Throughout the last few years of the Howard government, anyone who criticised the government, or suggested that Howard was not the best person to be Prime Minister of Australia, could be sure of being labelled a “Howard hater”. A quick Google finds this trope being used regularly by Miranda Devine, Paul Sheehan and Gerard Henderson, and being taken up by their numerous blogospheric supporters.
This was always silly. Perhaps there were people motivated to oppose the government because of a personal animus against Howard rather than his actions and policies, but if so I never met any. Of course, people who disliked Howard’s policies tended to dislike Howard, and some people who hated Howard’s policies hated Howard as a result, but using a term like “Howard hater” to explain opposition to the government is like explaining the effects of opium by reference to its dormitive qualities.
The real motive underlying the use of “Howard hater” as a term of attack was the recognition that he and his government never commanded enthusiastic support from most Australians, merely a judgement that they were better than the alternatives on offer. Once this changed with Labor’s (long overdue) choice of Kevin Rudd as leader, the government was doomed.
Tonight’s Four Corners suggests that much the same was true of Howard’s colleagues. While only Costello and a couple of his closest supporters came across as Howard haters, most of the rest showed a notable lack of enthusiasm, and willingness in retrospect, to blame Howard for the government’s defeat. Tony Abbott’s undiminished loyalty just enhanced the contrast with the rest of the crew.
In terms of policy, the most startling revelation was Joe Hockey’s claim that members of the Cabinet voted for WorkChoices, including the abolition of the “no disadvantage” test, and were then shocked (or pretended to be) that people were disadvantaged. This news ought surely to sink resistance to Labor’s reforms, and may indeed have been intended to achieve this purpose.
John Quiggin 
Howard who?
Care to offer up a few names of past PMs to which this recognition could not also be applied.
The Federal Libs seem to me to be going through the same process that the NSW Libs did a few years ago.
Without ever explicitly considering the question “do we ever want to get elected to government again”, they came to the same implicit conclusion. Which was along the lines of:
No, we don’t. Even if we pray for miracles, and the miracles actually arrive in the form of the utter, utter incompetence and unpopularity of Iemma, we’ll continue to act like irrelevent fools, fighting instead for US right wing values, which nearly everyone in the world, including about 70% of the US population, rejects.
JQ, you really do live in a parallel universe. Your lefty commenters like nearly all other commenters on lefty blogs and in the MSM spoke and continue to speak with near universal disdain and rudeness towards John Howard. “Howard Hater” is an entirely appropriate moniker.
Personally, the left in Australia has led me to a degree of loathing towards my own country, which is a real shame. As a child and youth I had a vision of Australia as a land of self-reliance and enterprise. It has turned into one vast, sclerotic nanny-state. Maybe it was always that way, and I was never aware of it, but regardless, it is not a place I am fond to call home anymore.
Mugwump: nobody is stopping you leaving.
Sorry for the double-post but something else has occurred to me. The idea that Australia was once the land of self-reliance and enterprise is a joke. “Protection all round” since the 19th century; 6 o’clock closing to protect us from the demon drink; the cosy, agrarian socialism so beloved of the Country Party. Australia was a nanny state for generations, supported by the conservative side of politics. It was the ALP Hawke and Keating governments that made us grow up into a more deregulated world.
cb:I already left.
If Australia was always a nanny state then it was just my youthful idealism that led me to believe otherwise. A bit late in life to have the last of one’s childhood delusions shattered, but there ya go.
So it was you in the parallel universe all that time mugwump!
How is a “nanny state” incompatible with “self-reliance and enterprise” anyway?
The “nanny state” bit really only applies to those who are unable to find any work at all, which, sure, may include some who find living off government benefits more satisfying than work, but without said benefits, would just sponge off others in other ways (quite possibly illegally).
The vast majority of Australians are self-reliant and enterprising. And sensible enough to recognise that their and others’ luck might run out from time to time.
And to blame this on the “left” is absurd, seeing as Howard (and other Conservative leaders) only increased welfare spending while in office.
