I think that all superstar was saying was that Americans seem to have a greater respect for the office of President than Australians have for the office of Prime Minister.
For example, a couple of years ago Howard gave a speech at a Reconciliation event. Due to Howard’s refusal to provide an apology to the stolen generation for past wrongs, many of the attendees jeered and then turned their backs on him during his speech. I find it difficult to believe that this would happen in America. Perhaps I am wrong, it is just an impression that I and many Australians share.
Americans seem to be far more outspokenly patriotic than Australians (with the exception of international sport, most likely). While most Americans know and will sing to their National Anthem, a lower percentage of Australians know the words to ours, and fewer will sing it at sporting events (rugby tests and olympic games notwithstanding).
The Leader of the Opposition (Simon Crean) has a preferred Prime Minister rating of 16%, which means most people can (and do) distrust, even dislike Howard, but there will always be someone worse than him to vote for, so he wins his elections by default, almost.
There is a minimum period after the return of the parliament after an election (2 years?) in which an election cannot be called unless there is a deadlock between the two houses of parliament (eg the budget not being passed), but after that the PM can request an election, and the Governor-General would have to have a pretty good reason to refuse one. The main reason nowadays is that if an election is called too early, it would be for the lower house only. Senators in the Senate have a fixed term of 6 years, and a separate half-Senate election would have to held later, with the added incurred expense of not holding it in conjunction with the lower house. The PM that called such an early election, with no good reason except for political advantage, would cop a fair bit of flak.
They get it nowadays already when a PM’s party is defeated, and then the old PM resigns as leader of his party, and then refuses to take his seat in Parliament (due to the loss of status), resigns from Parliament and a by-election has to held for his seat so soon after the general election. The more radical media commentators say the cost of the byelection should be taken out of the superannuation payout the ex-PM collects on his way out.
I think it is extremely rare for a sitting American President to speak at an event where it is likely that a large % of the attendees would display such visible disapproval. Presidents are usually surrounded by layers of advisors and handlers, who check out the venue beforehand, vet the crowd, make sure the people up front (or near the TV cameras) are supporters of the President, etc. On those occasions where protests do take place they are usually escorted out quickly by security. This has been the case for years, regardless of who is occupying the office. Presidents are not supposed to look non-Presidential.
I would have to chime in with my Aussie cuzzies on this one. It may be the way Americans are portrayed but they defintely do seem to have more respect for the office of the leader then other countries do.
I don’t think any P.M here or in Aus or even the UK for that matter would expect or get a parade because they rolled into town, even during election time (when they wish they could get one) The perception (yes that is the PERCEPTION) is that the US president gains handshakes and baby kissing where ever he may go.
The thought that “You to could be the president” seems to be a popular American ideal, the ultimate goal. Frankly I can’t see any Antipodean saying to their kid “If you work hard you might be P.M”. We tend to think of P.M’s as being just-another-damn-politician (even if they are doing a good job…yay Helen)
Interestingly we don’t have a limited term set for our P.M’s so they can (and sometimes do) go on being P.M for EONS, yet they never gain ulimate respect. Well not the kind of respect that wants us want to know about where they were born, where they live, how many children they have, how many pets they have or what number P.M they are (and yes we all know George is number 43).
I think one of the most telling things about “respect for office” or presidential reverence, is the whole first lady thing. I truly couldn’t point out our present P.M’s hubby in a crowd nor any past P.M’s hubby. Australia is our most important economic, political, geographical and sporting (hehe no Aussies in the super 12 final ) relationship and I couldn’t tell you if he was married let alone who is wife is. But it is a fairly safe assumption to make that Americans know all about who Dubya’s wife is (safe cause the rest of us know!).
I personaly believe American’s great respect for the presidency arose from replacing a monarch. They created a virtual monarchy (even if it does only get two terms) where as those of us that retained a monarch feel free to mock the leadership (oh shit I just remembered we mock the monarchy too…must be something else then).
Anyway back to the OP here’s hoping Johnny boy goes next election, we can’t be the only ones causing a ruckus down this end of the world!
