Editorial 14 August 2001
On April 12th 1944 Franklin Delano Roosevelt died and Harry S. Truman became the 33rd President of the United States. British writer Harold Nicolson said simply, "Truman is short, square, simple, and looks one straight in the face."
Perhaps the two most quoted Trumanism's are, "The buck stops here," and "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." That HST had courage is unquestionable. Whether you agree or disagree with his order to use the two atomic bombs against Japan or his sacking of General Douglas Macarthur they attest to it. Truman claimed that he followed a very simple principle, he'd think a problem through, decide what was the right thing to do, and do it. Of course his comment after dismissing Macarthur was typical, "I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it were, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail."
So what's this all in aid of? Let Harry Gattin tell you (SMH 8/8/01).
Phew! That was close. For a moment there I thought we were destined to have an election campaign based on the Knowledge Nation. Which side had the better plan to keep us up with the information revolution; whether we were doing enough and spending enough on education and research and development; how the increased cost should be divided between the taxpayer, business and private users. Sounds pretty deadly, doesn't it? A bit too earnest and intellectually demanding. Fortunately, however, it's now clear the central election issue will be tax. Both sides are promising not to increase taxation and both are promising tax cuts.
Ah but pay very, close attention or you'll miss the distinction - they'll be different taxes. Got it? Right.
Kim Beazley has been feeling the heat to explain how he would fund rollback of the GST and increase spending on services, like his plan for the Knowledge Nation. So yesterday he dropped a dead bat on the spinning ball declaring that he would delay changes to social services such as education and health, rather than increase taxes; all of which was too much for David Henderson, national president of the National Union of Students. "I think it shows that Kim Beazley is fundamentally a weak leader...it is very disturbing that when John Howard starts to talk about tax cuts, Kim Beazley starts to talk about watering down Knowledge Nation."
Yes, Harry Truman, where are you?
Clearly the assessment of the Australian public by the minders and pollsters of both Labor and the Coalition is that all we seriously care about is instant gratification. However, there is a voice in the wilderness; on August 6th leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja said both were misguided and underrating Australians. She followed up in her address to the National Press Club the following Thursday (8/8/01).
I... spoke here, in August 1998, on the topic 'The Future for Young Australians'. That was three years ago - almost to the day. Over the last three years, I have become increasingly convinced that creating a future for young Australians, requires not just a change in policies, but a fundamental change in politics. Three years ago, as now, Australia was heading into a federal election campaign, that was dominated by taxation issues.
I think [Australians] want a vision of where Australia could be in 20, or even 30 years time, not just after the next election. I know they want more funds for education and health. The Prime Minister and Opposition Leader are out of touch if they think Australians will simply settle for a policy vision consisting of little more than 'tax cuts'. What this really means is fewer services like hospitals and schools, no scientific innovation or job creation, and more poverty [our emphasis].
This election should be about the triple bottom line: the economy, the community and our environment. It should not be about who has the biggest tax cut.
Is the senator from South Australia right? You know, she just might be. The real question is - is she tough enough, angry enough and smart enough to DO something? And that means she's got to turn the Democrats into a cohesive and potent force in the Senate, and seriously work toward achieving a presence in the House in order to wield the balance of power. A clutch of mere independents in the House will always be of little consequence.
The vice-like grip the major parties place on their backbenchers assures that only if there is a mass backbench revolt will the cabinet oligarchy pay attention. It is one of the distinguishing features of the way the separation of powers is realised in the United States compared with its execution in the Westminster system. Certainly there are strengths and weaknesses in either approach but over the past six years, as a very minimum, Australia has been the loser as a result of the monumental short-sightedness of the current Government and the almost ostentatious lack of courage of Labor and its leader. If you're gonna talk the talk then be prepared to walk the walk, and if Mr. Beazley really is sincere, then David Henderson has a very good point - show 'em whose boss. Australians aren't much for wimps.
Considering the minders and tea leaf readers that party leaders surround themselves with these days whether or not either Kim Beazley or John Howard would have had the courage to sack Macarthur is open to serious question. Wonder if Natasha might have?
Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web