I thought the media and most on the left were unrelentingly hostile to John Howard or ‘ratty’ as they liked to call him. The reception given to Kevin Rudd has been quite the reverse and equally exaggerated and unrealistic although favourably so.
I think on thisd occasion you are trying to rewrite history. no-one on the right will forget the years of unrelenting Howard-hating with the constant unproven suggestions he was a crook and a liar.
BTW note the civility of all the Liberal commentaries on Howard – even from Perter Costello. No Paul Keatings in the Coalition!
I’m surprised. The vast majority of Australians strike me as very self-reliant indeed.
Bob Hawke was probably the most likeable PM of recent years; Keating was quite arrogant, and Howard had an “opaque” personality — you couldn’t really imagine talking to him in an ordinary way about something important. This was maybe the reason for his colleagues’ discomfort.
But if you agreed with him in general, it was always possible to see him as Good Old Grandpa. If you disagreed with him, he looked like a snooty bank employee telling you there was something wrong with the form you filled out (hence the venom). There’s no real mystery here.
Here’s Pal Gerry from his increasingly irrelevant smh column today:
“It’s understandable why those who hated John Howard and/or those who like Rudd welcomed Labor’s victory last November – even if some journalists went somewhat over the top.”
Dear Mr. Mugwump, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I am given to understand that a mugwump is a predatory creature from the imagination of W.S. Burroughs. The mugwump’s raison d’etre was to feed off others by “sucking the juice right out of their veins”. N’est-ce pas?
Must say that your nom de blog has extraordinary resonance when aligned with your abovementioned views.
Perhaps you could console yourself that leftist zealots havn’t got Mr. Howard to kick around any more. Sorry, very sorry as a matter of fact to hear that the great man’s political demise has shattered the last and the greatest of your youthful dreams.
To compound your grief, “Nine Percent Nelson” is unlikely to offer you much hope going forward. Seems conservative heroes are rather thin on the ground at the moment.
wiz, self reliant and enterprising is the last thing that would come to mind in describing oz. back in the 80’s the editor of the ‘sun herald’ compared ozzians and yanks, and summed up with: “we are a nation of huddlers.” in my 30-odd years in oz i have come across many more similar summations.
this is the natural consequence of isolation and ignorance. air travel and globalization will cure it to some degree, and some changes are already visible. but government is omnipotent and everywhere, and ozzians don’t even imagine they can direct their own society. this caps their concept of enterprise.
I thought the media and most on the left were unrelentingly hostile to John Howard or ‘ratty’ as they liked to call him. The reception given to Kevin Rudd has been quite the reverse and equally exaggerated and unrealistic although favourably so.
“Sunrise” on Channel 7 is very pro-Rudd but I haven’t noticed much else. There’s the honeymoon factor to remember.
I think on thisd occasion you are trying to rewrite history. no-one on the right will forget the years of unrelenting Howard-hating with the constant unproven suggestions he was a crook and a liar.
I thought the GST business was very dodgy. Nothing unproven about that.
Also, it’s a bit silly to imply that Howard-hating is intrinsically evil and vicious and Rudd-hating intrinsically virtuous and wonderful. “Your supporters are ruder than my supporters!” — “No, YOUR lot are ruder!” etc. Dumb.
wiz, self reliant and enterprising is the last thing that would come to mind in describing oz.
Depends who your friends and acquaintances are I suppose.
With respect to 4 Corners, I think its quite astonishing that they all felt compelled to dump on Howard and by association, themselves when prompted.
I don’t doubt there were people out there who really did hate Howard, but I also think its true but there were at least as many folks who didn’t really hate the man, but hated the policy myopia and ideological obsession they associated with him. For commentators like the Hendersons and Devines to simply dismiss all people who disliked Howard’s policies as “Howard haters”, is pretty disingenuous.
The media were unrelentingly hostile to Howard?
Let’s see, print media first. Murdoch press (80% of the print media) were unrelentingly supportive until the last minute when some (but only some) jumped onto the Rudd bandwaggon.
