Prime Minister John Howard's rhetorical appropriation of egalitarian ideals, such as ‘mateship’, ‘battler’ and the ‘fair go’, are pertinent examples of the intersection of cultural and electoral politics. Howard has successfully recast shibboleths of the Australian Left, presenting them as currently (and historically) individualist and, ultimately, politically conservative. As Judith Brett suggests, Howard's opponents have been ‘misled’ by his self-description as a social conservative. Yet, Brett's account neglects to critique or identify the very real ideological purpose and practical effect of Howard's language. Not only has Howard's rhetorical hegemony upon ‘Australian values’ contributed to his decade-long electoral success, but such discourses also have had important effects upon the collective desire to address inequality. Many on the Left have been content to leave masculinist icons such as mateship and the broad notion of ‘Australian Values’ to Howard, but doing so is, arguably, a symbolic and practical political mistake.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nick Dyrenfurth (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: