Why the Left Needs the Right

John Howard recently regained control of the Australian parliament with his successful election to a fourth term as prime minister on Oct. 9. Howard’s Liberal National Party coalition managed a comfortable 5 percent victory over their younger Labor Party rival, Mark Latham—a candidate who had at one time stirred hope in the hearts of Australia’s political left. It was not to be.

I have spent the past week reflecting on the disappointing electoral loss. I wonder how my fellow Australians again decided to elect the man who pledged his wholehearted support for a war in Iraq, a war which never even involved our country. A prime minister who has refused throughout his entire term in office to apologize to the Australian Aboriginals for our country’s despicable policy of removing indigenous children from their parents up until the 1970s. A prime minister who has fought bitterly to give educational subsidies for the rich, while undermining our country’s strong tradition of state-controlled schooling.

And as I sat, mulling in disillusionment over the list of social injustices that Howard has brought to Australia without a hint of remorse, I suddenly saw the silver lining of my country’s dire state of affairs. I began to feel a twinge of delight about his re-election as I began to think about the possible re-election of George W. Bush on Nov. 2. It’s not out of spite that I wish the same insufferable fate upon the U.S.; rather, it occurred to me that the only possibility of ending this lengthy stretch of neo-conservatism might be to continue to endure.

To this day, the left in both countries has hardly covered itself in glory. In Australia, the opposing candidate, Mark Latham, entered the scene describing Bush as, “the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory.” But our dreams for an outspoken advocate of change were quickly dashed once Latham was elected to the party leadership.

A similar chain of events took place in the U.S. The Democrats, too, charged onto the political scene last year with Howard Dean’s incendiary rhetoric against President Bush and his policies. Yet, in the end, they chose the mild-mannered and uninspiring candidate, one who never displayed any of the fire that Dean so briefly offered. In actuality, Kerry appears as a milder version of Bush, presenting many seemingly conservative policies that will not really address the problems of underprivileged America.

No matter which way you look at it, the problem plaguing both countries has been the erosion of intelligent politics from the left. Throughout the past 20 years, in both countries, the conservative parties have been able to consolidate and drive home their political message to the respective countries. Nobody doubts what Bush or Howard stand for; nobody questions the right wing’s intentions, as their political drive speaks clearly to the constituency.

But the left has lost its way. Clinton’s policies read like a Republican’s; and the Democrats have since provided lackluster candidates who fail to tackle the insidious politics of their rivals. The same is true within Australia. When Latham finally reached the world stage, his angry criticisms of our involvement in this unjust war were suddenly silenced for spineless acquiescence to the American ally.

Perhaps, then, another four years of Bush would be good. The left has hardly earned the right to govern, so maybe a further increase of military spending in place of better health care and public education has a positive side. Or, perhaps a new war with new enemies—we happily joined the last two, why not three? And, what about a continued loss of civil liberties, the basis of the American society? Maybe, just maybe, four more years of devolution under Bush might cause enough alarm for American Democrats to truly reverse the curse.

Bede A. Moore ’06, a Crimson editorial editor, is a history concentrator in Winthrop House.