Janet Albrechtsen Blog | February 10, 2009 | 340 Comments
DURING question time last week, as debate frothed about the Rudd Government’s $42 billion spending package, a voice in the background made a plea: “Will the real Kevin please stand up?” It was one of the more astute observations amid the orchestrated pronouncements and intervening pandemonium of parliament.
True prime ministerial character can never be judged before taking office or in the honeymoon period that follows. It emerges over time in shaping policy and responding to events. Worryingly, the emerging Kevin Rudd persona has at its core the convictionless pursuit of power.
It is difficult to construct a firm set of Rudd principles. As Prime Minister, he has mastered the art of slippery politics. He speaks with hyperbole to suggest conviction that, on closer scrutiny, is not there. He darts from one piece of Rudd rhetoric to the next, only to move away from each of his sweeping pronunciamentos with alarming speed.
There are two tests of political conviction. The first is one of consistency, delivering on promises made and adherence to core beliefs over time. The second test of conviction is courage: whether a politician has held beliefs before they emerged as the orthodoxy or simply jumped on a bandwagon only when it was popular and safe to do so.
So who is the real Rudd? You be the judge.
Rudd was the Labor politician opposed to a broad-based consumption tax who rose in parliament on June 30, 1999, speaking with apparent passion to declare the passing of the GST legislation “a day of fundamental injustice. It will be recorded as the day when the social compact that has governed this nation for the last 100 years was torn up.” In 2006, he wrote about John Howard’s “regressive consumption tax”. Rudd’s heartfelt belief opposing the GST has not been aired since he became Prime Minister. GST keeps all the states afloat.
Rudd was the Opposition leader who described global warming during the last federal election as “the great moral issue of our time”. It was a vote winner. Kyoto was signed with the conviction that climate change was “the defining challenge of our generation”. And then the Rudd shuffle. By last December, the great moral issue was reduced to a meaningless carbon emissions reduction target of 5 per cent by 2020. Rudd ignored the findings of the UN panel he once lauded, which laid down a minimum target of 25 per cent to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 as necessary to prevent the sort of catastrophic climate change that Rudd once believed in. In October 2006, Rudd wrote his “light on the hill” Labor agenda for Australia was “taking the lead on climate change.” Now, there is no mention of leadership at Copenhagen 2009.
As Opposition leader in October 2007, Rudd committed a Labor government to taking “legal proceedings against President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad on a charge of inciting genocide” when the Iranian President spoke about wiping Israel off the map. The tough language of conviction was followed by inaction. Last December the Rudd Government announced it would not pursue legal action.
There was more tough-guy talk about Japan’s annual whaling hunt during the final term of the Howard government. As Opposition leader, Rudd spoke in grave tones about taking Japan to the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. That promise has evaporated into the political ether of office.
In addition to dumping promises, Rudd has a knack for discovering beliefs only when they are politically popular. Rudd boarded the responsibility agenda of indigenous politics only after it was politically safe to be on that side of the ideological divide, buffered by black leaders such as Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine. By contrast, John Howard staked out his ground on the dangers of victimhood politics and the need for practical reconciliation long ago, attracting scorn and derision for not kowtowing to the then accepted orthodoxy of symbolism and treaties.
Similarly, as Labor leader, Rudd morphed into an economic conservative when it was electorally popular to carve out those credentials. His language of fiscal prudence wooed voters as he assured us not a “sliver of light” separated Labor and the Coalition on fiscal policy. Now, amid a global financial crisis, when it is fashionable to attack the free market, Rudd’s stripes have changed. Now he is a social democrat who writes tomes about a conspiracy in Australia of neo-liberals who have left the country financially wrecked. As his more astute critics have asked, which social democratic country would Rudd rather govern in place of neo-liberal Australia, where a handy surplus enabled him to turn into a big-spending Keynesian PM?
While he still claims to be an economic conservative, saying so does not make it so. Billions on cash handouts and “social” spending look like Rudd’s down payments on the next election dressed in the slippery language of “stimulus”.
Since his elevation to the ALP leadership in 2007, Rudd has sought to be taken seriously as a responsible leader with philosophical underpinnings and core beliefs.
