Political Corrections

with Mungo MacCallum

Bush Gives Old Mate a Free Kick

Observant viewers noticed that there was something different about our beloved Prime Minister as he took his morning power walk through the streets of Washington last week.

He was no longer sporting his traditional Vodaphone tracksuit; indeed, he was wearing a white top without a single advertising slogan on it. The first thought was that his former sponsors had given up on him in disgust, but it quickly emerged that there was a deeper reason for leaving the space vacant; it was being prepared for the biggest endorsement of them all.

At what the White House laughingly calls a press conference (just two questions from each side and then piss off) Howard waited in ill-concealed impatience for the Dorothy Dixer he obviously knew was coming. When George Bush looked like missing his man, Howard prompted eagerly: "Mr Lewis... Steve Lewis, The Australian." And Steve barefacedly asked Bush what he thought about Mark Latham's policy of withdrawal from Iraq... 'What signal would that send?' and Bush reached for the sledgehammer.

On one level this was hardly surprising: as Howard later quacked, Bush was only putting his own, well-known point of view, he could hardly be expected to say anything else: he had been asked the question, after all. And of course he himself had never said a word about Latham's policy to Bush, no, honestly.

This latter disclaimer lost its shine when an anonymous White House official revealed that Howard and Bush had indeed discussed Latham, but perhaps they only talked about his taste in bedtime stories. In any case, it could be argued that Bush was only playing tit for tat; after all, Latham had described him as incompetent, flaky and dangerous, so he was not likely to pass up a chance to put in the boot in return.

But this ignores all previous convention and protocol. Latham's remarks were made as a backbencher; in the heat of debate and not in the context of an election. Bush waved his 'Don't Vote Labor' banner over the head of Latham's bobbing and grinning opponent, and with full presidential authority. It was one of those things that just aren't done, and have never been done before; indeed, even Howard himself, asked the next day if he would like to make a few comments on Bush's own opponent, Senator John Kerry, appeared shocked and dismayed at the suggestion.

Nonetheless, he isn't about to forgo the free kick, and it can only be a matter of time before the logo Bush Loves Me (possibly with a big red heart) appears on his pristine walking outfit. Whether it will be the huge electoral benefit he obviously believes is more problematical.

The idea of Howard as Bush's puppet is already pretty much part of the Australian political wisdom; a well-scripted attack on Latham, while hardly unexpected, could easily be seen as a bit over the top, or even (as some have put it) an unwarrantable interference in Australia's domestic affairs. It invites a positively Howardian response: 'We will decide where our forces serve and the circumstances under which they do so.' Howard's media boosters see Bush's outburst as a warning that Latham would be a threat to the American alliance; others may interpret it more simply as a threat to Australia's own independence.

And really, is the alliance so brittle that the withdrawal of Australia's token presence would destroy it? Even if Bush is re-elected, could he afford to cast one of his few guaranteed allies aside over a disagreement that is almost entirely symbolic? The alliance was under more stress during the Whitlam years, but it survived, and Bob Hawke said last week that he constantly disagreed with Ronald Reagan, but the countries remained on good terms. (Admittedly Reagan dropped dead almost immediately, but at least he didn't disagree).

None of this will stop Howard and his henchmen using Bush's media grab throughout the forthcoming campaign. But they run the risk that it will be seen, not as a serious warning, but simply as bullying, bluff and bluster.

Last week's Newspoll has left sensible commentators frankly incredulous, suggesting as it does a more than six per cent swing in the primary vote of the major parties within the space of a rather uneventful fortnight. In other words, we are asked to believe that some 800,000 people who were planing to vote Labor had a complete change of heart and are now determined to vote Liberal.

Such enormous switches do occur, but only in the wake of momentous events, like, for instance, the Tampa incident in 2001. To suggest that it could have happened as a belated reaction to a pre-election budget, no matter how lavish, simply beggars belief. But it would be most unwise for Labor to ignore it as a total aberration. The polls have jumped around a bit, but the underlying trend shows that Latham's initial appeal is starting to erode, and one reason for this is he had dropped out of sight in recent weeks. Indeed, last week the only real headline involving the opposition leader concerned his appearance at the launch of a children's book called Where is the Green Sheep? - a worthy enough cause, but hardly one to excite the imagination of millions.

The risk here is that Latham gives the impression that he is coasting - that, like Kim Beazley, he is prepared to remain a small target while allowing the government to blunder itself into defeat. It didn't work for Kim Beazley and it won't work for Latham. This does not mean that Labor has to rattle out policies on a daily basis, as the government and the media are demanding. But it does mean that they need to be noticed.

It is time for the real Mark Latham - the one we used to know and love - to step forward again.