Of the rest, the Sydney Morning Herald ran an eclectic line, the Age was generally hostile (but editorialised for Howard at the 2004 election), the Financial Review was generally pro-Howard, only criticising him for not being free market enough. The West Australian was rabidly pro Howard throughout.
Electronic media: the ABC was generally hostile, Channel 7 was pro Howard; Channel 9 wavered between pro Howard and neutral (depending on what favours were being done for the Packers by various communications ministers), Channel 10 doesn’t do politics, commercial AM radio was rabidly pro Howard, FM radio doesn’t do politics, Sky News was pro Howard or neutral, SBS may have been hostile but less so than the ABC.
All up, Harry, it hardly adds up to relentless hostility to Howard; quite the opposite, in fact.
Mugwump, if you hate Australia so much, and you no longer live here, why do you spend so much time commenting on Australian politics and society?
al, I would accept that Australians are more risk-averse than many Americans. But America is the poster-child of “self-reliance” and “enterprise” – indeed, it’s very much part of their national identity. But there’s no need or reason for Australia to become like America – indeed, lots of reasons I wouldn’t want to see it happen.
Anyhow, the issue is to what degree that the “left” is somehow to blame for any lack of self-reliance or enterprise on behalf of Australians. A good many Australians are the “left”, and most of them are self-reliant (economically self-sufficent) and enterprising, but accept the value of the universal pooling and sharing of wealth and resources.
OTOH, political parties of the right have done a very poor job at encouraging Australians to become more self-reliant and enterprising – simultaneously boosting welfare spending, often to those who least need it, while stigmatising those who have a genuine need for state assistance.
Enemy Combatant: Howard’s political demise had nothing to do with the shattering of my childhood delusions. They were long gone before him.
Exactly al loomis.
I guess like all refugees I hope that one day I’ll be able to return home.
isn’t “howard haters” just the local variant of “bush derangement syndrome”?
i’d be curious to see which nation’s conservatives were using the respective term first. i’m going to go out on a limb and guess BDS was the original, and HH was just a lazy knock off (notwithstanding howard coming to power 4 years before bush). my only “evidence” for this is my belief that australian conversative commentators are the world’s laziest hacks, incapable of coming up even with original smears.
Mugwump is still trying to promote the US as the land of free enterprise, non-nanny-statehood, liberty and Coca-cola. 1 out of 4 ain’t bad, I suppose. It is in fact a land of mind-numbing bureaucracy, of government not to the shire, but to the village level (each of those governments a taxing entity) and a place where you can get fined for not mowing the lawn or putting away the garbage bins on rubbish day.
[rant]
“Nanny state” as a perjorative is overused. I find it gives me the major irrits when some well meaning zealot decides that my water heater can’t be set to a high temperature because someone might scald themselves, or idiots try to force polcitical correctness in language, in schools and elsewhere (all types of political correctness, BTW – Howard’s history syllabus included).
That said, there is plenty of room in this country to prosper through hard intelligent work, risk taking and enterprise. And THAT, not the trappings that seem to obsess Mugwump, are what is important.
[/rant]
The term ‘Howard Haters’ is part of the same delusion which compels the Liberal Party, and it’s rusted on followers, to say that Australia ‘wanted a change, a fresh face’ as a sorry excuse for being thrown out of office, rather than face up to the reality that it was the issues, the policies, which they, and JWH in particular got wrong.
Australia only installed the little rodent to punish Keating on one issue, interest rates. And the recession, two. The electorate was never very happy under Liberal but Labour just wasn’t quite strong enough to overcome the inertia of incumbency.
And Howard was a liar, a very convincing Liar, who convinced himself and many other people that he wasn’t a liar.
It is not the trappings that bother me either. My local HOA (Home Owners Association) regulates the length of my lawn and if I don’t cut it, they issue me with a violation. Do I care? Of course not: my neighbourhood looks this good precisely because the residents care enough to submit to this kind of oversight. And if the HOA goes feral, I can call them up or run for office myself. Or if I don’t want an HOA, there are plenty of developments around without them. The next level up, the county government, which operates all the schools. Again, very close and hence responsive to the citizenry.
