It is the best of times, having previously been the worst of times

I have, for some time, felt compelled to start my own rant of sorts. The watershed moment which spurred me into action came on Saturday night in a celebration of the triumph of good over evil. No, I wasn't watching Ten's rerun of The Empire Strikes Back (which is actually about the momentary triumph of evil over good), I was watching John Howard concede.


Yes, the rodent had finally lost. Not only had the electorate kicked him to the curb in a stunning repudiation of his WorkChoices laws and lies about interest rates, but he had lost his seat. He had been refused the grace and history which would surely have come after a coalition victory and his subsequent retirement, an endorsement which would have broken my little heart.


I consider myself a pragmatist. I don't believe in an out and out welfare state and believe that free markets are sensible (if not entirely without reservations). What I do believe in stronger than these things is that in a liberal, free market economy, it is the responsibility of the "haves" to provide a safety net for the "have nots". It is a basic principle of liberalism first trumpeted by Adam Smith more than 200 years ago. A principle by which those that slip through the cracks of the capitalist world are taken care of. This social justice should extend not only to people within our borders, but to those outside it. For the western capitalist world, which eventually triumphed over the communist one at the end of the 1980s, has a responsibility to the inhabitants of those countries which have fallen through the cracks. This is not a left principle, it is the ethically adroit and unavoidable reality we must face, as inconvenient as that may be in between dropping the kids at Taekwondo and hanging the new plasma.


Every country should be able to control its borders. I don't believe that free movement between borders is something which is feasible. But equally, I believe in international treaties on refugees. The Howard government completely ignored these treaties when refusing to take in the (mainly Afghani) refugees from the Tampa fiasco of 2001. I don't reproach the Australian people for voting in Howard on his racist platform. It is natural for people to fear the unknown. It is the role of government, however, to lead the people not only economically and socially, but also morally. Such a notion was absent throughout the Howard years.


Finally, IR. WorkChoices brought the Howard government to its knees. It was the extreme articulation of the sleaze and lack of morality which had come to articulate the years of that government. Not so much the law itself, but the manner in which it was introduced. Early on Saturday night I said to a good friend that if Howard won, I would blame Latham for losing so many seats. On the other hand, when Labor won I thanked Latham for having lost control of the senate. Control of the senate came to be the Howard government's poisoned chalice. WorkChoices would not have stood a chance of getting through the senate had the Libs not had control of it. Given they did and pushed the law through, they unwittingly brought about their downfall and crushed the mythology of the Howard years in their overwhelming defeat all in one fell swoop.

History will judge the Howard goverment harshly. True, the economy is strong, but only because of Keating/ Hawke reforms. This is the one achievement the government harps on about... oh and the defeat of "political correctness" as Howard put it the other night. I call it the triumph of racism, divisiveness, small mindedness and sleaze and it is this that History will remember, not interest rates.