Contra Henderson

I typically ignore the Australian Media's coverage of the US election. It's usually 48 hours behind the story (why??) and of poor quality. Gerard Hendersons latest column is no exception.

Just imagine what the sneering left intelligentsia, in the United States and elsewhere, would have said if a Republican vice-presidential candidate had told CBS News that "when the stockmarket crashed [in 1929], Franklin Roosevelt got on television" and informed Americans what had happened.

No doubt scores of left-liberal types would have lined-up to say the Republican Herbert Hoover, and not the Democrat Roosevelt, was in the White House when the Great Depression began, and regular TV broadcasting did not occur in the US until about 1941.

You mean left-liberal like the Daily Show? or the new york times?

Either way, everyone sees it for the slip of the tounge it is, and not indicative of a lack of knowledge, when coming from the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, judiciary committe, and well respected Senator after 26 years in the legislature. But Hendersons probably warming up to show this in context right ?

Yet the Democrat Joe Biden made these howlers in an interview with Katie Couric. She did not correct the vice-presidential candidate. This is the same Couric who grilled Sarah Palin in an interview which aired a few days later. The line of this interrogation turned on the thesis that the Governor of Alaska is not well enough informed to hold the second-highest office in the US.

Without any need to quote, Biden's gaffe is being compared here to an entire interview. Try and just sort out this effort by Palin in the Couric interview for comparison. Similar economic focus.

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy? Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That’s why I say, I like ever American I’m speaking with were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bailout.

But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Helping the — Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americas. A

And trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive scary thing. But 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation.

This bailout is a part of that.

Get that ? The bailout is 'help those who are concerned about healthcare reform', and 'reducing taxes' and 'reigning in spending' and 'trade as an opportunity' and the 'umbrella of job creation'.
Now we've all been there, I see students doing it 5 times a day. The mouth starts talking, the brain hurries behind, throwing out points in a desperate attempt to find either a loop to emphasize their first impulse/point or a circuit breaker to let the pain end, otherwise they simply will trail off in confusion. Hell i do it myself at times. But I'm not running for Vice-President of the USA!

But according to Henderson (or at least he hopes his readers are dumb enough/cant use google to compare) these two things are pretty much equal. With it being damning that the 'liberal intelligencia' is making a fuss about one and not the other.

So on the basis of one candidate having a slip of the tongue, and one being utterly confused, Henderson figures that :

Biden and Palin go head-to-head in their only debate on Friday (Sydney time). Both are able performers so, in scoring parlance, a draw is the likely outcome

Henderson then wanders into attacking some unknown nobodies, depicting satirists as serious commentators:

The feminist Maureen Dowd has depicted Palin as "the glamorous Pioneer Woman, packing a gun, a baby and a Bible"

and trading on gossip:

the NBC News commentator Andrea Mitchell has been reported as maintaining that "only the uneducated would vote for Mrs Palin"

(Got to love that use of the word "reported" for a unsourced claim about a reporter. She didn’t report it, it was simply said by others that she said so, but easy to miss over the morning coffee/or for those who want to miss such nuance)

But lets go on:

Palin has responded as well as possible to this criticism. She pointed to her experience as mayor of Wasilla (population 7000) and, more recently, Governor of Alaska. For an Australian comparison, the position of Alaskan governor would equate with the Tasmania premiership. Tasmania is Australia's smallest state but those who become its premier are invariably politically skilled. The former prime minister Joe Lyons, who was once premier of Tasmania, comes to mind.

Honestly I have no idea what this paragraph is doing in the story. Either Henderson thinks his readers have so little idea about Alaska that they need to be informed its comparable to Tasmania, OR he is comparing Palin to Joe Lyons, who spent 19 years in the tasmanian legislature, 5 of them as both Premier and Treasurer. And he spent 3 in the federal ministery BEFORE he became Prime Minister.
Palin for the record spent 6 years as a tiny city mayor, and is in her second year as governor.

How is that possibly comparable ?

Sadly that’s only page one of his inanity. Lets move as quickly through this as we can eh?

Moreover, Palin responded to the Couric putdown that she has travelled very little outside of the US with a matter-of-fact depiction of her life so far: "I'm not one of those who maybe come from a background, you know, kids who perhaps graduate [from] college and their parents give them a passport and give them a backpack and say go travel the world. No, I've worked all my life. In fact, I usually had two jobs until I had kids."

First, since when was it a putdown to be asked if a person attempting to become one of the most powerful people in the world had ever you know... visted the world ?

And Palin's response is nothing to be proud of, being simple class warfare, and not in anyway an excuse. I met dozens of American kids when in europe who had neither rich parents, nor didn't have to work all their life. They worked and saved so they could visit the rest of the world. It's a sacrafice that only the genuinly curious make, but that has always been very very open to Americans.

Second as Eunomia blogger Daniel Larison points out, there was more to her answer:

Palin: "I was not a part of, I guess, that culture. The way that I have understood the world is through education, through books, through mediums that have provided me a lot of perspective on the world."

Larison: "if she has spent so much time with book-learning about the rest of the world why is it that she doesn’t seem to know anything? It should not necessarily be a problem that she has not traveled abroad, provided that she does know something about international affairs, but she manages to combine a lack of personal experience with a lack of knowledge about other countries."

Palin might not have been able to afford it, but her very real lack of any knowledge about the foreign world, or indeed even American Foreign Policy (what is that Bush Doctrine again ?) indicates she wasn't even curious about it either. And no one, no matter how rich travels overseas if they arn't curious about the world (hello G.W. Bush)

From here though it just gets weird. Henderson smugly highlights Bill Clinton emphasising these things about Palin and her key attributes

Bill Clinton .. said he could only judge Palin from how he believes she is going in his home state of Arkansas "where half the people live in communities of less than 2500 and there are people who are pro-choice and pro-life and more than half the people have a hunting or fishing licence". He added that "they like families that hang together, that deal with adversity, that are proud of all their members".

So its a good thing that she's pro-choice, pro-life, has a family and hunts ?

Wrong- Or at least when it comes from the mouth of a journalist

The anti-Palin ethos prevalent among left-liberals in America can also be found in Australia, at differing levels of intensity. For example, on September 17, the 7.30 Report presenter Kerry O'Brien introduced a report on Palin with a reference to "the pro-gun, pro-life mother of five". For the record, O'Brien does not mention his own family arrangements on either the 7.30 Report website or in his Who's Who In Australia entry. In the subsequent report, Tracy Bowden referred to the Governor of Alaska as "the moose-hunting, evangelical mother of five". Yes, we know.

