"At one time or another, he had espoused almost every worthy principle, often repeatedly," Newsweek once observed of Richard Nixon. "But in practice he violated enough of them to make all of his protestations suspect."
Could the same thing be said about Kevin Rudd? In Question Time this week, the rattled Prime Minister berated several Liberal MPs for changing their position on his emissions trading scheme: "Where lies consistency?" he cried. Never mind that Copenhagen went up in smoke and that none of the world's major polluters will cut back on the greenhouse gases that the increasingly discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says cause global warming. The point here is that Rudd is an opportunist of such proportions that the only thing that exceeds his reach is his grasp.
This is a man who defined himself during the 2007 election campaign as an "economic conservative", committed to low public debt, fiscal rectitude and free-market reform, but who now represents the reincarnation of Whitlamism and a big-spending, big-union, big-government, debt-ridden agenda that caused so much economic angst in the 1970s. A man who derides the "neo-liberal" legacy of John Howard and Peter Costello, but who, like Tony Blair, has been the economic beneficiary of the conservative government that preceded him.
A man who appealed to the metropolitan sophisticates by weakening Howard's border protection controls, but who now panders to Howard's battlers by preaching a "hardline" policy against "evil" and "vile" people-smugglers. A man who insisted before the election he'd turn back the boats, but who, a year later, laid out the red carpet to thousands of unlawful arrivals.
A man who claimed climate change was "the great moral challenge of our time", but who now, in a changing (political) climate, jettisons the evangelical language and hardly raises the subject in stump speeches. A man who pledged to lead the globe on man-made warming, but who now tells us we will "do no more, no less than the rest of the world" -- which means doing nothing, since hopes for any verifiable, enforceable and legally binding global agreement are a chimera.
A man who promised not to means-test the baby bonus and the private health insurance rebate, but who is nonetheless now trying to do so in the Senate. A man who railed against corporate greed and unfettered capitalism, but who is watering down already modest proposals to weaken the fat cats' ability to pay themselves obscene salaries. A man who promised the Commonwealth takeover of the public hospitals if their performance did not improve, but who has hardly even raised the issue since he's been ensconced in the Lodge.
The power of this vacillator's U-turns and reverse gear is up to the best international standards.
Now, when I say that Rudd is Nixonian, I do not mean he is guilty of dirty tricks or obstructing justice. I mean that, like America's 37th president, the Prime Minister has no sense of philosophical identity, conviction and inner core. A man who commissions hundreds of inquiries and 2020-style summits but who never does anything has no true beliefs.
Looking at Tricky Dick's political career from 1947 to 1974, it is difficult to identify anything in which the disgraced president seemed genuinely to have believed other than his own political success. One moment, he was a staunch anti-communist who championed a Pax Americana; the next, he was a realist advocate of detente and international multi-polarity. One moment, he was a champion of fiscal conservatism and the Jeffersonian ideal of states' rights; the next, he was an unashamed Keynesian who centralised federal power at a rate that would have made LBJ proud. One moment, he was Taiwan's best friend and Mao Tse-tung's bête noir; the next, he went to Red China to sup with the devil himself. Sure, the friction of playing the role of conviction warrior while being in reality a malleable politician was only one of many frictions that contributed to Nixon's downfall, but it played its part.
Looking at Rudd's political career since 1998, it is also difficult to identify anything he seems genuinely to believe other than his own political success. How else to explain someone who spent years currying favour with the likes of Greg Sheridan and the Australian's editorial team on the Right as well as Phillip Adams and the Monthly on the Left. During the past three years in the limelight -- first as opposition leader, then as Prime Minister -- he has executed one stunning U-turn after another.
Say what you like about John Howard, you always knew where he stood and what he was about. He was an unapologetic nationalist, economic reformer and social conservative. On several politically unpopular issues -- Iraq, the GST, Telstra privatisation, industrial relations reform -- Howard was never afraid to challenge popular opinion and provoke people into thinking and then arguing about the causes he sincerely believed were in the nation's interest.
When Rudd, on the other hand, assumes the role of tough guy on any given issue -- public spending, people-smugglers, global warming -- there is always an air of detached calculation about his performances, a sense that in different circumstances he could just as happily be arguing the opposing case.
Until recently, he has been subjected to very little media scrutiny. Alan Jones is unquestionably the most fearsome inquisitor in the nation. So awesome is his reputation that Rudd has gone to great lengths to avoid being interviewed by him, preferring instead the celebrity-style ambience of FM Radio and the Seven Network's Sunrise crew that helped promote his rise from obscure backbencher in 2001 to alternative prime minister five years later. But those of us hoping for blood at breakfast last week were not disappointed. Why? Not because of anything Mel and Kochie did, but because of probing questions that ordinary Australians were allowed to ask. Without any warning to the PM, the talkback TV segment included three questions from voters in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. He badly failed two questions -- one on government allowances and another on incentives for mums to return to work -- and he struggled with another one.
The episode gave the impression that Rudd is manifestly divorced from reality, that without talking points and proper tutoring from his minders he is devoid of substance, and that if probed hard enough all the contradictions and inconsistencies that are part of his political make-up will wash off.
What Adlai Stevenson once said of his old nemesis Richard Nixon could also be said of Kevin Rudd: "This is a man of many masks. Who can say they have seen his real face?"
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment