SCUM AT THE TOP

Businesses are dropping like flies, tens of thousands of Australians are being frog marched onto the dole queue, self-funded retirees and other investors are watching their share-portfolios shrink like a starlet's waistline and Prime Minister John Howard has never been more popular.

Go figure.

The only possible explanation is that in times of dire trouble we embrace any passable facsimile of strong leadership. That, and the sorry realisation that opposition leader Kim Beazley appears as useless as teats on a bull.

Consider the secret of Howard's popularity.

It centres on appearing tough and uncompromising (apart from occasional lapses such as when a business involving his brother gets into strife and then the little fellow becomes all heart).

He's taken a firm line against saying sorry to Aborigines, paid a King's ransom to a tiny corruption-riddled Pacific island to deal with boat-people seeking refuge in Australia - and he just happened to be in America when terrorists attacked, along with his cheque-book and support for a military "solution".

In the absence of an effective opposition, even the government's warning that its next budget would be tight due to it's stand on asylum seekers and it's unquestioning military backing of America's "war on terrorism" is calmly accepted by an increasingly cash strapped public. Treat 'em mean to keep 'em keen is Howard's mantra - and it's working.

In a society where compromise and humanitarianism is now equated with being left-wing (a slur Beazley appears determined to avoid) and thus condemned by those on the political right as evidence of weakness, John Winston Howard is the consummate political winner.

But of course, Howard's biggest asset is Beazley, who is letting him getaway with it. Labor's strategy of going along with Howard on the new "Fortress Australia" legislation and "all-the-way-with-the-USA" war in Afghanistan may well prove its biggest folly.

While Beazley hopes a bi-partisan approach to these complex and potentially divisive issues will render them electorally neutral, leaving him free to campaign on safer issues such as jobs, health and education, his strategy smacks of weakness. Why did he suddenly give up on challenging the Coalition's plans to restrict asylum seeker's legal rights? Is he incapable of arguing for what he truly believes? The GST was an unpopular issue to campaign on and is still causing headaches, but at least John Howard had the guts to fight for it.

Looking tough and strong is the key to political leadership these days. US President George W Bush for example, forged his place in history by delivering some of the best autocue known to television this week. It was an awesome performance. So much so that no-one even batted an eyelid at his bizarre promise that his war on terrorism would provide "TV pictures". Oh goody, we all know that means bombing the be-jesus out of Afghanistan. America needed a symbol of strength and Bush jr gave it to them so impressively that to question his plans would be tantamount to treason. You're either with George or you're with the terrorists. Simple. No talk of a "third-way" on this issue, not even from the UK's Tony Blair.

And especially not from John Howard, who, when it comes to dealing with more powerful nations, has the rare talent of making subservience look like strength by association. How quickly Bush's airy dismissal of Howard's call for a free-trade agreement between Australia and the US was forgotten when Howard subsequently pledged our most valued export - the life-blood of our soldiers.

Much as I might not like what resides in the hearts and minds of Bush and Howard, unlike Beazley, at least they appear to me to be acting true to them.According to a poll taken this week, even 75 per cent of Americans favour delaying military strikes until they are certain of who was responsible for the terrorist attacks on their nation. Why can't Beazley express similar restraint?

Beazley's fundamental mistake is that his transparently poll-driven attempts to appease the right risks alienating his traditional supporters on the left. How much more admirable he would be if he had the spine to risk electoral defeat on matters of principle. Odds are that if he'd done so when it counted he'd now be in with a better chance.

Top    Back to SCATT