THE HOWARD-BUSH PRESIDENCY

After reviewing the current literature on neo-conservatism and its connection with George W Bush, I have been astonished to find that there has not been a single reference in any of the literature to a most compelling interpretation of this new form of conservatism. As I contemplate the knee-jerk anti-Americanism that afflicts Americanophobes the world over, a more interesting phenomenon seems to have passed under everyone’s radar – the Australianization of America. What began in Hollywood has now come to the White House.

If we accept this interpretation, then the inspiration behind neo-conservatism has nothing whatsoever to do with the philosophy of Leo Strauss or a cabal of scheming Jews intent on world domination. The real architect behind neo-conservatism was not Paul Wolfowitz or any other of Bush’s administration. George Bush, being a practical fellow, simply saw what worked, and he implemented it. And what was working had taken root in another country far away. It had firmly established itself and was careering along unrestrained by the time that Bush was elected as president. No abstract theories from out-of-touch academics had played any kind of role whatsoever.

The real architect behind this new, innovative form of conservatism that Bush was to embrace with gusto was John Howard, who was Australia’s prime minister from March 1996 until November 2007. By the time that Bush came to power in January 2001, Howard’s grand plan was already in motion for nearly five years.

Judging by the references to neo-conservatism that I have found on the internet, it would seem that the most surprising insight into today’s neo-conservatism might be in the realization that the philosophical foundations of neo-conservatism are based in nothing more philosophical than Bush's observation that if John Howard can get away with it, then why can't he? This is redneck conservatism, and it is not rooted in any kind of sophisticated theory. It does not bear any resemblance to the American conservatism of the Founding Fathers that, for all its faults, was nonetheless based in the best of intentions. Instead, this is a philistine conservatism based on the opportunistic initiatives of a leader of another country that provided the template for Bush to work from. It is an autocratic conservatism that would seem to resonate more with the autocratic governing style that was once necessary in a penal colonial outpost of Mother England than with the idealism of the American Founding Fathers.

George Bush’s neo-conservatism has John Howard’s leadership style stamped all over it. An intriguing insight into Howard’s character is provided in his own assessment of himself, as aired in Kerry O’Brien’s 7.30 Report on March 2, 2006:

I believe in being average and ordinary. One of the reasons I do is that’s who I am. I’m out of the lower middle class of Australia if you can use that kind of expression. That’s my background. I’m very proud of it. That’s who I am. The other thing is that Australians are deeply sceptical people. It’s one of the great differences between Australians and Americans. We’re far more sceptical than the Americans. They [Australians] spot humbug and pretension and people who have delusions of grandeur and they spot it very quickly and they’re unerring in their instinct.

It has been my view that the leadership of John Howard provided the Bush administration with a laboratory, a test case that they can observe to see what they can get away with. The first time that this possibility occurred to me was in 2005, when I was watching the late night news when Richard Armitage was being interviewed. He said something along the lines of "Your guys [the Australian politicians] are doing things that are making our administration go weak at the knees." Unfortunately, whilst I found Armitage’s comment surprising – indeed, startling - I was not a political strategist and so I did not realize the significance of Armitage’s words at the time. I did not make a proper diary entry, and I was unable to retrieve any kind of transcript after googling for it later. Nonetheless, I now realize that this was a very revealing comment, because it suggests that this neo-conservative adventurism was not taken lightly by Bush. He understood that Howard-conservatism was a bold plan that was accompanied by inherent risks.

Greg Sheridan’s book, “The Partnership: The inside story of the US-Australian alliance under Bush and Howard” (University of NSW Press Ltd, Australia, 2006), is not inconsistent with my view, though it provides a slightly different perspective that focuses on the close bond between the two leaders as an evolving partnership. In his introduction, Sheridan summarizes his thesis:

The idea, common enough, that in the Australian-US alliance the Americans say what they want and the Australians follow suit is absurdly mistaken. It is the thesis of this book that in the Australian-US alliance, as in many vastly unequal relationships, the power may lie with the bigger party, but the initiative most often lies with the smaller party. (page 12)

… This book asserts four main propositions: that most of the initiative in the relationship has come from the Australian side during this time, that Howard has had more of the running of the relationship than Bush; that Howard and Bush have transformed the alliance from a predominantly regional affair to a truly global partnership; that Howard has got most of what he wanted from the alliance at, for him, very little cost either politically, militarily or economically; and finally that the US alliance greatly enhances Australian national power. (page 13)

There exist disturbing parallels between the political motivations of John Howard and American neo-conservatism. We now know that no WMD’s were found in Iraq. So on what basis did America invade Iraq? Sheridan’s The Partnership considers the influence that Howard had over Bush’s presidency. Could reliable intelligence have averted this disaster? Or was there something inherent in this partnership that predisposed the Bush administration to irresponsible adventurism and thus to fail to exercise due diligence? What was it about this partnership that compromised the reliability of the intelligence upon which the decision to invade Iraq was based? There seems to be a resonance, a commonality between the two styles of leadership. In order to appreciate the karma of clumsy adventurism that was transferred to the Bush administration through the partnership, we have to consider some of the initiatives established in the Howard leadership in Australia.

In Silencing Dissent, edited by Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison (Allen & Unwin, 2007), Howard’s agenda to, well, silence dissent, is outlined. This fits in nicely with the implementation of the Patriot Act that would probably have been unthinkable without Howard having shown the way.

Lies and denial have featured throughout the reign of the Howard government, whether it was the children overboard affair (where government officials insisted that refugees on boats threw their children overboard to secure entry to Australia), or the wheat-for-oil scandal. Somehow the purported intelligence alleging the existence of WMDs resonates with the Howard culture that we had become familiar with. Maybe this “intelligence” was less “flawed” and inaccurate than it was a deliberate and bare-faced lie, a cynical and opportunistic tactic aimed at securing a hold on power.

Silencing Dissent's foreword by Robert Manne provides a good overview of the Howard government's impact on Australian culture.

Silencing Dissent describes a major cultural shift, the erosion of our democracy, with some of the ways in which the Howard government silenced its critics and attacked dissenting individuals and organizations. It describes how Australians had become accustomed to the gradual cultural shift, barely noticing it, like the proverbial frog in boiling water. Silencing Dissent describes a political culture of bullying and intimidation, with increased bureaucratic manipulation, meddling and red tape. The Howard government’s targets included NGOs, public servants, academics, politicians, judges, researchers and most anyone who dared to voice dissent. Silencing Dissent describes the peculiar irony of a democratically elected government, purporting to stand for free speech, but where only certain kinds of speech were allowable. People very quickly got the message that organizations did not receive funding so that they can criticize the Howard government providing it.

Does all this sound familiar? Americans have to be concerned at the very real possibility of the extent to which Howard’s leadership style was transferred to the Bush administration. Was intelligence relating to WMDs merely flawed? Was it a lie? Or was it a bit of both, with Howardesque manipulations and double-speak making the invasion, inevitably, a foregone conclusion? After all, that’s been John Howard’s style for 11 years. Is some sort of war-crimes trial required to get to the truth of what really happened? I think that the term “neo-conservatism” is misleading. I think that it should be renamed “Howard-conservatism” in order to establish not only its true origins, but also its character and its priorities.