I do feel that President Bush's chances were improved by Howard's win - certainly Kerry has less to smile about.
Regards, Ivan
Posted on 10/10/2004 2:46:09 PM PDT by MadIvan
NEITHER George W. Bush nor Tony Blair comes across as a particularly philosophical figure. Mr Bush clearly does have an established body of political principles, but obviously finds it difficult to articulate abstract themes. Mr Blair, it might be said, is in the opposite position. There is, nevertheless, a challenging conceptual question for both men this morning. Who best understands the implications of the Australian general election: John Howard, elected for a fourth term on Saturday, or Jacques Derrida, the French intellectual whose death was sombrely announced as the votes Down Under were being counted?
There is not much doubt what M. Derrida would have thought about this issue. He is hailed as the father of post-modernism, post-structuralism and deconstruction. He argued that there could be no such thing as objective truth because all supposed truths are expressed in language and language itself always has multiple meanings and in any case is constantly changing. There are, he claimed, no fixed values in the world, just social constructs bounded by time and vocabulary (I think that is what he contended, anyway). The idea that an Australian election could have deeper significance in its own context, never mind elsewhere, is, therefore, ludicrous.
Now I have always had my doubts about this post-modernist, post-structuralist, post-everything stuff. For a start, it seem to me that being dead is an objective truth and not an ambiguous condition produced by time and language. And surely if there can be no certainties because of the slippery character of words, then post-modernism itself can hold no special inherent virtue. If you take all this “there is no truth but no truth ” to its (il)logical extreme then, to be blunt, you move round and round in circles until you disappear up your own derrière. I suppose that’s French philosophy.
It is safe to assume that Mr Howard would have none of this. He is a firm believer in the notion of an “Anglosphere” linking his country, the United States and Britain. He might not necessarily use the term “Anglosphere” when addressing sheep farmers in the Outback (who would rightly regard such a phrase as only mildly more enticing than post-structuralism), but it is central to the Australian Prime Minister’s outlook on the world. Put simply, he thinks that ties of culture, history and political institutions are more important than those of mere geography. The electors of Wagga Wagga have their differences with those of Wisconsin or Worcestershire, but it is their similarities that will prove to matter.
Mr Howard could, therefore, identify three aspects of his triumph that, like his nation’s fine lager, are definitely available for the export market.
The first is that within the Anglosphere incumbency is an asset, not a liability. There have been many parts of the world this year — from Spain and Greece to India and Indonesia — where governments with perfectly decent records have been defeated. Mr Howard’s win not only bucks this trend but reaffirms a pattern. In Australia, Britain and the US, it has been better in recent years to hold office than to challenge for it. Over the past 20 years, only one sitting Australian Prime Minister (Paul Keating in 1996), one serving British Prime Minister (John Major in 1997) and one US President (George Bush Sr in 1992) have been thrown out by the voters. The same is true of Canada. In the Anglosphere today, “the devil you know” is usually preferred to an aspiring Angel of Deliverance.
The second is that political life in the Anglosphere remains dominated by economics. Indeed, the economic cycles of Australia, Britain and the US appear to be more closely aligned with each other than with those of Asia, Europe or Latin America respectively. Mr Howard stormed home because he and his party were strongly associated with prosperity and his opponents were perceived as a threat to that benign stability. He now has to work out when to stand down in favour of a Finance Minister who is viewed as the architect of this success (sound familiar?). Canada experienced the same transition — although somewhat ineptly executed — at about this time last year.
There is an analogy with the US as well. The irony of this presidential election is not John Kerry’s failure to exploit a weak economy but Mr Bush’s inability to make more of these good times. The unemployment rate in America today is lower than it was when Ronald Reagan secured his second term in 1984 and when Bill Clinton did the same 12 years later. It is not the challenger but the President who needs to put the economy centre stage over the next three weeks. If he does, then he will remain in the White House and, like Mr Howard, perhaps by a surprisingly comfortable margin.
Finally, the “Iraq factor” is more potent in opinion polls than in the ballot box. Mr Howard’s involvement in the demise of Saddam Hussein was no more popular in Australia than Mr Blair’s role has been in Britain. Iraq would appear to be a negative factor for Mr Bush in his election bid as well. I suspect, though, that the mood in all three countries has much in common. Voters are far from convinced that troops had to go in, but now that they are there they must finish the task, and that quest would be complicated by a change in leadership. The defiant response here to the savage murder of Kenneth Bigley is not what the terrorists anticipated.
If the Anglosphere does trump French philosophy, then Mr Howard, Mr Bush and Mr Blair will all be returned to office. If so, then when the trio are next reunited at some international event a burst of collective song would be appropriate. A rousing rendition of Tie Me Post-Modernist Down, Sport might suit the occasion.
I do feel that President Bush's chances were improved by Howard's win - certainly Kerry has less to smile about.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
Death to the post-modernists! They have betwaddled many a young mind.
The sooner all of these lunatic leave the world, the better the world will be.
Inarticulate stupidity, in my mind.
I agree with Mr. Hames about postmodernism, and sincerely hope he's correct about the elections.
"Voters are far from convinced that troops had to go in, but now that they are there they must finish the task, and that quest would be complicated by a change in leadership."
I don't know that I agree with the first half of his statement, and wonder where he's pulling this from, but the second half is definitely right on. This writer probably doesn't mean that a Kerry presidency would be disastrous, though.
Thank you thank you thank you, I agree so much,and I also hope that there's a correlation between what the polls in Australia purported to show-that Labor was,ahead in some cases or closing in others,and the way our polls show tha same thing here. Also, they have their version of the liberal media-the Sydney Morning Herald is rabid-and they touted Mark Latham as if he paid their checks,just as our media does,and it was all to no avail in the end. They're in great shock right now-if they didn't expect howard to win,they certainly didn't expect him to gain seats in the House AND gain a working or actual majority(remains to be seen which) in the Senate.
The following statement is an oxymoron of the highest degree: "There are no absolutes."
In the case of Derrida, I wouldn't even give them articulate.
I had not heard that Jacques Derrida was now being deconstructed. The man had a titanic role -- he almost single-handedly unhinged a whole generation of liberal moonbats. One can scarcely note his passing without getting the giggles.
Jean Francois Cheri is more Francophone than Anglophone. I don't see Americans warming up to the French Candidate here as Election Day draws closer.
If Kerry wins, he's going to regret having his daughter go to Australia to trash Howard--Howard's likely to tell him "Kiss my Australian arse, poofter!"
Perhaps the most astute observation in the article.
Prairie
It was his SISTER, not his daughter.
Jolly good read...thanks..BTW..is this an op-ed piece, or is the author a regular columnist. Can you provide any background info?..Thanx..
The biased MSM in Australia are looking rather stupid and serves them right. What did they think? That their lies would become a self-fulfilling prophecy? I'm laughing. How are they going to spin why Howard now has a bigger majority than after the previous election? Lies are so predictable. They have already started with how 'dangerous' it is that the Coalition will be able to act as a 'rubber stamp' in the Senate, (tighten security measures?) Yum yum. You can lie to all the people some of the time etc. Shame on the Opposition, not once did they refer to democracy in Afghanistan or Iraq. All Latham did was insult our intelligence by throwing money at us. The left forgot security altogether. Not a smart move, considering there are 250 muslims in Indonesia making the average aussie nervous after the Bali bombing. Latham treated the security issue as if he had been reading the Kerry handbook. Much exaggerated? Like h*ll.
GWB will win for the same reason. Why would a strong leader who faces the terrorist threat head on like he does, lose an election? What use are billion dollar welfare promises if security issues are ingored?
This phrase is very descriptive not only of French philosophy but also of post-modernism itself and its adherents. John Kerry comes immediately to mind, as a matter of fact, when I think of articulate stupidity.
LOL! He's dead.
Philosophy is a luxury now. Survival is not. While some ponder, others prepare to protect the "philosophers". An insightful article, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.