are also pushing this view. These include "Rudd demeans himself over history" at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26055356-7583,00.html and the editorial "And another thing ..." at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26051033-25209,00.html

In reality, it is almost impossible to exaggerate the awfulness of the Howard Government.

It's so-called much ballyhooed economic 'reforms' (as were the economic 'reforms' of the previous Hawke and Keating Governments) were little more than yet another "Disaster Capitalist" style operation to loot publicly owned wealth and to steal from the poor in order to line the pockets of the Australian and overseas wealthy elite.

It was carried out very much in the mould of so many other instances chronicled in Naomi Klein's towering work "The Shock Doctrine" of 2007. (which I have also raised over at http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/09/11/weekend-reflections-138/comment-page-1/#comment-244592 BTW).

The article touches on the Iraq war, which Chris Lewis claims to have opposed, but neglects any mention of the Australian Wheat Board scandal in whihc AU$297million of bribe money was paid to the regime of Saddam Hussein prior to the invasion.

Like the majority of Australians, I believe that the Australian Government ,including John Howard and Alexander Downer, knew full well what was going on at the time. If we are right, then Howard, Downer and a few other Ministers are criminals and belong behind bars. (tobecontinued)

(contiunedfromabove) On the other hand, if they did not know and allowed AU$296million in bribe money be paid to a regime that they were to tell us in March 2003 was such a mortal threat to World Peace that we were left with no choice but to invade it immediately then and they were incompetent beyond belief and could not have possibly been fit to run our country.

It has to be one or the other.

"Work Choices" which was not even put to the Australian public during the 204 elections and the AU1$120 in taxpayer funded propaganda to lie to the Australian public about is yet another outrage that should not have been possible in any country that labels itself a democracy.

The list of crimes of the Howard Government is too long to cover in under month.

If anything, Australia's academics, including, now, Chris Lewis, were far too kind to that abysmal Government.