|
August 24, 2007
The phrase is that of Greg Craven in an op-ed in the Australian Financial Review. He is addressing several questions: What are we to make of Howard's 'aspirational nationalism'? Will it be a defining moment of his career? Is it a cover for someone hooked on power? What is Howard doing to federalism? Where does Howard as a conservative stand on federalism?
Alan Moir
Craven says that Howard has permanently turned his back on federalism and its limitatinon of power through a series of checks and balances. Howard, as an aspirational nationalist sees limiting political power as a bad thing. Federalism, for Howard is a mistake. The gloves are off.
Craven adds that there seems to be two main bases for Howard's reasoning:
Philosophically, he simply is not a conservative: he genuinely cannot see any reason to limit power, so long as he wields it. Politically, he sees in the prospect of unlimited constituional power the perfect opportunity to cherry pick titbits of state jurisdiction: well placed hospitals, schools in marginal electorates, spunky issues of the day.
Craven says that the wider political design is that Howard 'is prepared to abandon the last sherrick of conservative ideology if this helps him stigmatise the Labor states with their creaky under-funded service delivery systems, as proxies for a Kevin Rudd administration. '
Craven mixes up conservatism with federalism here. There is a difference. Conservatives, properly so called are place the authority of the state as paramount, and so centralize power.This is Howard. Federalists, on the other hand, put checks and balances in place to limit and decentralize power. Howard is not a federalist.
The Liberal Party is not the party of federalism. It is about the centralization of power with minimal checks. The ALP, which used to be hostile to federalism, is becoming the party of federalism, in the form of a co-operative federalism. The states are deemed to be constitutionally important.
|
I thought Labor pretty much got past them. Yet they in term seem to be forgetting their own message, being drawn into the conservative language of confrontation; of "taking over things".
It sounded right when they said "cooperation". Now all the neolib claptrap seems to be filtering back and they're losing differentiation, as to the Tories.