July 06, 2003


John Howard has won the last three federal elections. The Melbourne Age, catering to an ever-shrinking audience of anti-Howardites, has at last tracked down someone who voted for him:

I am going to explain why I vote for John Howard. I am hoping this will make me an object of interest to those of you who have, among your acquaintances, no one who votes for Howard and who can't imagine why any decent person would.

The headline -- “Why I vote for John Howard” -- hints at the uniqueness with which this decision is regarded by The Age, allegedly a mainstream newspaper.

Posted by Tim Blair at July 6, 2003 03:24 PM

The comments that Mr. Hurst makes, with a few minor changes, would fit perfectly the attitude and of many in the U.S. and the issues being addressed by our voters!

Posted by: wallace at July 6, 2003 at 04:26 PM

Hell I only know a few people who didn't vote for him!

Posted by: Gilly at July 6, 2003 at 04:31 PM

The people that don't know anyone who voted for Howard don't have any friends. They are too busy writing letters to the editor of Sydney Morning Herald.

Posted by: Random_Prose at July 6, 2003 at 06:24 PM

The Age has still done better than the ABC, who couldn't find a single anti-infiltrator for their 6-person "debate" on asylum seekers, despite the fact that illegal infiltrators are even less popular than the Federal ALP. Maybe it's time the ALP and its lackeys started asking: "Why do they hate us?"

Posted by: Clem Snide at July 6, 2003 at 06:35 PM

Clem, if the ALP did ask that question, they'd have to sack half of their membership who consist primarily of do-nothing public sector hacks, social workers, and professional femo-nazis.

Posted by: Steve Edwards at July 6, 2003 at 11:14 PM

The sight of our western horizon cluttered with leaky wooden boats, having travelled through or past 7 or 8 Muslim countries, and filled with middle eastern "refugees' had nothing to do with 3 successful elections by the Libs?

F**ing idiot. Go away.

Posted by: Pete at July 7, 2003 at 02:18 AM

To quote Michael Palin, it's time that they closed down the AGE and the SMH and set fire to slected journalists.

Posted by: Toryhere at July 7, 2003 at 09:51 AM

I got all the way through this man's cringing article, and then read that in Britain he would vote for Tony Blair? Words fail me!! Doesn't he realise that Blair is just a Hawke clone (Murdoch even set up a meeting between Blair's lot and the silver bodgie to give New Labour its basic philosophy). Blair has done more to increase the underclass than any leader in Britain for years. Couldn't the Age find a real bloddy conservative to write this article and not some dickhead "social democrat"?

Posted by: Toryhere at July 7, 2003 at 10:01 AM

I agree with Toryhere.

Hirst has also argued civilisation emerged when the first government was invented. This fits the psuedo-science of sociological but a load of garbage. Civilisation occurred because of the shitf to commerce.
Government was merely an adaptation of the function of the earlier tribale chief, warfare. Cvilisation , after all, was not uniform.Hayek's summary of why pooh bahs hijacked civilisation is sound.

As for `educashon', Phoney Tony and his pack of Labour Party communbistos are doing to schools and universitties what ALP completed in the 1980's, their conversion into numerous open zoos.

Posted by: d at July 7, 2003 at 12:11 PM

I used to think the Age was a generally sensible centrist paper.

But now I'm starting to think these allegations of left wing bias have some merit. Publishing a twit like Hirst certainly makes the pro-Howard position seem like Dumb and Dumber.

What a conceited, self important twat. For a decent analysis of Hirst's twaddle, go and have a look at Tim Dunlop's site.

Posted by: Nemesis at July 7, 2003 at 02:10 PM

At least Hirst makes an attempt at a logical argument and has some moral values and patriotism.

You won't find any of those from any other Age commentators. Pamela Bone(head) was unintelligible for years but wrote two articles containing some logic and hasn't been sighted since.

I recently renewed my Age subscription, but I really doubted the wisdom of the decision. Ultimately it was their sports section, the Green Guide and their crosswords that were the only reasons for the expense. It has been going downhill slowly for a decade but this year the quality of commentary has plunged. It seems that once or twice a week we are treated to Ken Davidson sprouting drivel on either the Eastern Ring Road the Sale of Telstra. He must have written about 5 articles on each issue. They are probably the same articles but who can read them without the eyelids coming down at high speed?

Posted by: Michael Gill at July 7, 2003 at 03:23 PM

Maybe Hirst does, but bad assumptions don't make an argument solid.
Just read through what Dunlop had to say, Nemesis.The column by Dunlop I read, one instalment on a detailed treatment of Hirst's column, focussed on multiculturalism.

The first thing one shall say, until the 70's and 80's, enough migrants were given a difficult time.The white Australia policy had much to do with market protectionism , but reinforced the nastier habits of some.
It is false to equate such broad and general terms of association as common law and open markets with particular cultural stresses, a much over played hand.There is , in other words,no conflict between richness of inheritance with the rule of law. There is, however, a danger when that diersity is confused with the rule of law which concern the objection to multiculturalism turns.

Mutlicultcutralism was the substitution one extreme for another, on which, too boot was used as further justification for more tax money poured down the throat of culture vulture bureaucrats.This , along with quite a number of things fuelled a reaction of which, One Nation was but one instance.

One considers One Nation to be another socialist party, though given to some noddy land favouring some `small business people'.There is no genuine liberal party in Australia; if this, by the next election, one will be voting for it.

Hirsts' espousal of common law is irreconiciliable with his espousal of `social democracy', since socialism is a doctirine of absolutism and rule by diktat, mediated, as in France, by that otherwise bit of nasty garbage the civil code.That Hirst can embrace the liberal party might, at bottom, have soemthing to with, the Lib P was founded as a broad socialist party, inclusive of central planning.That the libs are seated on values many might hold is there understandable, reasonable.That the ALP does not cut the ice for those who wish to enjoy what the open society only delivers but subordinate that to central diktat is understandable. But that does not make bad arguments good.That is Hirst's problem.

Posted by: d at July 7, 2003 at 04:54 PM


I understand only some of the elements of your argument, but if you are saying that many people would get behind a genuinely liberal (as opposed to Liberal) party, then I think I agree with you.

It's a shame how some words get colonized by interest groups and completely lose their innate meaning. Liberal, gay, WMD, etc...

I also agree that the ALP does not make the grade. Never has, and probably never will. That said, I will vote for the party which has the best chance of defeating Howard, so for the first time ever, I'll be voting ALP next time round.

Posted by: Nemesis at July 8, 2003 at 11:56 AM