Australia

According to the chatter in the right wing blogosphere after Nicolas Sarkozy won the election in France, Sarkozy’s victory was a tectonic shift in French politics. The defeat of the socialist Segolene Royale was a repudiation of all things leftist. The French were finally awakening to the alleged wisdom of conservative policy.

As is so often the case with right wing pronouncements, it simply was not true. That reality becomes emphatically clear with even the most cursory review of the facts. Mr. Sarkozy supports the Kyoto treaty, opposes the war in Iraq, and at the time of his election would not even make a firm commitment to continued French presence in Afghanistan.

But none of that mattered to right wing partisans here in America. In their usual bumper sticker method of analysis, the socialist defeat was a vindication of all things conservative. Sarkozy said he liked America and that was all that was necessary,despite Mr. Sarkozy’s views on the issues.

Like a clueless forgiving, spouse whose adulterous partner professes undying love even as the adultery continues, right wing America swooned over Sarkozy’s sweet nothings while he made it quite clear that there would be no fundamental change in French foreign policy.

It’s a lot like the American election results of 2004 when these same folks were prattling on about a permanent GOP majority. President Bush’s reelection was all the proof that was needed. The GOP was now omnipotent. Nancy Pelosi’s ascension to the office of House Minority Leader was met with guffaws and identified as evidence of the final weld in the stainless steel burial vault of the Democratic party.

Never mind that political analysis no more arcane than what was published in the technicolor big print USA Today, pointed out that at the state and local level in 2004, the electoral advantage had clearly shifted to Democrats. In 2004, Democrats gained control of legislatures in red states such as Montana and Colorado. Anyone pointing out that the Democratic gains might well be an indicator of future success at the national level, was dismissed with one epithet or another.

So what in the world does this have to do with the largest English speaking nation on the planet where the water goes down the drain counter-clockwise? Other than Britain’s Tony Blair, Australian Prime Minister John Howard was President Bush’s most vocal ally in support of the war in Iraq.

Yesterday, Mr. Howard’s conservative party lost control of the government. In Australia’s parliamentary system this means he is through as Prime Minister. As I write this, it is not even certain that he will retain his seat in Parliament. Visualize if you will Nancy Pelosi losing her seat to a Republican in 2008. Yes Virginia, it is true, the Australians are not happy.

The point is that I would urge those who share my views opposing the war and President Bush, to avoid making the same mistake as our fellow citizens on the right have made with France’s Sarkozy. None of us should ever forget that politics is cyclical. In generations past, those cycles lasted for decades. Now with instant and constant global communication, political fortunes can and do shift 180 degrees in just a couple of election cycles.
The new Australian Prime Minster ran on a platform that included signing Kyoto and withdrawing all Australian combat forces from Iraq.

No one should overestimate the meaning of the Australian election results. But let us not underestimate them either because the point that was made is significant. Among all the nations in the world who are our closest political and cultural allies, the majority of the electorate in every single one of them, has emphatically stated that their freedom and security do not require that their young men and women die in a country thousands of miles away.

Both the British and the Australians have endured tragedies that clearly illustrate a lesson that has yet to be learned by the erstwhile 30% of America that still supports the war in Iraq. As the British transit bombing, and the attack on Australian tourists in Bali indicate, protecting the people against terror is not a job for the military.

The British know it. The Australians know it. The Canadians knew it from the very beginning and stayed out of the Iraq fiasco altogether. Approximately 70% of America knows it. Invading and occupying Iraq will do nothing to prevent another group of Saudi zealots from purchasing airline tickets at a major American airport. How many more people must die and how many more billions must we spend before supporters of the war in Iraq come to understand this fundamental truth?