Writing in The Monthly in October 2006, Rudd said his mentor, German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, would “caution against inflammatory rhetoric that seeks to gain political advantage”. Rudd attacked Howard’s “radioactive language”. Hypocrisy, thy name is Kevin. Bonhoeffer’s dictum has been dumped.
Again and again, Rudd has conjured up the imagery of crisis to pump prime his political leadership: saving future generations from climate change, rescuing Australia from Howard’s “Brutopia” and now liberating Australia because “the great neo-liberal experiment has failed”.
His war-footing language serves to undermine the confidence that is sorely needed and by not negotiating with the Opposition he exposes the emptiness of his language, given that a true economic emergency would demand genuine co-operation.
Rudd’s hyperbole serves only to make his undelivered promises and inconsistencies even more pronounced. Strip away the big words and solemn phrases and an empty edifice of unfulfilled promises and shifting opportunism remains. Rudd reminds one of the way 1920s US Democratic Party leader William Gibbs McAdoo described president Warren Harding’s speeches: “an army of pompous phrases moving across the landscape in search of an idea”.
Confidence in a leader comes from knowing who they are and what they believe. Love him or loathe him, Howard was known to friend and foe. His political beliefs remained steady and he pursued them often against the orthodoxy of the time. Pragmatism was, of course, part of Howard’s political make-up. For example, he rejected a GST only to later embrace it as part of much needed tax reform, despite the political risks. But Rudd is an entirely different leader. There is not a single instance of Rudd taking a responsible but unpopular decision. With philosophical principles impossible to pin down, his only consistent and coherent belief is in political power. Every Rudd position has been determined by how to get it and, now, how to keep it.
Your Comments
- Order By:
- Oldest |
- Newest
Tue 10 Feb 09 (11:30pm)
In an effort to keep intouch with friends’ day to day lives I have been reading The Australian for 3yrs. I am therefore, neither an expert or a naive person when it comes to Prime
Minister Rudd. What I would like to state is, there are far worse out there. I believe he has a good cabinet behind him, and that he has a heartfelt conviction to do the best he can in very volitile economic and climatic circumstances. I understand that he wants to divert some already allocated funds to speed up the recovery of Victoria and that this is controversial, isn’t this exactly what we all do with our budgets? If the boiler breaks we may divert funds we had set aside for renewing the carpet for instance. My heart goes out to all those in Victoria, and hope that all Australians can pull together and rebuild, thereby strengthening their communities and their national economy together.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (12:52am)
Yeah, I agree to some extent. The only thing I can possibly say in Rudd’s defence is that this sort of thing has become pretty popular since Howard got the main gig in 96 - poll driven populism, dog-whistling, the works. In an atmosphere where those sorts of stunts are common its kind of difficult to reveal your true self for fear that it will be the chink in the political armour for a constant stream of wedging, dog-whistling… you get the drift. Even Malcolm Turnbull is having the same problem trying to appease moderates and uglies in his own party. Who really knows what he stands for? The point is an open and honest debate in a democracy requires a degree of honourable behaviour by the participants. Withouit that it just wont work. But those standards of honour have lamentably slipped over the last decade or more; mostly theyve been prostituted to the selfish ends of guys like Karl Rove and his repellant brand of campaigning and propagandising enanating from his circle. John McCain is the classic example of the results - in 2000 as a presidential candidate he was open and honest and was comprehensivley mauled by Rove’s underhand tactics. In 2008 he dodged and weaved and was unrecognisable as the man he was in 2000. And you and others on your side of the political spectrum in thi scountry have not had clean hands in this regard either.
