The first inside assessment of Howard’s Government came out this month, from the Institute of Public Affairs entitled, ‘Reflections on the Howard Project’ by one of Howard’s former speech writers John Kunkel.
While Kunkel argues that Howard followed the classical liberal ethos of avoiding a grand vision (unlike some today) in favour of less intrusive government operations, he does concede that:
…John Howard challenged many of the comfortable verities of late twentieth century Whitlamite progressivism so beloved by Australia’s self-proclaimed ‘public intellectuals’. He was, in an important sense, an anti-establishment politician. Perhaps the most salient feature of the Howard Project was the belief that the political class is no better than the rest of the Australian community; that it is not the role of government to ‘reform’ society by dragging it up to what the intelligentsia defines as an appropriately elevated moral plain.
Howard’s strong belief in the country and its history probably explains the absence of a grand vision, or a need to remake the country in his own image (unlike some today):
Social and cultural issues were central to the Howard Project. John Howard didn’t ‘imagine’ a better Australia. He thought the country was pretty good as it was.
His touchstones were the views and values of what used to be called the ‘silent majority’. To that he welded a pugnacious preparedness to challenge progressive orthodoxies—on issues as diverse as education, drugs policy, the family, citizenship and multiculturalism and indigenous affairs. For this, he attracted unprecedented hostility—especially from left-leaning baby boomer intellectuals whose political heroes will always be Whitlam and Keating.
And look at these same people now. In power for 6 months and already rolling out their grand visions, which of course involved bigger government, laced with platitudes, self congratulatory back slapping and with plenty of symbol ringing to go round. Do they really dislike Australia that much, or was it the PR company advising Rudd during the election? By contrast:
…as a natural parliamentary orator, John Howard had never really felt comfortable with the idea of someone else writing his speeches.
…Consistency, after all, was a signature of the Howard brand.
…If an issue broke suddenly, John Howard never needed anyone to come up with ‘a line’. He had a natural politician’s ability to get to the nub of a topic, a strong compass of right and wrong, and unrivalled experience of dealing with ‘events’.
Throughout my time working for him, John Howard still gave the bulk of his short speeches off the cuff, especially (but not only) at informal gatherings. Sometimes he would call you less than an hour before an engagement just to kick around some ideas.
…Tapping a new mood of national self-confidence—an Australia at ease with the world and with itself – became a more prominent theme of the Howard narrative.
…In talking about Australian values, Howard very deliberately inserted a few lines of praise for the values of what he called ‘the old Australia’; which progressives regularly portrayed as backward, racist, sexist and generally unsophisticated.
To the former PM, the Australia he grew up in was a place of decency and virtue. No apologies there.
But all good things must come to an end, or at least a brief hiatus:
…the Howard Project had reached a natural high tide where it was hard to redefine and extend.
…As the former PM said on election night last year (unscripted of course), the Australia he bequeathed to his successor was a ‘stronger and prouder and more prosperous country’ than it was eleven and a half years before. Notwithstanding the result of last year’s election, the silent majority of Australians would doubtless agree with this assessment.
Remember, Howard lost by only 12000 votes.