1. Howard has screwed a number of issues
Well yeah, but it hasn’t been mentioned so far that (whether by design or luck) he’s presided over an economy that has continued to expand at the top of the OECD rankings throughout his prime ministership, despite several severe external shocks. He’s had incredible luck, but he’s tenacious past the point of obsession, and plays his cards with truely rare skill. Like most of the Aussies on this forum I remain appalled by the government’s stance on border protection. Yet the policy had, and still has, nearly 80% approval. Like it or not, Howard is a lot closer to the average Australian than the average G’Doper.
**2. The opposition has been to weak and fragmentary to take advantage. **
It was widely considered that Howard put out a directive that members of the government not attack Crean or Jenny Macklin (his deputy), but to direct all their attacks against the second tier. Certainly Crean has been treated with kid gloves … they want him hobbled, not rogered.
3. His job is in no immediate jeopardy
Howard is bullet-proof, if Labor get any more dispondent they’ll have a re-election strategy based on his death in office.
4. He can, in fact, call a quick election now if he want to.
He has the the requisite triggers now, with more to come. The only reason against is he knows early, opportunist elections piss of the electorate. He’ll keep hanging in there until mid 2004, all the time watching for a gilded opportunity to go early. There’s an awful lot of ducks moving into alignment.
5. He has a respectable chance of winning such an election
When he goes it will be a double dissolution election and without a magor revival by Labor he’ll ram through a raft of policies in the joint sitting that would give any diehard conservative wet dreams.
BTW zuma , rather than apologise to the forum, you should apologise to hawthorne 2,500+ posts is a bit too much of a track record to be called a troll.
There’s no need to apologise to me (although such remarks are generally frowned on by the moderators). I wasn’t offended. I just failed to get across what I was trying to say, even though I tried and wasn’t intending to sound in the least bit inflamatory.
What I learned from that American teacher wasn’t that she was “wise” - just that she came from a culture where attitudes towards authority and holders of important offices are different from how they are here.
Here, the Prime Minister is just some bloke. If a PM started a speech with “Ask not what your country…” many Australians would collapse in tears of laughter, saying “Who does he think he is?”
If you want to understand other countries, you have to realise that people in other cultures - even those seemingly very similar to your own - take for granted things that have never occurred to you (and vice versa).
On that point, these Boards are a continuing education for me.
Zuma, I was too tired last night to comment on your statement, in which you aligned a couple of posters towards affinity with the fairy tale foe of the Billy Goats Gruff.
Just because others, in a different country, have varying degrees of respect and/or opinion about their political leaders than you do about your own – is not a reason to start slinging accusations around.
For the record, I believe the last Prime Minister in NZ to receive a wave of adulation from the crowd was Sir Keith Holyoake in the 1960s. After that, we have had varying degrees of cartoon characters and cardboard figures, all of which have jokes told about them that give belly laughs in the pubs.
The public interest in the American presidency, going by what we see of the media reports etc., is different, and can appear to be a blind loyalty amongst some, to the eyes of we Southerners. We have folk with that blind loyalty to the party political code they belong to – but not so much to the person at the top anymore.
I think one of the most significant differences between Australians and Americans is that Americans inherently trust and respect their leaders, and Australians inherently distrust and disrespect their leaders. The sad truth is that I could name more past American presidents than Australian prime ministers, and most other people of my generation would be in the same boat. This goes a long way to explaining a lot of things, and I think stems from a whole lot of history - but that’s a whole other topic.
John Howard would win an election hands down right now, for reasons many others have stated in this thread - lack of a credible opposition, a couple of popular policies etc etc.
However, one thing I’m surprised hasn’t been mentioned is that Johnny is supposed to make an announcement about his retirement around his (not too far away now) birthday. If that happens, Peter Costello will take over as PM, and he doesn’t enjoy the same popularity as Howard - in large part because of the GST, but for various other reasons as well - if that happened, then the landscape changes, and although I still think the ALP don’t stand a chance while they’re so busy bickering amongst themselves.
This has actually happened quite a lot lately. Little Johnny has been making a lot of noise about how people who disagree with him, especially when he’s demanding support to go all the way with LBJ^D^D^D GWB are “unaustralian”. This has had him alternately laughed at and condemned as “unaustralian”.
