After a campaign that’s been long by local (but not US) standards, Australia will hold its Federal election tomorrow. The polls are close but generally favour the incumbent conservative government.
Whatever the outcome, I expect it will be treated in the international press as something of a referendum on the Iraq war - Australia was the third country to join the Coalition of the Willing, after the US and UK, while the Labor opposition has consistently opposed the war. I can’t complain too much about this, since I predicted at the start of the campaign that the war, and also the Free Trade Agreement with the US, would be major issues. In fact, the FTA has been ignored completely, and the war has played only a minor role in the campaign. The election has been fought almost entirely on domestic policy, with both sides promising lots of increases in public expenditure.
The obvious explanation for the absence of the war, and the FTA, from the campaign debate, is that both sides have vulnerabilities that prevent them from raising the issues.
On Iraq, Opposition leader Latham had the best of the argument when it came up during his debate with John Howard, but defence policy is never likely to be a winner for Labor. The obvious failure of the war, and the lies that led up to it, have given Howard obvious reasons to keep quiet on the specific issues and hope that a more general appeal not to change horses in midstream will produce the right outcome. On the other hand, no Australian soldiers were killed in the war, and most were withdrawn about the time of “Mission Accomplished”. In these circumstances, Labor’s policy of withdrawing remaining forces by Christmas is vulnerable to attacks on the theme of “cutting and running”.
As regards the FTA, the battle over amendments to the implementing legislation, designed to protect our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, ended in a draw, and neither side seems eager for a rematch. In the absence of a clear winning line for either side, the whole issue is too eyeglazingly complicated for an election campaign. A pity, since it’s going to raise big problems almost immediately after the election is over.
Neither government has certified that the legislation passed in the other country actually implements the agreement, and the US side has floated the possibility of rejection. My guess is that, if the government gets back in, the Americans will demand an exchange of letters, designed to nullify the PBS amendments. On the other hand, if Latham gets up, I wouldn’t be surprised (or unhappy) to see the Americans pull the plug altogehter. There was some talk about the possibility of an “October surprise”, with the American side springing a rejection just before polling today, but it’s too late for this now.
Let’s hope Labor wins. No one who backed the war should get away with it.
Good post - since I live in a bluest of blue Lib seat I actually tend to vote maverick in the lower house & carefully choose my upper house order. However the blatant pork-barrelling [to borrow a US term] of John’s mob make me hope that they are given a real fright if not turned out but, frankly, both sides are a depressing mob. Personally I’d go a long way to avoid P Costigan as PM
My hope (for both US and Aussie elections) is that the fear of “changing the horses in mid-stream”, or blind trust in the incumbent on defense policy, that comes from a sort of paternal instinct, will disappear on the actual day of the election. When an actual choice is concretely present, then maybe people will see things differently…
“The obvious failure of the war, and the lies that led up to it”
Completely unfounded and unsupported. I respected your opinion until you made that remark and unless you know something the rest of us don’t, that seems like slander. I can only assume you are referring to the WMD’s and since no WMD’s were found, I assume that is why you are calling Howard and Bush liars. But since every international intelligence agency with an opinion sided with the conclusion that Saddam had WMD’s, the word lie doesn’t fit with the reality. You can be wrong and not a liar. But calling someone wrong doesn’t have the same rhetorical propoganda value. And while that might have some place in changing the minds of the politically ignorant, it certainly turns my ears deaf to the rest of your arguement.
Oh dear, oh dear, Jet. Yes, you can be wrong and not be a liar. But the Bush administration hasn’t been just wrong, it has also lied about being wrong. Even given the best interpretation, Bush has been incompetent, and he’s lied about being incompetent too. The lies have been so blatant, so egregious, that you’d’ve had to’ve had your head stuck very deep in the sand not to notice.
You may just as well have posted ‘lalalala, I’m not listening’.
To ignore the opposing facts on clear display and hold to an opinion anyway is the mark of a true believer, who will stick the point despite all evidence to the contrary and with whom there is no point engaging in argument.
But since every international intelligence agency with an opinion sided with the conclusion that Saddam had WMD’s, the word lie doesn’t fit with the reality.
That’s unmitigated nonsense.
Various intelligence agencies around the world had varying degrees of suspicion about Saddam & WMD’s, because Saddam’s regime was not fully forthcoming in accounting for stocks of WMD’s that he claimed to have destroyed.
The Bush administration chose to take those suspicions and turn them into “irrefutable evidence” that there were, in fact, large stocks of WMD’s in Iraq, and Saddam was just rarin’ to use them.
This was, in fact, a lie. The evidence was far from “irrefutable,” it was sketchy and vague and much of it came from sources that have since been utterly discredited.
Then they used this “irrefutable evidence” as justification to launch a unilateral war.
Jet, the “yeah, well the French thought he had WMDs too” argument is utterly unconvincing. “The French” didn’t invade Iraq; the United States did. That’s not a trivial point—it’s the essential point.
Jet, while I agree that Howard, Bush and Blair can easily use the excuse that they relied on bad intel, there are many other lies that surround the whole mess. One of the obvious ones is the alleged ‘connection’ between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. As for the obvious failure of the war, if you can point out anything apart from the removal of Saddam that can be deemed success, please do so. Slander? I think not.
Which part of the story about the aluminum tubes wasn’t a lie? Perhaps the part that they were tubes, though frankly I wouldn’t trust Cheney, Rice et al on even that much.
Go Latham!
It seems beyond doubt now that B&B took the decision to attack Saddam before any evidence was before them; the “intelligence”-gathering was an afterthought, a means to the end of convincing the UN/Congress/Parliament. And, as others point out, inconclusive evidence was described as conclusive.
Jet - do you disagree with this? And if so, do you still call it “slander” to characterise this as misrepresentation?
People - any idea why “true believers” are even reading this post? Baffling.
As a pure partisan right now, I have to say I like the election coming after tonight’s Bush-Kerry debate. By the 3rd debate it will be oldish news.
Long story short: It wouldn’t have been a lie to say “we think Saddam has WMDs”; it was a lie to say “we know Saddam has WMDs”.
If Latham looses you’d have to see him as a sho in next time as Howard seems virtually devoid of new ideas (and as is his likely successor of Charisma)
I was a little depressed to see the lead editorial in today’s Sydney Morning Herald saying
the Government’s handling of the postwar situation has been more helpful than has Mr Latham’s contribution, which more damaged our critical relationship with the United States than assisted any prospect of lasting peace in the Middle East.
This makes it Australia sound like a one-horse client state like Palau, Estonia, and other members of the “Coalition of the Willing”.
I think the SMH is Australia’s leading newspaper, which makes it even more depressing.
“That makes Australia sound like one-horse client state”
On the contrary, we have lots of horses. The rest of the characterization is, unfortunately, pretty much appropriate.
You’ll be happy to know that the SMH is (with the Melbourne Age) the most left-wing of the leading Australian papers. The other main papers, Murdoch’s Australian and the Financial Review is pretty much appropriate.
I’m hoping that Howard wins and is quickly succeeded by Tony Abbott when he hands over the reins. I’m just tickled by the idea that we might someday be governed by Abbott and Costello.
“I expect it will be treated in the international press as something of a referendum on the Iraq war”
Oh, I do hope so!
The Rodent won, thousands of green lemmings suicided.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review