LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.Best Political Blog Winner, 2007 Webby Awards, People's Voice and Jury.  
 
July 24, 2008
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Reports
Obama on the Brink
No Easy Out for Obama
 * NEW! * Refighting the Vietnam War

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Inside the Data Mine

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Reports

Liberals’ Lesson Down Under

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Nov 26, 2007

By E.J. Dionne

WASHINGTON—Kevin Rudd, Australia’s new prime minister, combines iron discipline with a puckish sense of humor, political toughness with a reflective spiritual side, and a youthful disposition with an old pro’s skill at divining where a majority lies.

The triumph of Rudd and his Australian Labor Party holds lessons for Democrats and other center-left parties. John Howard, the conservative incumbent swept from power after 11 years in office, had presided over record prosperity. For the first time in the country’s history, wrote Peter Hartcher in the Sydney Morning Herald, a government was tossed out in unambiguously strong economic times.

Until Saturday’s vote, Labor had lost four elections in a row. One young Labor politician I spoke with during a visit to Australia this summer worried whether her party would have any future if it lost a fifth time. As it happens, Labor under Rudd won its largest share of the vote in 60 years. Howard lost his own seat in a rout that saw Labor go from 60 seats to about 86 seats (some races are still close) in the 150-member House of Representatives.

Rudd built on a strong reaction against Howard’s new workplace laws curtailing the rights of workers and unions. Labor won a swath of seats in the far suburbs of the big metropolitan areas where younger two-income families flourish but also struggle with rising mortgage rates and the work-family-community time crunch.

But it is the success of the 50-year-old Rudd in drawing a generational line across the Australian electorate that could be adopted elsewhere, particularly in countries like ours where young people are frustrated with replays of old battles. He overwhelmed the 68-year-old Howard among voters under 30, beat him among those aged 30 to 50, and ran even or slightly behind among voters over 50.

Everything Rudd did cast the election as a choice between the past and the future, the old and the new, the tired and the fresh, all embodied in his core slogans, “New Leadership” and “Fresh Ideas.” The issues he emphasized—the need for action against global warming, an “education revolution” to make Australia “the best educated country in the world,” and a pledge to bring broadband technology to the entire nation—reinforced his resolutely up-to-date aura.

Environmentalism mattered in this election. Howard suffered from his close alignment with the Bush administration on global warming, and Australia’s Green Party, with 7.6 percent of the vote, played a role in Labor’s victory.

Under Australia’s election system, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gets a majority on the basis of first preferences, the winner is determined by redistributing ballots cast for minor parties on the basis of second preferences. Green ballots went heavily to Labor.

Rudd’s balancing act provides a model for center-left parties that also points to the tensions they confront once in power. Rudd won as a self-described “economic conservative” who would tightly manage the nation’s budget. But he also won thanks to an activated trade union movement fighting for its life in seeking to overthrow Howard’s workplace rules.

While Rudd’s centrism wooed swing voters, new political energies were unleashed through innovative organizing efforts on the left. The unions’ “Your Rights at Work” campaign mobilized especially the middle- and working-class neighborhoods where Howard had done well in the past. A Web-based group called “Get Up!” organized young progressives.

The efforts paid off. Kristina Keneally, a minister in the Labor state government in New South Wales, said that in Howard’s own district of Bennelong, “some polling places had over 50 volunteers between Labor, Get Up! and Your Rights at Work.” Rudd has to keep his core promises to the unions and his pledges of economic sobriety to middle-of-the-road voters—and not disappoint either.

I saw Rudd this summer as his media maestros were beginning to push the party’s leader-focused “Kevin07” campaign. Rudd was characteristically self-deprecating and a bit abashed about the narcissism of it all. But he knew exactly what he was doing. With the opposition in tatters and his own party grateful for victory, Rudd has earned great personal authority at the end of a very personal campaign.

One other thing: Rudd is resolutely pro-American, but he will also be able to speak to China’s leaders in fluent Mandarin. You wonder if that’s about the future too.

Rudd relied on youth, moderation and the voters’ exhaustion with the ideological categories of the past. But he also needed the passion of activists determined to end a long conservative era. Sound familiar?

E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com.

© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group

Email Newsletter

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.

Previous item: Not So Happy Holidays for Afghanistan

Next item: Obama Taps the 'Oprah Effect'

Jump to Comments

Advertisement


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By JEP, November 30, 2007 at 10:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

“the mess in USA is not due to mandatory voting or not.”

You completely missed my point… If there WAS mandatory voting in the US, all this military industrial complex subterfuge could not have occurred, because the lawmakers would not be beholden to those special interests that control the voting game of chess.  They could not disenfranchise millions of potential progressive-spirited voters from voting, and thereby preventing the bullies from running the show.

They (special interests) would have no control, only influence, if all of us were required to vote. That is what democracy is really all about, influence, not control.  When ANYONE has control of the voting process, they are no longer democratic by definition.