He’s generally a pretty canny political operator, but occasionally he badly misreads the mood of the electorate (whereupon the issue immediately is recast as a “brave, moral stand”).
Howard’s also benefiting from two things at the moment - he’s usurped the xenophobic right wing from the recently popular One Nation party, drawing their supporters back to the conservatives, and he’s drawn the Labor Party and the Democrats further to the right, leaving their leftist and centrist supporters disenchanted. This has caused the rise of another party - The Greens - and effectively consigned the Democrats (who benefited from being the party of the intellectual left) to a slow and painful death.
Mind you, Americans in general have less respect for the Presidency as an office than they did, say, 30 years ago. Between the Vietnam War, Watergate, Clinton’s various difficulties and a few other events I think the nation is much less likely to show “blind loyalty” then we were then.
With reference to the Michael Moore thing: I consider myself well-informed. I read the Wall Street Journal every day, and at least part of the Boston Globe and usually the NewYork Times as well. I try to follow international news via the Internet, usually through Yahoo!'s links. I especially enjoy the international Op/Ed type pieces.
OTOH, I never watch the Oscars or any other award show. I know who Michael Moore is, but the first I heard that there was some incident with him at the Oscars this year was when I read it in gex gex’s post. No one in my family, my neighborhood or where I work has said a word about it. I still don’t know what happened, and I don’t care. The entertainment elite (which makes up the Oscar crowd) is notoriously out of touch with mainstream American political opinion.
So whatever happened, I don’t think it “caused an uproar” here.
I think that this is true to a certain extent, but among some Americans and in some contexts it is almost exactly the opposite of the truth.
The federalist nature of America’s political system means that, while most Americans may greatly respect the office of the President and other leaders, many are also distrustful of anything done by any branch of the federal government–the President, Congress, and the judiciary (in the form of the Supreme Court).
The “States’ rights” emphasis that arises out of American federalism is almost non-existent in Australia, and to the extent that Australians do respect and trust their leaders, and look to them to set policy and solve problems, they do so on a federal as much as on a state level. While it is quite common in the United States to hear state and local politicians, and the people they represent, calling for the federal government to stay out of an issue, this happens far less frequently in Australia, and when it does it is not generally motivated by the same deep-seated philosophical commitment to local control that animates many Americans.
Well, I shall apologise for labelling you a “troll”. That was wrong on my part and I do respect other cultures. I just got in a huff about all the “blinding loyalty” stuff.
This board for me too is a well of discovery about other cultures and ideas. Hopefully my example of how there is not “blinding loyalty” might edudate a few people. And your latest comment about jfk’s “ask not” speech will cause me to question a few things.
I’m just tired about running into these “blinding loyalty” comments and their bretheren. I apologise for my apparent outrage, but the gross overgeneralisations do get my panties in a wad
I guess I should have been a bit more restrained and pointed out that the reaction to our President has been FAR more partisan than some people internationally would care to admit.
I know the thread’s dead, but it’s nice to finally be able to provide some stats.
According to a Newspoll out today, (see here for details), on the back of a pretty disasterous fortnight for the government (the G-G thing and a very unpopular budget):
The primary vote is 43-37 to the government, down from 47-37.
The preferred PM is 65-17 Howard, up from 64-17
The two-party-preferred vote (the important one) is 51-49 to the government.
Because of the last two election results, it’s estimated that Howard would need about 46% of the two-party-preferred vote to win government again. Meaning that although his poll margin is only 2%, it’s effectively 10% if you’re trying to work out who would gain a House majority.
I find that offensive, to label an entire people for the actions of a few. But what would one expect from an island populated by british ex cons and dingo farmers.
I was visiting Australia when Howard made his television speach on the eve of the Iraqi war. He gained my respect when he asked the citizens to offer up their complaints and discontent to the government and, specifically, himself. I can’t remember when I’ve heard a politician in the U.S. actually invite the public’s ire in that way.
) relationship and I couldn’t tell you if he was married let alone who is wife is. But it is a fairly safe assumption to make that Americans know all about who Dubya’s wife is (safe cause the rest of us know!).