The art of being a politician.... (1 Viewer)

[premer]

John howard is able to get awaqy with blue murder yet is still popular amoung many, and why? He has learned the art of being a politicians, seemingly able to tell lies under six feet of mud. Yet how effective is this?

People these days are somehow interested in change, and it is only of recent that John howard has been less popular than Rudd. I want to know why Rudd is more popular, and maybe we could discuss the difference between the two and why one diserves parliament more than the other.

Lets start with the poll, then the discussion.

Thanks.

 

[Atonofrash]

the poll? then make one.

 

[Boo Quah]

John Howard personally committed genocide against my tribe, along with the court.

Kevin Rudd didn't

 

[Iron]

Howard has never been popular. He's the Nixon of Australian politics. Voters may have prefered him, but he has never been loved, nor will he be missed, I suspect. Without his position, I suspect that few friends will keep in touch.

But voters have been convinced that politics is just about management, and Howard's a reasonable manager. He asks very little from the electorate, and they've learned to expect nothing less.
In contrast to Nixon, even though voters probably dont trust Howard, or think him honest and genuine, this has little bearing on our individual, financial interests. So Howard wins.

However now that we're beginning to be convinced that the opponent is a safe pair of hands (cf Latham), as well as being young, modern (cf Beazley) and likable (cf Keating), voter's cant wait to let him replace Howard. There's little love lost.
It's nothing personal, it's just business.

 

[jb_nc]

John howard is able to get awaqy with blue murder yet is still popular amoung many, and why? He has learned the art of being a politicians, seemingly able to tell lies under six feet of mud. Yet how effective is this?

People these days are somehow interested in change, and it is only of recent that John howard has been less popular than Rudd. I want to know why Rudd is more popular, and maybe we could discuss the difference between the two and why one diserves parliament more than the other.

Lets start with the poll, then the discussion.

Thanks.

I'll tell you why: people do not care where Howard has been found to tell "big" lies. Children overboard? Most people couldn't really care and even more would like less refugees coming. AWB? I'd agree it's the cost of doing business in the middle east. Iraq? Well did he really "lie" or was he misinformed by ASIO/MI-6/CIA.

 

[Gilbert2]

It's because most people are stupid retards and belive that there PM is a brilliant man.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I'd like to hear from John Hewson.

Anyway, I subscribe to Iron's analysis.

 

[jb_nc]

I'd like to hear from John Hewson.

Anyway, I subscribe to Iron's analysis.

Dr John is probably soon to be expelled from the Liberal Party.

Dr John on BOS needs a new avatar.

 

[jb_nc]

keating was smug and arrogant

 

[Iron]

John Howard's brilliance is in his complete lack of brilliance. Despite what anyone may say he is a very intelligent man. Yet he comes across as ordinary, even humble. "Ordinary" voters seem to resent intellectual types like Keating and Costello who come across as smug and arrogant.

There is something about the way Howard speaks and conducts himself that makes him seem trustworthy and harmless, maybe someone else can describe it better.

I see the humble thing as an act. He very consiously became so when up against Keating. The contrast effect did well for him.
The musical "Keating!" did a great rendition of this evolution. In a Howard solo called "power", Howard appears as a clear villan whose been oppressed by bullies all his life. He becomes utterly resolved to achieve power himself, where he'll extract his terrible, uncompromising revenge "and make the bastards bow to me". Immediatley following this, is another Howard solo called "mateship". In stark contrast, Howard is this dinky-di digger skipper. His well-known public images are literally pasted on (first the track suit, then the army helmet and vest, then the chinos/blue shirt and acubra hat). He pleads with the electorate that he's just an ordinary bloke, uninterested in the elitist Keating agenda, and halting change/reinstating an older sense of Australian identity. Very funny.

Aside from that, it must be mentioned that Howard is a master of exploiting fear, whether it be unions, terrorists, interest rates... It's very important in Australian elections, and Labor has ignored it for years.
The genious of Rudd is that he's (rightly) playing climate change as the greatest threat to Australia and the world; a threat which makes terrorism a pimple on the arse of global challenges. The cost of not acting is very, very scary. More so than communism, interest rates and terrorism combined.

 

[UnIqUe PrInCeSs]

Aside from that, it must be mentioned that Howard is a master of exploiting fear, whether it be unions, terrorists, interest rates... It's very important in Australian elections, and Labor has ignored it for years.
The genious of Rudd is that he's (rightly) playing climate change as the greatest threat to Australia and the world; a threat which makes terrorism a pimple on the arse of global challenges. The cost of not acting is very, very scary. More so than communism, interest rates and terrorism combined.

So when they do it, it's not scaremongering, it must be real.

 

[Raginsheep]

Keating was just worse at disguising his smugness and arrogance than most politicians. Howard is just as arrogant.

I always got the impression that he didn't bother to suppress it.

 

[Boo Quah]

I think Iron's point was that climate change is a real threat wheras Howard deliberately exaggerated threats, particularly interest rates for his own political advantage. So yes, in this case Rudd is not scaremongering but Howard was.

Thats not to say Labor are above scaremongering (eg. NSW 2007 election) but in this case Iron is correct.

How many people has climate change killed again?

You don't think it's being used for political advantage at all? So naive

 

[Iron]

So when they do it, it's not scaremongering, it must be real.

As I said, fears are exploited by politicians. A clever, though unethical, politician can exploit an issue which we probably shouldnt be scared about. This is clearly true about afghan refugees proportedly being terrorist baby-killers. Also, on the evidence, it was probably true about interest rates. However that fear campaign gained traction because it became a metaphore for Latham's unstable/unpredictable personality, which was probably something to rightly be weary of.
But if the issue is great enough, politicians have a right to exploit fear. I think this is the case for global warming. The experts say it's happening. The cost of ignoring it would be devastating. The public must know this, and it's a politician's job to convince the electorate of urgent action.

 

[Iron]

How many people has climate change killed again?

You don't think it's being used for political advantage at all? So naive

Wrong, very wrong. As I said in another thread, the WHO estimates the impact to currently be 150,000 deaths and 5,000,000 diseases per year. This IS happening. Complacency like yours is truely scary.

 

[Boo Quah]

Does the politician's right to exploit fear extend to making grossly exaggerated claims about the effects of global warming (eg. 100m sea rises, etc.)

This is before we get into whether it makes the slightest difference whether Australia ignores it or not (it doesn't).

 

[Iron]

Who are you to judge what is exaggerated or not? These arent vague statements of ideology. This is cold, hard science.
Australia has a huge role to play, given our resources (Qld alone is the worlds largest coal exporter). Also, we have an incredible capacity to be a global role model to states like America.

 

[Boo Quah]

It's cold hard fact that global warming alarmists regularly make claims in the media far beyond anything from science.

The 'global role model' thing is just rubbish, why would China pay attention to Australia reducing its carbon output anymore than it pays attention to us not having huge amounts of human rights abuses at the moment?

 

[Iron]

The 'global role model' thing is just rubbish, why would China pay attention to Australia reducing its carbon output anymore than it pays attention to us not having huge amounts of human rights abuses at the moment?

Because we can choose who we sell our coal and gas to.
Same goes for uranium. We have the power to insist on the way it is used and disposed of.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I always got the impression that he didn't bother to suppress it.

That's what was so awesome about Keating.