Mercifully this thing is almost coming to an end (after some attack on the left and suburban Australia. I've no idea the relevance, considering Alaska is as far from suburbia as you can get.)

By the way, I will be watching[the VP debate] and rooting for Palin.

I'm sure we're all shocked.

The sad thing is that Henderson is actually the exact opposite of Palin in terms of their approach to politics

Henderson attended the Jesuit Xavier College in Melbourne. He studied Arts and Law at the University of Melbourne, prior to completing his Ph.D. He taught at Tasmania and La Trobe universities before working for four years on the staff of Kevin Newman in Malcolm Fraser’s Coalition government.

From 1980 to 1983 he was employed in the Commonwealth Department of Industrial Relations and was Chief-of-Staff to John Howard between 1984 and 1986 (during which time Howard was Deputy Leader, and later, Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia). Gerard Henderson was appointed by the Keating government to the board of the Australia Foundation for Culture and the Humanities and by the Howard government to the editorial board of the Documents on Australian Foreign Policy series.

As a commentator Henderson is on the conservative side of politics on issues such as industrial relations, national security and the Iraq War, while holding progressive political views on the Australian republic, asylum seekers, multiculturalism and euthanasia. His columns defended the former Howard government policy on Iraq and national security since the September 11 attacks.

Gerard Henderson is the author of Mr Santamaria and the Bishops (1982), Australian Answers (1990), Gerard Henderson Scribbles On (1993), Menzies' Child: The Liberal Party of Australia (1994, second edition 1998) and A Howard Government? Inside the Coalition (Harper Collins, 1995) - as well as numerous articles and essays

He has a PhD, experience in government, and numerous essays and books to his credit.
He is smart, articulate, and when not writing such culture wars pap, a coherent considered voice for his political ideology.
(Though Palin was a sports newscaster. I guess that makes it about even eh Gerard ?)

Every ideology or political grouping has to accommodate those who's views come from their intellectual engagement with the world, and those whose similar views come from natural, instinctive, gut calls. Keeping these two groups together is hard.

But few sights have been as pathetic as seeing the conservative intelligencia prostrate itself before the 'feel don’t think' wing of their party, denying both the intelligence, education and experience they had for so long regarded as critical before one could earn a public voice and be taken seriously.

The Bailout

In reading the right wing blogs post failure of congress on the bailout bill, this now seems an emerging sentiment:

I see free markets as very much the underdog going forward. But if there is no bailout, then at least markets have a fighting chance. I would want to defeat this particular revolt of the elites, realizing that larger battles probably lie ahead.

You have to admire that some are at least sticking with their principles in the free market, even in a clear case of massive market failure, but one historical quote comes clearly to mind:

'the best friend the profit system ever had'
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930's, speaking about himself.

Roosevelt was from a wealthy patrician family who detested communism and much of socialism with it. But he recognised that, however strong the principles of the free market were, the priority of the government was to maintain a strong, robust American economy and society. Only then could capitalism have a hope of operating anything like the textbooks and theorists suggested it could. Only where there is strong order, and popular support for the continuance of the republic can capitalism properly operate. (See Russia post Cold War, or Iraq esp in 2003-2004 for counter examples of real free market, no regulation capitalism. Only thieves and crooks prosper.)

Many who have drunk the Kool-aid on pure free markets are admirably standing by their principles of the free market, fearing some "larger battle" ahead such as great socialization of industry. But if the risk is even half as big as Paulson and others are suggesting from failing to act, the bailout is likely to be seen as a very, very, light change to the economy in comparison.

FDR saved the capitalist system by first restoring confidence to the economy and state. Maybe Obama (who in many ways reminds me of FDR) will have to do the same.

The Fall and Fall of Tony Abbott

Alternatly I was going to title this post: The perils of boxing as a young man. For only its many blows to the head, affecting his internal sense of balance can explain Tony Abbot's strange claims tonight:

TONY ABBOTT has attacked any taxpayer-funded paid maternity scheme that delivers more help to working mothers than stay-at-home mums.
In response to today's Productivity Commission recommendation of a new taxpayer-funded scheme offering 18 weeks' paid leave to working mums, the Opposition families spokesman told The Australian Online he is concerned that women not in the paid workforce will miss out.

"I have real issues with the government giving women in the paid workforce more than they give mothers in the unpaid workforce,” Mr Abbott said.

"I don't think stay-at-home mothers should be classed as second hand citizens."

The draft maternity leave report recommends 18 weeks of paid leave at the minimum wage for working women - about $11,000 for every child. Women not in the workforce would only secure the equivalent to the baby bonus of about $5000.

It would cost $1.3 billion or a net cost of about $400 million after the baby bonus was abolished and the savings rolled into the new scheme.

Right, because getting $5'000 to do exactly what you were doing previously, is the sign of a "second-class citizen".

Abbott is someone i've always peversely liked, much to the annoyance of my more left wing friends. I may disagree with just about everything he says, but he is someone who holds clear, passionate views about improving the country. He rarely uses his faith as an argument for his positions (the RU-486 was a notable slip up). And he is involved in many organisations servicng their causes, from the volunteer firemen through to local charities. He's smart, articulate, and ambitious.

But he has a political tin ear. That he has risen so highly is slightly amazing until you see the mentors behind his rise, first Hewson as an advisor, then later Howard who pushed him all the way into the Cabinet. Indeed you have to wager Howard was seeking to groom Abbott to take over instead of Costello, but a combination of Costello's supporters, Howards own love of the job, and Abbotts faltering political skills (only barely helping electorally despite the billions thrown into the 2004 'medicare plus' policy, the Ru-486 debacle, and numerous other slip ups. By the time he was insulting Roxon on mike for the 2007 election, everyone knew his fall from grace was complete.) Time after time, he has either failed to take advantage of issues, or made himself out to be the bad guy in a situtation, even if many in the community would agree with his position.

In 2003, Michael Duffy wrote one of the best books on Mark Latham. In perhaps his wisest move he made it a duel book about Latham, and Abbott.


Unless Tony's out rallying forces now against Turbull, it's likely Abbott will never be PM. And thats probably in the countries best interest, but for someone with so much obvious talent and genuine public service, it's intriguing to see so much of the damage to their career being entirely self-inflicted. Tonight's effort, which even The Australian(!) is slamming him for, is just one more highlight on his fall.

State Building 101

This is a worrying sign:

Politically and strategically, the most important level of governance in Afghanistan is neither national nor regional nor provincial. Afghan identity is rooted in the woleswali: the districts within each province that are typically home to a single clan or tribe. Historically, unrest has always bubbled up from this stratum—whether against Alexander, the Victorian British, or the Soviet Union. Yet the woleswali are last, not first, in U.S. military and political strategy.

If the authors wanted an even closer comparison, they could have been to the place where US forces are also currently stationed: Iraq.
[The 'wisdom' below is drawn in large part from my 2007 honours thesis: Freedom's Call, the United states in Iraq. Sources for evidence cited available]

Iraq too is a country where the national government has rarely been the most critical (Saddam was the first to really be seen as an Iraqi, usually it has been foreigners seeking to conquer the land between the two rivers). Iraq may correctly have been seen by the Neo-Cons as one of the more modern, cosmopolitan societies in the region, but still well over 80% of Iraqi's identify with a tribe, including those in the very inner city of Baghdad and Mosul.

The USA completely missed this during their first few years in Iraq, diagnosing the state as having been too large and too invasive (Which seems obvious when looking at a totalitarian society, yet it was one which ran on fear and local level thugs, with little apparatus or functioning core left behind when Saddam and the fear was driven away). As such when US troops came in, and US state builders failed to provide the essential services people turned to their tribal links (or were controlled by criminal ones), all of which created a functioning basis for the insurgency from those angry at the changes, and denied legitimacy to the new top heavy focus on state building coming from the US's taskmasters.

It was only with the change in 2006 away from Rumsfeld's 'small footprint' strategy that the US really began engaging the tribes, in a serious and long term fashion. Through good work and good luck, by early 2007 many Iraqi tribes had turned against Al Qaeda and the insurgency, denying it resources and protection. It was this, far more than the 20'000 odd extra troops (who mainly operated in baghdad) that has helped stabilise the country, though we are yet to see if the national government can regain the legitimacy once denied.

That this history is still being ignored in Afghanistan, which is much much much more diverse, broken up ethnically, linguistically and culturally, and yet still it seems the insistence by US state builders is to try and mirror the current conditions of the US, and focus on build a big secular central state govt, ignoring alternate forms of organisation such as the tribe to their peril.

Personally, I'm not even sure Afghanistan is governable. The idea that the large formal post-westphalian nation state can occupy the 25% of the world covered by land is simply wrong. But something will always end up governing those areas, and with countries like Afghanistan we may be able to see in a system of tribal and regional organisation that provides no solace to terrorist groups (and opium growers ideally if alternate industries can emerge), whilst never seeing one group rise largest above the others to take over ala the Taliban (who required the support of the ISI in Pakistan to do so).

Maybe long term in the future Afghanistan will emerge as a functioning, modern state. Until then the basics of state building 101 is to work with what you have. To ensure the basic supply of services and provision of order. Without this it doesnt matter what labels you apply to yourselves (democracy!) or your opponents (totalitarian!) the people will always support those who ensure services and order. Hell even within the article a unnamed "US official" notes the Taliban are doing exactly that - But are we listening ?

(As one U.S. officer recently noted, they’re “taking a page from the Hezbollah organizations in Lebanon, with their own public works to assist the tribes in villages that are deep in the inaccessible regions of the country. This helps support their cause with the population, making it hard to turn the population in support of the Afghan government and the coalition.”)

The US failed this in Iraq (its gotten better with the order part), let us hope they learn before too long to not do the same in Afghanistan)

First US Presidential debate Reaction

Well since everyone is doing it, and the internet is nothing if not a soapbox for loudmouths to impress their opinion on others (sorry i mean the rational democratic exchange of views and ideas as per a universal civil society..)

Final Result: Tie

Which means a minor victory for the Obama Camp. Neither candidate impressed much. McCain looked tense and slightly arrogant in his response to Obama (such as not looking at him all night), but sometimes was also very genuine. His closing arguments, which off the cuff dealt with the issue if veteran support with the words "they know I love them and will take care of them" was a off-message but great closer. The embracing elder president looking after his flock.

Obama looked strong and much better than his past debates, but again seemed to want to talk to much and didn't land some of the hard blows he could have. A key of good rhetoric is to put your best lines either at the start to gain attention, or at the end to linger in the audiences mind. Ideally, you do both. Obama seemed to put them somewhere in the middle, before he lead off on another tangent that however important, ended up distracting from his arguments. Obama has much to say, which is a necessary quantity of a genuine thinker (and he is), but less so in a great communicator, where every excess word costs dearly). Yet in the end, rhetoric aside Obama gains simply for being on stage, and holding his own. He looked calm, collected and Presidential. No one who liked him before tonight will doubt him, and plenty will have reason to calm their concerns.

Both Candidates did well in their respective strengths, Economy for Obama, Foreign Policy for McCain. Neither would have changed many opinions from tonights effort, although as McCain seemed to intimately feel, the simple fact of having Obama in the same room, on the same stage and talking back and forth helps raise the junior sentor to his level. And he was not happy about it. I doubt it will matter, but whilst we always need to distinguish ourselves from our opponents, I've always thought it a true weakness in a politician that they resent their opponents mere existence or disagreement. Bush's critics do it, so do Kevin Rudd's. If nothing else it shows you have got under their skin and from there it is very hard to show real strength and capability over them.
Better to be civil and then casually dismissive when you're ahead, rather than angry, petulant and selfish if ever lucky enough to get the upper hand.

So nothing major has changed for all that. But Obama, whilst he will certainly want to and have to improve will be pretty happy with his efforts tonight. McCain didn't get the game changer he wanted, and time is running out. (Thats two big opportunities this week missed for McCain, his "suspension" of the campaign seems to have been ignored by Americans, and the Debate left most people seeing them as equals.)

Bring on Thursday's VP debate (Screened 11am Friday morning in Australia on ABC1). Joe Biden - who has been comfortably doing debate response on the US cable shows after the debate- is sure to steamroll over Palin -who is no where to be seen tonight- That should tell you all you need to know.

p.s If you havn't seen it, check out Malcolm Turnbull's effort on Q&A via the ABC's iView site. Impressive, though still slightly fake. He chose the political distortion over the honest engagement a few times, but thats what politican's think is expected of them. This far out, for a minor ABC show its not, and the people see it as fake.

But otherwise quite impressive. I'm looking for him to give me a reason to vote Liberal, (though I have little doubt Rudd will win a second term)

The problem with Presidential systems

Try and watch this all the way through. I dare you.





The American Founding Fathers were rightly skeptical of the Westminster system which sought to combine the executive and legislature. In the Federalist Papers # 47, the writers approvingly quote Montesquieu "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates".

However, they did so on the belief that future times would mirror if not be better than their own in ensuring public and professional scrutiny of those who would seek higher office. The last is perhaps the most critical, even in 1776 when travel took days not hours, when written communication could take weeks not seconds, the US founding fathers still assumed that candidates for national office would be first vetted and tested against their peers in open debate and argument, before turning to the people for endorsement.

While the propensity for corruption or intimidation of the legislature is clearly still apparent within the Westminster system, becoming or running for the highest office requires the endorsement of a politicians political peers. And that only occurs after years and years of being faced with and responding to tough questions, asked on the spot, with no mercy expected or demanded.

Occasionally mistakes are made, and increasingly Australian politics seems to be sliding towards the desire for 'exciting new celebrity' candidates who's newness seems capable of delivering public endorsement, and occasionally mistakes of judgement are made (Mark Latham's choice comes to mind), but even there, they still have to wade into the bear pit of Question time, and are expected to handle doorstop interviews on any subject, and do so several times a week if not per day.

In this way, candidates prove first that they can not only have thought about an issue, but also can articulate that thought to the public before they get anywhere near the leaders office. This was the basic competence that the US founding fathers expected all candidates for the Executive to have, hence their concern more with how these offices interacted, than establishing a way to vet those who would seek them.

Sarah Palin proves that system is broken. And whilst the fail-safe of the public is still in place (and looking increasingly like it will reject Palin as unprepared) there is still a dangerous chance that such an incapable candidate could take the office of Vice President of the United States of America come January 20 2009.

This isn't about simple eloqution. I'm a uni lecturer and yet sometimes make George W Bush sound articulate. I make mistakes with words, forget words and even get things backwards. But I can still think about an issue and communicate that thought in response to any question i could sensibly be asked. Even my students, scarred 18yr olds who are in their first semester if not class in politics in their life would do a better job of sensibly responding to the questions asked by Couric in the interview.

Nor is this about ideology, I couldn't make this argument against any of the handful of rumored choices McCain had on hand like Pawlenty, Liberman, even Romney. Hell even George Bush somewhat passes this test.

Yet despite all this McCain chose Palin, and in doing so proved the essential weakness of the US Presidential System as it stands today. Are their ways to fix this ? Perhaps, but in future all scholars and philosophers of democratic political systems will have to recognise the fundamental inability of Presidential systems to ensure a basic competence or quality for the candidates for Highest office. Such a notion may sound undemocratic, but the US founding fathers were not democrats, they were building a republic and the quality of governance was very important to them.

One final thought, Palins selection has re-affirmed by clear preference for the Australian system. Why ? - Simple, Because someone like Sarah Palin could never become PM or even a junior minister.

We might not have the inspiring candidates ala Kennedy, Reagan or Obama, but we at least get competent ones(Howard however much you may disagree with him was always highly competent). Thats good enough for me.

The cellphone Effect

Technology is having an increasingly important effect on the way we conduct and consider politics. Even your grandma has perhaps come to be accustomed to recognise the effect of blogs as purveyors of radical opinions and occasionally doing the work that used to be left for journalists.

But theres something more influential that i've been interested in: As more and more of us come to use mobile phones as our main way of communication (Honestly I dont even know my home phone-line number), are pollsters making accommodations for this change? Nate Silver of the excellent fivethirtyeight.com has some details:

The difference is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Perhaps not coincidentally, Gallup, Pew and ABC/WaPo have each found a cellphone effect of between 1-3 points[For Obama] when they have conducted experiments involving polling with and without a cellphone supplement.

A difference of 2-3 points may not be a big deal in certain survey applications such as market research, but in polling a tight presidential race it makes a big difference. If I re-run today's numbers but add 2.2 points to Obama's margin in each non-cellphone poll, his win percentage shoots up from 71.5 percent to 78.5 percent, and he goes from 303.1 electoral votes to 318.5

I'm yet to find information of Australian pollsters recognising this effect, but as the technology becomes more ubiquitous in both this country and the USA, are our pollsters still correctly recognising the opinion of the general public, or only those select few who still hold to, and take the time for, a general poll by an anonymous voice on the other end of the line.

Pollsters, what say you ?

Update: Pew Research reports has been doing a bit of work on this very question and has some interesting, though predictable findings:

a virtually identical pattern is seen across all three surveys: In each case, including cell phone interviews resulted in slightly more support for Obama and slightly less for McCain, a consistent difference of two-to-three points in the margin.

In a further update: Re McCain's suspending the campaign because of the financial crisis while this is the information we all want:

A majority of Americans say the debate should be held. Just 10% say the debate should be postponed. A sizable percentage of Americans, 36%, think the focus of the debate should be modified to focus more on the economy. 3 of 4 Americans say the presidential campaign should continue. Just 14% say the presidential campaign should be suspended. If Friday’s debate does not take place 46% of Americans say that would be bad for America.

Yet, as Mark Blumenthal points out:

we ought to stop and ask ourselves: Does it make any sense to try to interview 1,000 Americans over a two-hour span in the middle of a work day?

Sadly no. Expect views to slide back towards partisan lines, as Republicans come to identify with McCain's suspension 'in the national interest' claims, and democrats harden against such a change.

My guess is Independents will view it in the same light they do the McCain campaign. If the myth of the Maverick is still strong they will see it as a bold action in a time of crisis and reward it (though not necessarily confer economic credibility to his campaign). If they have already been turned off, it will just look a stunt, and weak esp with the demand to postpone the debates.

McCain has already thrown one hail mary pass this election: Choosing Palin, and whilst it helped level the game, it hasnt put them in front, and cost a few injuries to the side (like the experience attack). Trying again is pushing his luck, but this is McCain at his rawest. The gambler.

Expect a few more such risks before the campaign ends. And god help us if he wins.

Civic Duty

Andrew Sullivan has a good post up responding to the idea of Joe Bidens that its patriotic for the rich to to pay more taxes at this time:

what Obama and Biden are saying is that we are in an emergency and the collapse of middle-class security may make a pragmatic violation of such a principle defensible. I have to say I'm open to that idea - as a pragmatic move. No conservative should be indifferent to the collapse of the middle class. No stable constitutional democracy survives without one.

Whilst Sullivan argues such pragmatism is the mark of Conservatism, I think theres also a stronger argument here that Ramesh Ponnuru misses

You could just as well say "good people should support tax increases." You would merely be dumbing down the debate in a way liberals usually find objectionable.