What bothers me in Australia is the culture of expecting everything to flow from government, not private action. It is like we submit to our government instead of expecting government to submit to us. Al loomis put it really well:
Woah there. After Howard lost, and lost badly, his colleagues came out and said they were never really with him. What a surprise.
As for Howard Haters or otherwise, what does it matter? Conservatives will call critics ‘Howard Haters’, and the left will call conservatives ‘Howard Huggers’. Labels – so what? It’s just a ride.
It’s new ideas and policy outcomes that matter, right?
The “left” has its own complaints about the government being a “nanny state” of course:
its constant efforts to “protect” those that choose to partake in recreational drugs, to “protect” those that cannot get past the idea of marriage being a religious institution solely for the purpose of raising children, to “protect” those who wish to have the choice to end their lives in peace and dignity, to protect energy-intensive industries from the horror of having to reduce pollution, etc. etc.
Government has always been a nanny state in one way or another.
I don’t hate Howard but I do hate the aspects of the nanny state he helped to expand. He was a knee jerk gun control authoritarian. Sometimes he cut taxes but mostly he tinkered. He presided over the expansion of middle class welfare and expanded the reach of high EMTRs. He bloated government spending and the public service. He was not much of a federalist. He failed to privatise the ABC. He joined wars of questionable merit. Shamefully he banned euthanasia in NT and gay marriage in the ACT. He did sell Telstra but Keating would have also. His most redeeming feature was that he was reluctant to worship left wing symbolic cows. Although even axing ATSIC didn’t happen until Latham came out in support. A bit of a mixed bag really.
Let’s see if Rudd does better. He could start by acknowledging that marriage is a federal matter and move to legalise same sex marriage instead of complicating things with this idea of state based civil union registers. Then he could give us a round of decent tax cuts. He could then signal to the states that gun control was their responsibility not his. He could then surprise us with some more tax cuts. He could then remove the 17% tax on clothing and the 15% tax on cars.
@mugwump:
“I already left.”
Its a pity for you, then, that much of the world is going the same way as Oz… The Rightist Emporers of the 80s and 90s have no clothes. And we are (hopefully) entering a new era of balanced government.
I’d be all for removing the 15% tax on cars with decent mileage.
But to reduce the price of all cars now would be folly. Australia is already practically a slave to Saudi Arabia.
‘I think on this occasion you are trying to rewrite history. no-one on the right will forget the years of unrelenting Howard-hating with the constant unproven suggestions he was a crook and a liar.’
“I thought the GST business was very dodgy. Nothing unproven about that.”
That’s the very point you make so succinctly here aw. What you’re saying is any party or politician who changes tack on policy due to changing circumstances AND takes it to the people are liars. It’s nonsensical and blinkered, like saying all Labor supporters are eternal liars because they have ditched past policies like tariffs, Rollback or Medicare Gold, etc. That’s where the irrational Howard hater tag bites, or as John likes to revise it now down to ‘Howard disliker’.
To understand why so many people had such a deeply entrenched dislike of Howard, you have to go right back to his role as Treasurer in the Fraser government, when Larry Pickering’s cartoons really captured the popular perception of his as a snivelling little prick.
Then you have to look at his back-stabbing tussles with other gormless rightwing tossers, like Peacock and Hewson.
Howard always reminded me of a cretinous little toad in the school playground: he desperately wanted to hang out with the big, tough kids who bullied him, so he sucked up to them and followed them around, whispering in their ears and running errands for them, until they got bored of poking him in the chest and began to tolerate his presence. But Howard took all their worst traits and played them off against one another, until he became the defacto leader of the gang. Then the bullies were forced to line up behind him, or suffer the same ignominy and alienation they had once hoisted on little Johnny.
Hardly what you would call inspiring leadership for a once-proud nation!
But then again, perhaps we have never really been a “proud” nation? Perhaps that is just a fantasy based on golden visions of The Old Days? Howard used to love criticising anti-monarchists and others for suffering “cultural cringe”, but in fact there was nobody more cringing in the face of Anglo cultural imperialism. Perhaps Howard represented a certain sad reality for our nation for a certain time (a few years too long, obviously) and perhaps a new generation under Rudd is only just now ready to discover what real pride and independence is all about?