So I guess the moral is, Janet, take a look in the mirror; the person you see there is one of those who - by launching alarmist and dishonest (disingenuous,misleading, dog-whistling, wedging: pick your adjective) attacks and supporting others in such attacks has enouraged low standards of public discourse in this country and caused our politicians to button the hatches and never show who they really are. Now, instead of leaders whose ideas we can openly assess, we’re left with chameleon politicians who fear their true views being known and who are unable to open up on their views for fear of a wedging. I dont particularly like Kevin Rudd and I differ on philosophical issues with him, but Id actually say good on him for having the guts to come out and take a position that we can actually look at and debate. And guess what? There you are attacking him for doing it. Thanks for nothing, Albrechtsen.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (01:04am)
with all the sorrow + misery emanating from the Vic bushfires + the Qld floods you still have the temerity to write ‘CRAP’ like this and still carry a torch for your ‘man of steel’ and can’t get over the fact that Howard, was ‘dishonorably discharged’ from both the Prime Ministership and his electorate...get over it Janet, come over here to the West and live with Wilson Tuckey, you and him are two of a kind...narrow minded bigots.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (01:18am)
Nice digging, Janet.
Plenty of meaty observation there, and you’ve nailed his core agenda. You’re probably too kind to mention it
but big Kev could well take a leaf from his predecessor’s book and hit the road each earlt morning.
Hey, I’m glad to be near the top of the queue. I’ve neither the time nor interest to wade through the litany of latte left responses your spot-on columns attract.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (01:18am)
“Pragmatism,was of course part of Howard’s political makeup”.
He did a good job with the Murray/Darling-a real showcase of pragmatism that was,yes a 10 year do nothing show of pragmatism.Then he ran the country’s Health system into the ground because he wouldn’t bloody fund it properly.No that $5 billion he took out of Health had to go towards the Iraq war which cost $5 Billion.More pragmatism-outstanding!That war saw fuel prices in Australia skyrocket- a bit of unseen pragmatism on Howard’s part there!
Accenture in a Howard government paper on upgrading Broadband said in December 2007 a proper Broadband system could make the country between $12 Billion and $30 Billion a year.Despite even Rupert Murdoch’s criticisms of Australia’s “third rate,third world” Broadband system he did nothing about that too.Another 10 years of pragmatism.
He was pramatic about the Leadership issue of the Liberal Party between himself and Peter Costello.He was pragmatic in fixing Australia’s Education system.He was pragmatic about full time long term employment,and he was unbelievably pragmatic in 2004 when he told all Australians especially those mortgaged up to the eyeballs he and his party would” Keep interest rates low.”
His habit of trying to spend his way out of trouble at election time ,a habit that INFURIATED his Treasurer was yet ANOTHER example of Mr Pragmatism at work.His lack of spending on Infrastrucutre was another.
His decision to introduce Workchoices in an election year, when the Liberal Party under Howard was seeking a fifth term reeked of pragmatism.As did his Climate Change scepticism from a vote winning perspective.
His pragmatism in fixing the skills crisis at the peak of the mining boom was a credit to the man.As was his decision to fix duplication costs between the States and the Federal Government which the BCA revealed was costing the country $9 Billion a year.His long term strategy for sustaining the country once the resources boom was finished was another feather in his cap and his humoungous spend on Defence has certainly proved a winner as well.
Well done John Winston Howard!
Wed 11 Feb 09 (01:18am)
Anyone with half a brain could tell that KR was all style and no substance from the outset.
Unfortunately.... John H. hung himself with workchoices.
Even I couldn’t stomach it and I’ve been voting Liberal since was old enough to vote.
Regardless, I think K.Rudd will be JUST like the Gallop/Carpenter government in WA.
DEvoted to winning the news cycle, ultimately useless and a HUUUUUUUUGE disappointment.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (01:19am)
Rudd really does lack substance. Of course, we were all warned prior to the election. “All spin, no substance”, they said. “Economically incompetent”, they said. “They’ll send us broke”, they said. “He stands for nothing”, they said. If we had only listened we would all be a lot better off today.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (01:19am)
Hmmm… pusher of a national socialist agenda? Defining KDudd - look up Adolf Hitler.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (01:39am)
Agreed on all points. By the time of the next election the cupboard will be bare . There will be nothing to hand out. All gone on lollies and fizzy drinks. A lightweight so far ,when compared to Mrs Thatcher and John Howard.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (01:43am)
So Janet, we’ve finally discovered the real Kevin Rudd. Welcome to Heiner affair territory.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (01:49am)
He’s a political cyborg. He believes in everything, yet he believes in nothing. The mans daily juice is the daily poll.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (01:53am)
I thought the most interesting revelation to emerge from the “pandemonium of parliament” last week was the new look Liberal Party which must be also be a first for Australian politics-Peter Costello running the Liberal Party from the back bench.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (01:57am)
“Now the G.S.T keeps all the States afloat”.I thought it was Resources that kept all the States afloat.Feel free to correct with me with the appropriate proof if I,m wrong Janet!
Wed 11 Feb 09 (02:01am)
Janet, thank you for documenting the breathtakingly audacious swings in the doctrine of Rudd. Our esteemed leader has for too long played the game of political rhetoric, it is time for us all to stop listening to what he says, and have a look at what he does. There is more than ‘a sliver of light’ between the two
Wed 11 Feb 09 (02:08am)
Mr. JWH was worse He Lied and changed like a Chameleon Good examples he bailed his brother business,and let others Fold, children overboard, Never ever Gst need more Conviction anti Asian affair when he was opposition leader. But then he was a man of steel who took us into a war to help a friend or lets say the grain affair, Wonder why they called him Lazarus before he became PM took over Pauline Hanson Ideas which were popular so he could hang on to power Broke his word to Peter C. need more be said , There goes the Credibility of your argument if U compare the two
Wed 11 Feb 09 (02:13am)
Janet, what is with you? John Howard is gone and your twisting and rambling attempts to paint Rudd with your liberal paintbrush will not bring him back or put him in a better light. He was a vile man who cared not for the less fortunate. He was a climate change sceptic and didn’t give a toss about aboriginals unless it was politically expedient, as it was at the end of his term. He couldn’t admit that the taking of aboriginal children was wrong and like you didn’t appreciate the symbolism of sorry. Perhaps the greatest fundamental injustice he perpetrated on the Australian people was GST.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (02:17am)
Janet, point one finger and you have four pointing back at yourself. A week ago you described Kevin Rudd as showing his real colours, and now you’re saying he he’s a chameleon. It was my first time to read your article, and indeed to hear of you, so I read it carefully and seriously. A waste of time! One thing I learnt though. You and Kevin are both consistent. He’s consistent in his passion for social justice. You’re consistent in scrounging for any way (contradictory or not) to write a vitriolic article about him or anyone whose true colours are different to yours.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (02:29am)
“Rudd has mastered the art of slippery politics”.You have much to learn young grasshopper, you know there is only one master of this art - John Winston Howard.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (02:33am)
So it’s taken you 2 years to work out Kevin’s a “flake” Janet!
Thats quick!
Wed 11 Feb 09 (02:43am)
Well written piece Janet. I totally agree with your assessments of this grotty little man. One point I would make,is that I believe Rudd is driven by a feeling of inferiority which will no doubt be confirmed much sooner than later.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (02:44am)
Well written Janet. I expect a torrent of derision from the Ruddites will soon be headed your way. Life was better under Howard - at least we knew where wewere going and who he was. I was a Ruddite, I voted for him, I am deeply sorry I did.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (02:57am)
Janet, you are the leading light in exposing the ‘accidental Prime Minister’. He has taken all of Beatties tricks in Queensland and assumed they will work in Canberra. Distraction after distraction, opportunistic backflip after opportunistic backflip. I plea to the wider media to scrutinise, scrutinise and scrutinise. As you have found, when one does, there is nothing there, nought. Australia deserves better from a PM and a parliamentary group who had 11 years to plan ahead.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (02:59am)
With every day that passes, the emperor’s nakedness is becoming more and more evident.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (03:07am)
Great article Janet. In my opinion your best of recent times.
It is time this self serving, visionless Kev Quixote was unmasked for the charlatan he is.
Mack.
Wed 11 Feb 09 (03:13am)
Seems you dont like Kevin and did like John. Surely one cannot be so much jelly and the other pure iron man. If I was to counter your one eyed piece by closing the other eye I could praise Kev to the heavens for his ability to change with the time, his flexibility and his agile mind, while portraying John Howard as an obstinate blockhead, unable to read that times do change. Surely there are observers with two eyes and an IQ average or even a bit above who could give a balanced account of the legacy from the past and the potentials for the future. But that aint you Janet for the above two reasons.