Biden says its patriotic, perhaps its more accurate to say its a sign of Citizenship. We tend to see Democracy as a way of giving the people the government they want. But its much more than that : It invites the people into the process, management and invests responsibility in them for good governance. Whilst Osama Bin Laden is surely wrong to claim this involvement justifies targeting civilians of democracies (See Bobbitt, P - Terror and Consent 2008,p81), the responsibility to see that their government faces the problems it must (the media is critical here), puts the right people in charge to face them (hence the importance of voting), and gives it the resources and tools to fight (a burden that must fall progressively according to citizens ability to sustain costs without damaging their own lifestyle)

Biden correctly recognises that in this war, like all before it, we can not simply leave it up to the military and spies to win. It also needs concerted civic duty. To sign up to fight, to volunteer to help, and to pay for those who are in the fight.

With their desire to shrink and smash government, and descent into childish ideas of how the market works, many conservatives have lost the ability to rationally consider the idea of changing tax rates in anything but a downward direction. Whilst ideally taxes are always kept at their absolute minimum (for their impact on action and the economy is very real), it is not only pragmatic to realise the need to change them at times, but also a basic duty of the citizen body to keep their government funded to protect and fight for them.

When you have to speak but have no words

I had thought that this was the dumbest political comment I would read today. From the Opposition Leader:

"To say that Australia is light years away from the economic crisis in the United States suggests that, you know, we're, well light years suggests millions of miles away," the Liberal leader told ABC Radio.

You cant fault him for his command of the details. But our Prime Minister saw the opportunity to strike:

Mr Rudd rebuked Mr Turnbull for his comments, saying that when there is significant stress on financial institutions, it is important that political leaders speak responsibly.

"I therefore would strongly suggest to Mr Turnbull that in making comments about the considered position taken by the governor of the Reserve bank, our position relative to those of other countries, that he should think twice before making comments which separate him in any way from what the governor is saying," the Prime Minister said.

And what was the Opposition Leaders henious crime which "seperates him... from what the governor is saying":

Mr Turnbull - "I would say our economy ... is stronger, it is more resilient, our lending practices have been more prudent, our banks are profitable and better capitalised than those in other markets, in particular than in the United States."

A fine effort by our two chumps in charge. One showing his time well spent as a kid at space camp, the other criticisng him for being both positive and correct. This one goes on points to Turnbull, though Rudd is probably chuffed at his effort.

Turnbulls backers.

I've been on the look out to see who changed in the election to support Turnbull, given the public disagreement by powerful conservative faction chiefs Nick Minchin and Peter Costello

This isn't promising news:

Those conservative NSW MPs who switched their votes from Brendan Nelson on Tuesday cited the extraordinary "cut-through" of the US election's new wild-card entry Sarah Palin as their inspiration to throw the dice with Turnbull....NSW conservatives, who include Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and the north-west Sydney MP Alex Hawke, were persuaded on Monday night by the charismatic Turnbull, 53, that he was their best chance to win the 2010 election

So the conservative wing of the Liberals (is there any other?) is against turnbull, whilst the nutty far right wing is now for him ? Not exactly promising.

But whilst I'm sure this storyline has been inflated by the columnists desire to play up Palin (See her last effort here), it is evidence of pretty abysmal political thinking. New people always grab the public attention and usually after 1-2 stage managed presentations manage to see their public approval ratings rise to heights most leaders would literally sacrifice staff on the alter of the polls for.

But it always comes down, Mark Latham had 64% approval when he began talking about early childhood reading. It almost halved by election day when people realised he had little else and wasn't all that capable anyway.

Palin likewise is already in her own slide into invisability

In a September 4 Rasmussen poll, Palin’s favorability was 1 point higher than McCain’s or Obama’s. Nine days later, according to a Sept. 13 poll by Daily Kos, it is slightly lower than theirs (49% vs. 55%; however, given the margin of error, it isn’t conclusively lower).

Now whilst Palin is 6 weeks from the election and could still limp over the line with the help of a Teleprompter and an almost complete refusal to talk to the press, that wont work in Australia.
For a start the next election is at least 2 years away, and secondly and most importantly, Turnbull has to wade into the bear pit of our parliament day after day, to respond to the government, and then walk outside and fight off the press.

He will only keep those brand new polls numbers long term if he is a very capable, and forthright leader. Which he could be, though early indications of his political skills (from the failure of the republican campaign, to his inability to prevent the environment being anything other than a mega-strong issue for Labor) suggest he still has some learning to do.

And if his backers picked him instead because they too wanted that short relief of the bubble of newness, 2 years out from an election, then clearly they will not be the ones to know how to guide him to victory.

There were 43 others who voted for Turnbull in that party room. Lets hope he makes it a point to consult with them instead, and not those seduced by the same logic that drove the last desperate roll of the dice by the McCain campaign to pick Sarah Palin.

And they elected this guy?

There's a particular legendry back bencher in the Australian House of Reps Wilson 'Iron Bar' Tuckey. He got the name from apparently a length of said metal to a chump in the bar he used to run.

Looks like he now has some competition:

John Williams, a former truck driver, shearer, farmer and small business owner who only took his place in the Senate on July 1, said he had seen many people living on employment benefits who were "determined not to work".

"They are simply getting a free ride on behalf of tax payers of Australia and it is about time they received a touch on the backside with a cattle prodder to get them off their butts and actually do some work," he said.

The 53-year-old, a member of the rural-based National Party, said those who were capable of working should not receive a dole cheque unless they made some contribution to society.

Still, being a nutter seems to work for the other National Senators Barney Joyce and Ron Boswell. Guess that leaves Fiona Nash as somewhat sane, though her membership in the Australian Senate and the National Party seems to challenge that long term. Could be worse, she could be a green...

Turnbull to the helm

I think we all knew this day would come. After 4 years in parliament, Malcom Tunbull is now leader of the Liberal Party.

Whilst this mercifully euthanises the aspirations of Dr Nelson, (and seeming career, he too is going to the back bench), the big story is what policy direction Turnbull will seek to impose on the party.

Though popular wisdom is that he needs to heal a divided party (he won 45-41), he did so over the clear public objections of the conservative power brokers Costello and Minchin(and one presumes Abbott). Turnbull needs to exploit this victory as quickly as possible to establish his own stamp on the party. Until he has Rudd on the ground and bloodied, Turnbull will never be as strong as he is now. There's no way he will be challenged for months, and the party selected him because they want to win, and public carping would be the sure fire way to undermine their own rationale. Finally Turnbull can present himself as leading the first real post-Howard Liberal party, and thereby sideline those who complain as stuck in the past.