Mind you, none of them seemed to hate Howard much when he was Lazarus with the triple bypass. That all changed pretty quickly when he suddenly morphed into Ming the Merciless.
Terje, who are you calling a “mixed bag”?
Are you defending our “right” to arm ourselves? Surely if there’s a place for regulation then gun control is it. Perhaps we should deregulate murder as well?
Fair call.
Was there ever a serious suggestion (even from arch-conservatives) that the ABC should be privatised? Are you seriously suggesting that the quality of radio and television would be improved by privatising the ABC? Indeed, would a show such as “Howards End” be produced by a privatised ABC?
Fair call.
carbonsink, those wanting to privatise the ABC are typically doing so on the argument that it if is providing a service that people want, then people should be voluntarily choosing to pay for it.
Logically, this is hard to argue with. Unfortunately it ignores peculiarities about the nature of TV broadcasting and the constraints that commercial (for-profit) providers operate under. Once cable-TV becomes the norm, then perhaps there would be a case to be made for funding an independent not-for-profit ABC through cable subscriptions.
Turning for one moment to the adulation of new kid on the block. He’s said sorry but no compo. He’s pulling out of the bad war to stay the course in his 2 remaining good wars. Then there’s that looming inflation so it’s a petrol commissioner and more taxeaters with clipboards in our supermarts, whilst signing on to Kyoto cap and trade carbon taxes coming soon. If the States don’t fix their hospitals he’ll put the red undies and cape on their too. Then there’s some poor but enterprising Indo fishermaen just waiting for the cyclone season to end. My take is, if he manages to last 11 plus years atop all of that, he’ll have acquired a few haters too.
4 Corners showed why Peter Costello was never popular with the electorate. His contribution was all about his ambitions.
Tony Abbott’s loyalty may be admirable but it was and is self-serving. Howard was both a natural conservative ally and support for Tony’s ambitions.
“As a child and youth I had a vision of Australia as a land of self-reliance and enterprise. It has turned into one vast, sclerotic nanny-state”
I thought that was the policy of both parties. Also, its odd that you moved to the US — its not the like US is a whole lot better in this respect — its probably worse in some — just look at the amount wasted on miltary spending.
#10 The term “Ratty” was derived from Lib Senator George Brandis, who called Howard “The Rodent”. Seems to prove the point of the post, really.
#21 Indeed, the way in which “Howard haters” has rebounded on its advocates, most of whom are now eager to dump on him is a warning to users of “Bush derangement syndrome”
Terje: “Care to offer up a few names of past PMs to which this recognition could not also be applied.”
Within my onw lifetime: Bob Menzies (until circa 1965), Gough Whitlam (who inspired as much hatred as love and rapidly threw away his initial support); Malcolm Fraser in his first term; Bob Hawke in his first two terms.
Howard was like Keating, the persuaded by the force of their argument or they destroyed their opponents. Neither man was ever particularly loved by the people who elected them.
(People who’ve been in a position to know tell me Keating was exceptionally charming and charismatic in person (while being possibly the worst media performer ever) while Howard is a quite exceptionally dull man.)
Mugwump: Personally, the left in Australia has led me to a degree of loathing towards my own country, which is a real shame. As a child and youth I had a vision of Australia as a land of self-reliance and enterprise. It has turned into one vast, sclerotic nanny-state. Maybe it was always that way, and I was never aware of it, but regardless, it is not a place I am fond to call home anymore.
I’d say both your visions of Australia were equally unrealistic.
That vast sclerotic nanny-state has one of the fastest growing economies in the developed world; has taxes around 20% of GDP lower than the Europeans and its citizens work about the longest hours per year in the world.
That “land of selfreliance and enterprise” featured regulated duopolies in most major industries (banks, airlines, retailing); massive external tariffs to prop up industry; regulated home loan rates… Want me to go on?
