September 18, 2005

LYING FOR THE GOOD OF MANKIND

'Ditch the US alliance' (Paul Kelly, The Australian, September 17, 2005)

Former Labor leader Mark Latham believed the US alliance should be ditched and called it "the last manifestation of the White Australia mentality".

The Latham Diaries reveal his in-principle support for the alliance during last year's election was completely insincere and driven by electoral politics.

Mr Latham mocks public support for the alliance and dismisses with contempt anybody who thinks it serves a purpose. The Diaries verify the judgment President George W. Bush made of Mr Latham - that his election would have put the alliance in serious jeopardy. "It's just another form of neo-colonialism," Mr Latham says of the alliance.

Writing after the election, Mr Latham says that he should go public and question the long-term need for the alliance, but laments that this "would turn the party upside down" and that "the Big Mac faction would go ballistic".

The Diaries reveal an extreme view of foreign policy and of Australia's role in the world. Mr Latham opposes every war Australia has fought, except World War II. He blames the US alliance for dragging Australia into unnecessary conflicts. His preferred foreign policy model is based on New Zealand's.

He writes that if Australia prefers being "an American colony under (John) Howard, that's a nation not worth leading".

He accuses the Prime Minister and Mr Bush of being cowards, saying "they wouldn't fight themselves, of course, but they readily send other people's children to fight in their name".

The steady stream of accusations from the left that conservative leaders are lying is undoubtedly sincere and heartfelt because so many of them assume that such is natural and justified when they do it. This was a close call.

Posted by Peter Burnet at September 18, 2005 9:39 AM
Comments

It's kind of a toss up which country dodged the bigger bullet, Australia or the US.

The more I lear about Kerry the more I think you guys would have got the worse deal. Latham was a nut, but his own party would have delt with him, the Micheal Moore democrats would have cheered kerry right off the cliff and taken everybody else along for the ride.

Posted by: Amos at September 18, 2005 10:54 AM

Amos:

That is the one flaw of our Republic is that the partyy can't ditch an obviously incompetent or even deranged leader once he's elected president--Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, etc... On the other hand, some of Lincoln, Reagan and Clinton's best years came after points at which they'd have fallen in party systems.

Posted by: oj at September 18, 2005 1:59 PM

oj. Refresh our memories about the good Clinton years.

Posted by: erp at September 18, 2005 2:39 PM

Nixon would have lasted forever in a parliamentary democracy (assuming he ever reached the top). So would JFK - who would have deposed him? Johnson? Humphrey? Richard Russell? Fulbright? Same for LBJ - he would have squashed opposition like a bug. As President, he couldn't do that to either Bobby or Gene McCarthy. He was just a big fat target, especially with Vietnam and domestic unrest hanging around his neck.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 18, 2005 11:19 PM

I went and read some of the stuff on the linked website. Apparently, Latham slimed all over everyone. I would say he is finished, but I remember Nixon in '62.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 19, 2005 12:04 AM

Well you can forget about Nixon in '62. This Australia, not the US, Latham is utterly, utterly finished.

Posted by: Amos at September 19, 2005 2:03 AM

I like how OJ accused almost 2/3 of all US Presidents in the 20th century as deranged or incompetent. At least Gerald Ford escaped his opprobrium.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at September 19, 2005 12:49 PM
« IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES: | Main | AND THE AWARD FOR BLINKERED ROMANTIC NOSTALGIA GOES TO... »