Nelson, Costello, Minchin, Abbott and the conservatives still wear the failure and stigma of the Howard government. Turnbull and only Turnbull can change that image of the liberals, and the quicker he moves to do so rhetorically the better for his partys chances at the next election.

Turnbull now has the chance to build a real liberal party. In economics and socially(At least ending the stigma on homosexuality and immigration if not radically shifting policies). There's great forces against it, but he seemed to grasp immediately in his party room address talking about the value of freedom and describing the liberals as a "party of opportunity in a land of opportunity".

Australia is still a pretty conservative country, but with the forces of globalisation and the breakdown of the Howard battler coalition, we're likely to see our two parties slide into more clear 'liberal' v 'conservative' grounds. One seeking open economics, tolerant social, and embracing change, the other seeking protection from economic and social winds, especially those from overseas.

We cant say for sure that the Liberals will actually take this path, being still tied to the agrarian socialists economically, and the christian right socially. But the election of Turnbull sure gives them a chance to take that option, and push Labor with its unions, shallow support for Free Trade, and Rudds Christian conservatism to be the party of closed borders and minds.

I think its time to turn back on question time, its sure to get interesting from now on.

Politics as an art, Politics as a science

As the iconic Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies noted, Politics is an art and a science. Not only is it the most influential and powerful field of human affairs, but it has to both directly change and affect reality based on hard facts and science, whilst pleasing the human need for narrative and community.

Since the turn of the 20th century, we've become well aquainted with the critique of seeing politics as a science. The liberal idealists before WW1, fooled by their increasing mastery of nature, attempted to apply the certainty of our knowledge of hard science, to the social science of Politics. The 37 million casualties of WW1 are the graves of the failure of seeing Politics as a problem of science to be analysed, tested and solved. Indeed the entire field of Realism who's writers like E.H.Carr and Hans Morgenthau, made taking down the idea the basis of their writings and career.


But how many graves are we willing to count before we see a revolt against the idea of politics as an art?

That thought has been running through my mind recently, as I watch the statements and actions of Sarah Palin, the US Vice Presidential Nominee for the Republicans who at this moment, is making me long for a third term for G.W.Bush instead of the risk of McCain administration. Take this recent response from Palin, in her very first press interview (only 13 days after actually becoming the nominee) about her decision to join the national ticket:

PALIN:...on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I'm ready.

GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?

PALIN: I -- I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink.

So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

The single most important decision in your life, and one perhaps critical to the future of the country, and she wants to appeal to us by showing she didnt even think about it. Let me repeat, this is not her first reaction, her exposed response, but the considered, media analyst spun prepared answer: and she chose to play up the fact she didn't have to think about the decision.

It's easy to make too much of a single response (who ever wants to say they had second thoughts when called to duy-a word i had expected Palin to drop in-) but its precisely the belief amongst the public that highly attuned individuals who've risen through the political establishment can intiatively feel the needs and wants of the political opinion, that is once again threatening to lead us astray.

In an earlier post I praised the Palin pick politically, but it feels time to put the positive in context. Leaders thinking they know the true whims of the public, the true nature of the societies they lead, from the ways of the market, to the affect of a new policy on the behaviour of the citizens, have usually been regularly disabused of this notion by way of sudden, screeching electoral defeats, painfully handed out by a pissed off public, aware their pocket change is shrinking, their neighbourhoods less secure, and their countries international reputation in decline.

Yet in America today, one struggles to see this usual democratic act in practice. I hasten to add here, that i dont for a moment believe that US citizens have to elect Barack Obama or forfit their title as aware and responsible democratic citizens. There are still many legitimate concerns many rightfully hold that ought to be discussed at length and debated before he is granted the supreme privledge of leading his country.

But this is not the debate America is having. Instead, in celebrating its hail mary pick of Sarah Palin, the McCain camp is now actively pursuing the argument that all that it takes to be a great, or even acceptable President of the United States of America is to have a rural born upbringing, spend most of your life outside Washington, visit church occasionally, and if you could breed a little bit too that would be swell. This apparently is the perfect education for a would be President.

This would all be a swell social experiment, were not the stakes so high (Two land wars in the Middle East/Central Asia, a flatlining economy, a resurgent Russia, India, China, Climte change, a rise in Anti-Americanism,the effective expiration of the post ww2 institutional structure-UN, etc etc) and had we not already tried this 8 years ago with the election of a certain George. W. Bush


As every record out of the Administration, friend of foe has painted, Bush is not a bad or evil man. Simply an uncurious one. A man who has a few key themes (to call them ideas is to give them too much complexity and weight) and feels this is enough to bring order and peace to a confused and chaotic world. We tried that and it failed. To prove my last claim however you need look no further than the Bush Administration, who leads a nation that is technically as unparallelled in power as the one they first took ownership of in 2000, yet the tone and nature of their policy has radically shifted. From claiming the end of history in 2002, to recongising the realities of great power politics in 2006, the Bush Administration has experienced and learnt from its own crash course in trying to see all Politics as an art, and finding the science is unwavering.

The Sarah Palin's of the world, however good intentioned and motivated however have not and will not learn this lesson. Not whilst we let them get away with, indeed actively encourage the public to praise their blind ignorance and unawareness of the facts, details and history.

The 20th centuries writings on International Relations began by taking central aim at the claim Politics could be reduced by a science. Perhaps its time for the 21st century to usher in its own path by returning to critique the other idea, Politics as an art. And to hell any who uses the label elitist, better aware and right than pure and dead I say.

G.W.Bush aimed to remake the youth in a conservative image. He may well end up succeedinging in this aim, if the unparalleled naievity and idealism of his party forces future generations to adopt cynical conservatism/realism simply as a means of survival.

9/11 - 7 years on

The first i heard of 9/11, was a late night headline on the Sydney Morning Herald's site. Plane flies into tower. My first thought was "Thats a bad pilot". Back then, something so out of the normal was instantly explained away by error, mistake or bad luck.

Today, we see a fire in a mall, even a abandoned suitcase in a train station and wonder 'terrorists ?'.

The war is still ongoing. It wont end with the death of Osama Bin Laden, nor with the election of a new US president or a stabilization & US peaceful withdrawal in Iraq. (though all three would help).

It will end when the people in the back streets of Karachi, in Jakarta, Dubai and Paris refuse to give aid and support to those who would use the openness and technology of the west against its own citizens. It will end when they find no support, or cover, when popular opinion rails to expose those who would use violence against innocent civilians, whilst also holding their own leaders accountable and honest.