Check out Gerard’s column in today’s SMH, he’s still at it. I think there is an realisation among the former govt and the right-wing commentariat that history is about to be written and it’s not going to be kind to them. The former govt is going come out looking like an ideas free zone lead by a Nixonian career manipulator and the commentators like a very shallow bunch a malicious pseuds.
My take is, if he manages to last 11 plus years atop all of that, he’ll have acquired a few haters too.
yes, but will their criticisms be considered on the merits or will quiggin dismiss them as suffering from irrational Dud Rudd Disease(1). one expects the former, which is kind of the point.
1. sorry, it’s the best i could come up with.
Henderson is just pleading to keep his column at SMH today, like Janet did at Teh Oz a while back.
After a decade of gross distortion, Australia’s media elites are suddenly calling for “pluralism” and “bipartisanship”. Excuse me while I throw up…
The government has changed, and as today’s polls show, the electorate has changed too. It’s time our nation’s morally bankrupt editorial teams were changed as well.
In fact, it’s time the publishers were changed too! How about another look at media ownership laws, Kev?
Well given his recent popularity rating, it might be a while before we see the Rudd Revilers come out in force. For now the stage is with the Rudd Relishers. (Google returns 0 hits on both terms, so I claim sole inventor rights).
This thread gets off on a tangent, and is somewhat revealing of the parallel universe occupied by the blog world.
Howard lost because of WorkChoices. The Your Rights At Work campaign (which operated seperate from the ALP) was the only show in town, and it shifted the votes necessary to change government. This has been acknowledged by Brian Loughnane from the Liberal Party and Tim Gartrell from the ALP. It was also implicit in last night’s Four Corners.
And why? Because working stiffs like myself (I am a 40 year old dishwasher) saw AWAs as a major threat to our take home pay. We would be working harder for less if Howard was returned. This at a time when we watched the big end of town rapaciously moving through our communities (think of Coles, Woolworths; as well as any of the banks, telcos or insurance companies)
What WAS revealing, and is alluded to by Mr Quiggin, was Joe Hockey’s revelation that members of cabinet had no idea that my employer could move me onto an AWA that paid me less. We saw this happening time and time again to our friends and family. The fairness test didn’t work, neither did the Office of the Employment Advocate, and there were significant numbers of employers who were none too subtle about my options – sign the AWA or watch my casualised shifts disappear.
This is the real world for the half of Australia that earns less than thirty-odd thousand a year. That one would go through life choosing between having the phone of the electricity disconnected (a regular reality for Australians) while constantly being berated that “we’ve never had it so good” is galkling to say the least.
Howard, Keating and Hawke’s policies squeezed us for twenty years – we simply got to the point where we were too desperate to lose any more of what little we had. If Rudd continues in this vein (for example, continuing to support the ridiculously exploitative and incompetent Job Network) then I have no doubt he will not have a second term.
#10 The epithet Ratty was a derivative of Rodent, coined by Lib Senator George Brandis, which rather proves the point of the post.
I always presumed “Howard Haters” was an update on “Joh Haters”, a saying which was around years ago.
There are certainly people who hate John Howard. Quite possibly I lead the pack. Perception could be clouded by optimism, but it seemed that all I saw was snarky personal attacks on John Howard. Many commenters refused to use his name, childishly referring to him as (at best) “ratty”.
Some of the stuff written about him, considering it is/was meant seriously, should be sufficient to have the author certified.
I’ve noticed that people who throw around the term “Howard Haters” tend to do quickly and with force as a way to dismiss any criticism made by someone who, usually politely, disagrees with their, usually conservative, views.
A case in point is the recent discussion over Terrence Tao’s post about the apology. A person going by the moniker “Not Happy” was very quick to assume that anyone coming out in favour of Rudd’s speech (myself included) was part of the great, conspiratorial Howard Hating left.
Perfectly happy to be labelled a Howard hater. Worst PM since WW2? Quite possibly. Coasted along doing very little for the economy apart from stuffing up skills and R&D, and buggering up just about every privatisation he proposed (how’s those telstra shares?). No vision, a petty, small-minded and vindictive man.
Worst PM since WW2 goes indisputably to the Hon. E.G. Whitlam.