My OperaWhat John Howard's defeat means...
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:35:01 PM
...in the US.
First of all, why ask something as silly as this? Good question - and there are several reasons:
1. The narrative- driven politics in Washington reacts to what they may perceive as a signal of a global shift in the politics. On climate change, on Iraq specifically, and on trade- policy, as well as on approach to foreign policy. Also cultural issues and attitudes towards cultural integration. Such as immigration and cultural sensitivity and moral entry- point for acceptance of culture.
2. It means there are no major (strong) or minor world leaders left who in any way support George W. Bush's Iraq- policy, nor share their materialistic on the one hand or dialectic view of history on the other, when it comes to US dominance on the world scene. It means, in other words, that the exclusivity of US foreign
policy, in that it is unbound by the rules the rest of us think it's a point to adhere to, is very difficult to defend in the end.
3. The establishment of these kinds of narratives are ironically of the republican party's own making. The democrats simply are barely better than useless - it's the "conservatives" that will be left in the bin when these narratives are told more powerfully. This is also the Australian liberal party's (Howard's) problem at the moment. They have been forced to give up control over what populism means, and so perceive themselves to lose both control and organisation.
The question, however, is what has changed in real terms. That is not so easy to tell - either in Howard's Australia or Bush's America.
First of all, why ask something as silly as this? Good question - and there are several reasons:
1. The narrative- driven politics in Washington reacts to what they may perceive as a signal of a global shift in the politics. On climate change, on Iraq specifically, and on trade- policy, as well as on approach to foreign policy. Also cultural issues and attitudes towards cultural integration. Such as immigration and cultural sensitivity and moral entry- point for acceptance of culture.
2. It means there are no major (strong) or minor world leaders left who in any way support George W. Bush's Iraq- policy, nor share their materialistic on the one hand or dialectic view of history on the other, when it comes to US dominance on the world scene. It means, in other words, that the exclusivity of US foreign
policy, in that it is unbound by the rules the rest of us think it's a point to adhere to, is very difficult to defend in the end.
3. The establishment of these kinds of narratives are ironically of the republican party's own making. The democrats simply are barely better than useless - it's the "conservatives" that will be left in the bin when these narratives are told more powerfully. This is also the Australian liberal party's (Howard's) problem at the moment. They have been forced to give up control over what populism means, and so perceive themselves to lose both control and organisation.
The question, however, is what has changed in real terms. That is not so easy to tell - either in Howard's Australia or Bush's America.