It will end when we stop pretending this is a mere crime, or a once off, or equally that it is something that can be bombed away, with victory counted in body bags.

It will end in our favour, but those who died on that terrible day 7 years ago, were not the first, and not the last casualties of this war, but they too like all others must be remembered.

Additional Evidence

Two apologies: I had meant to post on International options in response to the below post on the damage America's role as world policeman was doing to its own political structure and society. But that's had to be delayed for a day or two with Uni marking taking up my time.

Secondly I know its bad form, particularly with essay style posts like mine to add in bits later, but here's the latest from The Atlantic's election reporter Marc Ambinder

Is the election still about change? A whopping 65% of registered voters see the Obama-Biden ticket as the force of change, compared to just 47% who associate the word with McCain-Palin.

Conservatives see McCain as one of their own: 72% of voters think that John McCain will either adhere to the conservative policy level associated with President Bush or go to the right of it, which is up a bit from the previous poll.

Obama still not prepared: 42% say he's prepared to be president, versus 76% for McCain. And 55% think it very likely that McCain would be an "effective" commander in chief, up nine points from the previous poll.

Ie: The 'experience' narrative still applies to McCain individually, but as it doesn't apply to his running mate Palin (who scores a similar 42% as ready/prepared to be president), they have had to drop an attack that previously gave them clear advantage.

As such, they are now fighting to be 'agents of change' with the term filling almost every republican press release and talking point. Yet voters are quite clear who are the real agents of change, and as Palin newness fades, and she moves into the background behind McCain, Obama's theme all along of attacking McCain for being 'McSame' and adhering to the Bush Administrations approach on all major issues, will continue to widen the gap on those numbers.

On my Desk:
Speaking of which two books have come out, that are also occupying my time, the first of which is likely to have a direct (and likely negative) impact on McCain's effort to win the presidency:

The War Within by Bob Woodward - Sure to dominate news cycles over the next few days as the final ultimate insider book on the Bush Administration in Woodward's 4 part series (the others Bush at War, Plan of Attack and State of Denial make up the best first draft history of the Administration thus far and likely for many years to come).

I've only just got into it, so no great insights yet, but it will bring G.W.Bush back into the news cycle, admitting failures in Iraq, which cant be good news for McCain.


Terror and Consent by Phillip Bobbitt - Bobbitt, author of the acclaimed 'The Shield of Achilles' returns to his unique but successful effort to merge law and military strategy arguing that the constitutional structure of a state directly shapes the nature of the threats that rise up against it. Thus as we enter the era of 'Market States' (one which seeks to expand opportunities for its citizens, unlike the 20th century Nation States which wanted to provide for their welfare) we are coming against 21st century terrorist groups who are similarly globalised, decentralised and who actively target civilians and global infrastructure, not military or state assets.

Bobbitt is a political philosopher as much as historian, analyst and commentator, with a very erudite knowledge and charm for interesting facts (the word filibuster -now a parliamentary term for attempting to deny a bills passage - comes from a French name for the infamous Caribbean pirates, and the word mate, a term as aussie as beer, may have come from the word matelotage which was the term for the pirates male civil unions/marriages). I wonder if the former conservative Australian PM, John Howard would welcome the fact his favourite word (one he wanted inserted into our constitutional preamble) had a less than illustrious beginning)

Bobbitt's is a big book, but thus far strikes me as easily the best post-9/11 analysis of terrorism and our likely options for responding to it out there.

The Palin Pick

I'll post about Australian politics some time (major changes in WA & NSW which I'm still digesting), but for the next 58 days, its the US election show.


In some ways, I'm starting to be impressed by the pick of Sarah Palin as an electoral exercise. (In terms of governing its an abuse of the institution and gross insult to the system established by the US founding father). But as a political act, its shows a clear understanding of how a representative democracy works.

The age old debate within this form of democracy is do you want representatives who are experts, highly skilled and hopefully more aware and sensible in their analysis and response to the problems of society(with the potential to fall into elitism or authoritarianism); or do you want representatives who are more faithful to the democratic creed, who vote according to the wants of the people, maintain touch with what the people hold as important and will ensure the community reflects the true nature of the people (with the chance to fall into incompetence and shallow mob rule).

Appealing to this latter interest is how how G.W.Bush won in 2000, he was more the person people felt they could share a beer with than Gore, and so had enough appeal to fall across the line. Palin likewise (who i had wrongly thought was picked to pick up Clinton voting women, but instead is aimed at Christian conservative men as much as their likewise fundamentalist wives) is someone who claims to be able to lead because she understands the people, has lived their experience and their life.

America, with its obsession over its own identity, and grudging acceptance of government has always come down on the latter side of the equation. Smarts and experience (implicitly expertise) remain popular in recent years, but generally that person has to first and foremost represent the people. The real riddle, is why the USA has run so far towards this populist interpretation of democratic rule?

Whilst we can point to the rise of the evangelical movement, the demon-ization of government and elites, and the failure of government to deal with the problems internal to America, I think the answer lies instead in its Foreign Policy. Since its outward turn, cemented with entering WW2 under FDR, the USA has had massive commitments overseas, massive spending, massive social disruption and heart ache as once more its sons, daughters, husbands, wives and friends are sent overseas to defend people who neither look, sound or act like Americans do. And instead of a grateful world, international opinion has demonstrated the cynicism, exploitation and moral failures that have affected and sometimes driven US policy abroad. The most common response to the invasion of Iraq and its claimed promotion of democracy was not to simply disagree with US policy, but instead to question why it wasn't doing the same in other places, or why it hadn't done so in the past?

And so it seems a siege mentality has been built up in the USA, each act of foreign assistance is rejected, yet the cost and impact from New York to Texas is the same, if not building and affecting more and more families. Why in such a dangerous and complex world would you then want to pick someone like Sarah Palin ? Simple - she understands the burden and concern. The smart guys in the room all know that the US can't turn back to isolationism, cant give up its involvement in world affairs and sacrificing some of its youth and treasure for peace and prosperity in the world. Its path is clear. And whilst Sarah Palin, like G.W.Bush before her (if elected) will continue the exact same path as the smart guys (perhaps less competently) she at least will do so with a heavier heart and more understanding.

That's why she is appealing, if Americans at home are going to keep suffering for their foreign policy, they want someone in the white house to suffer along with them. Palin like Bush probably will end up failing that test, government is always too remote, and success breeds resilience far more than another's compassion when you are feeling run down, but as an indulgence here and now, it simply feels good to choose her.

