Political Corrections

with Mungo MacCallum

Seen it all before, heard it more often

In spite of John Howard's gracious invitation to Mark Latham to visit our troops in Iraq whenever he likes (except when Howard himself is undertaking a top secret Anzac Day photo opportunity) it is probably an offer the opposition leader can afford to refuse.

If Latham actually showed up in Baghdad Peter Costello would immediately accuse him of copying Howard, who was of course copying George Bush, who was copying Winston Churchill, who was copying Billy Hughes, who was copying Elizabeth I etc etc, thereby confirming the words of the prophet Ecclesiastes that there is no new thing under the sun.

The eagerness with which Costello and others accused Latham of plagiarising the words and ideas of Bill Clinton in his Big Australia speech should be seen partly as a sign of their desperation to drag the runaway opposition leader back to the pack, but it is also part of a longer term strategy to prevent Latham from setting the agenda by constantly throwing up distractions.

In the past Latham has handled this campaign by simply ignoring it; for weeks after he took over the leadership Howard, Costello and Tony Abbott hurled every speck of muck they could dredge up from his past across the chamber of the House of Representatives and Latham, smiling faintly, responded by asking them to read to their children.

But when Laurie Oakes beat up the plagiarism charge on Channel Nine and Costello grabbed it and tossed out the bait, the opposition finally bit.

The right way to react was with an impatient shrug: of course I agree with Clinton about the importance of higher education and lifelong learning - don't you? And if I've inadvertently remembered his words, it just shows how well he put it and how enthusiastic I am. And by the way, why have so many students missed out on university places under your so-called policies?

But instead, Latham unconvincingly denied that he was quoting, and then the normally astute MacMullan fell into the trap by pointing out that in any case, Howard had plagiarised lots of stuff about the Iraq war. Well of course he has, and everyone knows it.

We have understood for years that Howard is mendacious, mean, tricky and totally without scruple. A spot of plagiarism hardly rates; he could knock off half the Reader's Digest Guide to Speechifying between his morning power walk and breakfast (or at least his staff could, our prime minister himself not being very big on book reading) before devoting himself to the more serious business of mapping out the day's deceptions.

But Latham is - or at least was - meant to be better than that, the new breed of politician, the breath of fresh air who moves above and apart from the usual grubbiness. By telling the world that whatever Latham does, Howard does more of it, MacMullan is definitely sending the wrong message.

Indeed, it evokes echoes of 2001, when it appeared that the then opposition leader Kim Beazley was simply a paler, if fatter, version of Howard. He offered essentially the same, but rather less of it.

Predictably, the swinging voters figured they may as well go for the original rather than the copy.

If Latham is seen as just another snout in the political trough, the same voters may react in the same way: why risk the inexperienced piglet when you can stick with the grisly old hog? And this, of course, is precisely the goal the government's hard men are pursuing. They're not trying to make Howard look good; that's a lost cause. But if they can make Latham look almost as bad, victory could yet be theirs.

Howard has now decided to leave the smearing to his lieutenants and assume the role of elder statesman father and defender of the nation; hence the appearance at Bagdad airport, clad in a bullet proof vest for the first time since he addressed gun owners in 1996 and what appeared to be half a hedge of rosemary.

Like Bush, he did not venture beyond the heavily secured airport perimeter: "It is a small risk I take," he exaggerated nobly. A murmur of gunfire could be heard in the distance. He also spoke to various military types and to the discredited Iraqi carpetbagger Ahmed Chalabi, now being dumped by Washington; he learnt a lot, he said, but was unable to reveal precisely what it was.

He was, however, absolutely certain that our troops were there for the long haul - at least another 14 months and no guarantees after that. Indeed, more could even be sent. There was no question of retreat ...

He might, but probably doesn't, consider the bitter irony of pushing this line on April 25. Anzac day commemorates the committal of Australian troops to a foolhardy move at the behest of a great and powerful friend into a small Middle Eastern country that was no conceivable threat to Australia. The soldiers were fine, but the politicians had stuffed up.

Sensibly, the Anzacs realised the cause was hopeless, and planned and executed a withdrawal which was the only successful part of the entire operation. No one accused them of cutting and running, or of leaving the job half done. Indeed, they have become the most potent symbol of our nationhood, and one on which Howard dwells constantly. It is just a pity he didn't appreciate the obvious lesson, even so close to Gallipoli. 12,000 kilometres away in Melbourne, watching Collingwood getting beaten yet again, Mark Latham had no such difficulty.