And any political party that depends on low voter turnout in the general elections, to maintain their control and their status quo, is not a democratic institution in the first place, simply by definition.

Report this

By 1drees, November 30, 2007 at 1:40 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

the mess in USA is not due to mandatory voting or not.
its due to a long planning whaich took place ages ago, I mean if you can go back into history you might findout that secret societies had alot to do with it nad they still play major role in everything.
Just look at AIPAC, is it always in the news? NO, NEVER!
BUT what is its effect? i’d say quiet a major shift in things ands even if you look at their speeches they do boast of total control over politcians, so you can really blame anything on the subclauses, it was all designed to happen, an army was cultured for future wars and they have been happening since WW2, lookup the history, there’s been many wars BUT THE COMMON DENOMINATOR HAS BEEN USA versus Vietnam, Korea, IRAQ, IRAN, Elsalvador, Somalia, Panama, ............
the complete list is about the length of my arm, go do your own homework.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 27, 2007 at 2:53 pm #

#116180 by thomas billis on 11/27 at 1:49 am: “...the only similarity between Australia and America is that they both begin with the letter A...... comparisons of the political landscape..... and frankly I do not care....”

Well, there’s nothing like not knowing or not caring, thomas billis. That is a disappointing statement and that is what is wrong with the US voting system and thus peoples’ experiences in the USA. If you don’t care to vote....... its no f@ckin’ democracy!

The USA, Australia and China are all about the same size in land mass. The population difference is the biggest factor for all of them, though. China is about five times the population of the USA while the USA is about 15 times the population of Australia. “Corporationism/fascism” exists in all....... its currently part of the human condition.

The “political landscape” in the USA wants to change to become more socialist but it is being forced into a more centralist, one-party dictatorship by the Neocons as though it were a kind of WW2 Nazi Germany. Conversely, China is re-developing its capitalist roots and and aspires to some form of democracy as it becomes increasingly ungovernable as a one-party state.

Australia, though, is fast heading towards a one-party state as all of the state governments as well as the new federal government already have the same Labor party in power and only the balance of power in the senate is preventing a totalitarian state. Despite being a socialist party, Labor is essentially now right-wing as it is represented by mainly lawyers and its base are socialist trendies and suburbanites whilst the working class has split and many supported the former Howard Neocon conservatives.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 27, 2007 at 2:04 pm #

Quote: “Environmentalism mattered in this election. Howard suffered from his close alignment with the Bush administration on global warming, and Australia’s Green Party, with 7.6 percent of the vote, played a role in Labor’s victory....”

The Australian Green Party is successful in their senate and is popular amongst voters there who wish to make the maximum use of the PREFERENTIAL voting system which allows them to register a protest by voting for a minor party but without wasting their vote which then flows on to their preferred major party.

Either the Greens or the Family First party or an independent or a combination will hold the balance of power in the federal senate in Australia. Check senator Bob Brown’s intro and then go to their main site for a Youtube clip on preferential voting http://greens.org.au/intro/

Report this

By Paul McEachern, November 27, 2007 at 9:33 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

re your Australian ...

Report this

By JEP, November 27, 2007 at 9:32 am #

The fact the Aussies have MANDATORY VOTING portends ill winds for the Republican ship of fools that has hit the worst doldrums in their long and hypocritical history.

If we had MANDATORY VOTING here in the US of A, there would never have been a Republican majority in the first place, let alone the neocon con job that came with it.

Here’s a real plan for democracy; lets keep our right to habeas corpus, and give up our right NOT TO VOTE, if we are going to give up any rights, that would be the one to consider.  By giving up the right NOT TO VOTE we would insure all those other articles and amendments ad infinitum.

Report this

By ocjim, November 27, 2007 at 7:03 am #

Rudd over Johnson—if it takes that much effort to defeat another neocon (All Republicans do act as if they are running for dictator) in America then there is no hope for the people. Most people I know would vote for a baboon if he is Democrat.

Report this

By KISS, November 27, 2007 at 4:51 am #

We will see if this new Jesus will rescind the draconian laws of Howard. Will gun ownership come back? Will accessible medicine return? Mr. Rudd will have to prove himself to be a real person candidate rather than blue smoke. Time will tell.

Report this

By thomas billis, November 27, 2007 at 1:49 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

EJ while you are putting shrimp on the barbie think about the fact that the only similarity between Australia and America is that they both begin with the letter A.These international comparisons of the political landscape are dubious at best.EJ before we can tailor messages we must come to grips with the basic problem of corporationism which is a nice way of saying fascism.I do not know if that is problem in Australia and frankly I do not care.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 27, 2007 at 12:41 am #

“Kevin Rudd - Chinese Propaganda Video” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptccZze7VxQ
Rudd as Mao, YouTube style: Rudd the Dud as the Anglo-Saxon conquering revolutionary hero, Kevin07 - clever principle of “similar difference” and the glorious principle of the “variable absolute”!!!

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox

Privacy Policy

 
Click here to advertise with Truthdig
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.