(Of course because she is such an awful governing choice, -should she ever take power- the burden on these same Americans who chose her will only get heavier and harder to bear.)

Opponents of America acting as the worlds policeman have long been worried this approach would end up killing or enslaving the rest of the world. They're wrong, the real victim is America itself. It's killing itself and the Sarah Palin's are the indulgent, but ultimately unhelpful balms to its wounds.

In my next post: Can the world do anything over the next 20 years to fix this problem. Thoughts and suggestions from an Australian perspective.

Fooling the public

After my last post one commentator asked:

"Can you trust the American public to see through this charade?"

Which begs a further explanation of my earlier point: I think the public always knows who is the original and who is the imitator. You can turn an opponents line back on them, if done right its a very successful way to blunt your opponents language,ie former Australian Prime Minister John Howard in 2004 changed questions of honesty, into "who do you trust on the economy/security/interest rates" etc.

But simply claiming a term as your own is transparent, makes you look a follower not a leader, and is almost always bound to fail, because these terms like 'new leadership' 'change we can begin in' 'country first' are not randomly thought up, but created with the specific candidate & their history in mind. It sticks only if it fits a genuine truth about the candidate that the public can identify with.

As such, when John Howard began saying we needed a 'different sort of education revolution' and then blathered about the need for teaching basic maths and English, no one would accept the term applied to his tired, old government.

Worse still for our would be copiers, every mention you make of it simply re-enforces your opponents issue, in this case that "change", is needed. So instead of competing across issues, you end up agreeing that your opponent is right, and now are trying to overcome the link between your opponent and this issue, whilst also trying to forge your own version of it. McCain and Palin's claims to:

vanquish the "constant partisan rancor" plaguing the nation as he [John McCain] launched his fall campaign for the White House. "Change is coming" to Washington, he promised the Republican National Convention.

simply makes Obama's point for him
(And is anyone really that dumb to forget that Bush is a Republican and that the Republicans have controlled congress for 6 of the last 8 years? Please..)


(I have much to say about establishing political ownership of some issues, and if you should fight on your opponents issues or try and change the topic to your own, but that's for another post)

But this is not just abstract theory, we can confidently say that the public will see through it because they already have once before. Over 5 long, news hyped months the Democratic primary saw Obama as the agent of change, vs Hillary Clinton as the woman of experience. Whose campaign then faltered and began using terms like change too:

NY Times Bill Clinton just finished the first of seven campaign events in Iowa today and tomorrow for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and he’s using a phrase that voters are probably going to hear a lot this week: “Change agent.” As in, Mrs. Clinton is a change agent. Even during the years when she did not hold public office, but was rather a lawyer, first lady of Arkansas and then first lady of the United States, she was an agent for change, Mr. Clinton said several times to his audience at Iowa State University here.

Clinton tried to steal the change label of Obama several times, (as did Edwards) and it failed. And no one in their right mind thinks that a man of McCain's 21 years in the Senate, and aged 72 is more identifiable as a person of change, than the first serious female candidate for president & a well known liberal Clinton.

And finally, the public are seeing through it: Or at least Palin isn't thus far changing the pattern:

Fired up and Ready to lose

The pick of Sarah Palin has been analysed from a thousand perspectives by the blogosphere and media, from choosing a woman, to choosing a social conservative, to choosing someone he only recently met.

But what hasn't been pointed out, is that in choosing Palin, and directing her to be an agent of change, McCain is endorsing Obama's claim that this elections key point is about change. Indeed almost all the republicans are doing the same thing, railing against the rise in big government, debt and irrational policy, without ever noting that they were in charge when all this occured!.

Whilst it gives McCain a few wins of the daily news cycle, it ends up presenting the public with an obvious choice: The real deal, or the new immitators.

The 2008 election has always been a referendum on Obama, he's too intriguing, polarising and celebratory a figure to simply be a participant. And for a while McCain seemed to realise this, seeking to tear down Obama, as a way to try falling over the line himself.

But Palin and the rhetoric her choice has introduced to the Republican campaign, abandons this to argue that they instead are the ones who can bring change. The public may not have access to the latest factcheck.org posts, or care for the ins and outs of troopergate, babygate & porkgate, but they can always tell you who was the first to advocate an approach, and those on the other ballot who merely parrot the language in the hope of winning. Its almost as expected in losing campaigns as the 'anonomous source' recriminations, first they fight yout, then they adopt your language, then they lose.

In a bid to please the base, (did he have any other choice) in a bid to shape up the election, in a bid to give some energy back to his campaign, McCain just ended up accepting Obama's entire argument about what this election is about: Change.

He can still win*, but not like this.


* I currently rate Obama at an 80% chance of victory. I'm not ready to call it yet, but its slipping out of McCains grasp.

Welcome to the blog

Its estimated there are now 70 million blogs, over 400'000 in Australia alone. Time to add one to the number.

With due diligence, this blog however should avoid the usual 2 week death rate, with purchase of its own domain and hosting just around the corner. See, i've blogged before, argued and persuaded on forums, and watched with fascination (and as a graduate journalist with some umbrage) the blogging revolution.

Why listen to me?
This time however, I want to establish a permanet place online. Why listen to me? Well though credentials are worth nothing online (perhaps rightly so) I'm

* Writing a PhD on Australian foreign policy and its use of international norms (hence the title) to achieve national foreign policy goals.

* Till end of 2008 - Lecturer in International Politics at the University of Canberra

Obviously any views expressed in this blog are entirely my own, and cannot be attributed to my employers or teachers in any fashion.


Why Blog ?
I'm a genuine political junkie, i read, ponder, sleep and dream this stuff. From the first bleary eyed gauge of the blogs updates over the morning coffee, till the 3am refresh to see if any of the american blogs have updated before dawn, the internet offers an unparalleled opportunity to learn, argue and think about the world of politics, as it occurs, in real time before our eyes.

In what form will I be blogging ?
Some blogs live by the minute, whilst I'll always try and ensure readers have access to the same recent information and links I do, don't come here to find out the latest liberal/conservative outrage. Instead I want to present more considered thoughts and responses, giving some historical context and order to the world as it evolves before us. Some times this will take the form of one line syllogisms, sometimes full essay length posts. The content will dictate the form.

Finally - Why the title ?
In a sense we all chase the norm, the expected and regular, yet deliberatly bucking it is the easiest way to get attention. The title refers to both my attempt to find and analyse the place of norms in australian foreign policy, and more generally in starting a blog so late in the trend to try and break through. The norm, but not too normal..