John Howard's Hegemony of Values: The Politics of ‘Mateship’ in the Howard Decade

John Howard's “Use” of the Anzac Legend: Applying an Epideictic Lens

“…63 The relationship with Great Britain was defined in very similar terms, and as many have recognized, the image of Australia standing "shoulder-to-shoulder" with its mates was central to Howard's justification of Australian involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. 64 Indeed, it is largely the centrality of mateship to the Anzac legend that led Daniel Nourry to conclude that the Howard government was not solely responsible for committing Australia to the war on terror, but that it was "the Anzac who is responsible". 65 Where "mateship" was perhaps more significant, however, was as a justification for "staying the course", particularly in Iraq.…”

Foreign policy and political possibility

“…Through appeals to ‘shared values’, Howard tapped into an enduring traditionalism, which stressed strong ties with culturally similar, great and powerful friends (Howard, 2003). In this imagining of the world, the United States and Britain were natural allies, who shared cultural, historical and institutional commonalities (Dyrenfurth, 2007; Howard, 2002c). In this imagining, Australia’s natural home was located in the Anglosphere, not the Asia-Pacific.…”

“…Australian foreign policy in the War on Terror frequently invoked widely understood narratives of mateship, incorporating Coalition allies within a wider, international imagining of the term (e.g. Dyrenfurth, 2007; Holland, 2010; Holland and McDonald, 2010). Deploying an important marker of Australian-ness at the level of an international coalition helped to sell participation to Australians who understood corresponding calls to show loyalty in the defence of deeply held mutual values.…”

“Lest We Forget”: The Politics of Memory and Australian Military Intervention1

“…More directly, the role of the Anzac myth in Howard’s identity project was central. Defining Howard’s national identity project as underpinned by the concept of “mateship,” Nick Dyrenfurth (2007:220) suggests that Howard’s conception of mateship and national identity saw “its fiery birth in the Anzac legend.” The Prime Minister’s “fascination” with the Anzac myth was also noted by prominent political commentators such as Judith Brett (2005) and Robert Manne (2006), both of whom link this to Howard’s broader identity project and to militarism in foreign policy. Indeed Howard himself consistently emphasized the centrality of this experience for Australian identity, and positioned the digger as the embodiment of Australian values, in particular its core value of “mateship.” In Howard’s (2003a) own words, “the landing on Gallipoli… gave birth to the Anzac spirit (and) became the most defining event in our history.”…”

“…In Howard's (2003a) own words, ''the landing on Gallipoli… gave birth to the Anzac spirit (and) became the most defining event in our history. '' In the project of sedimenting his view of Australian identity, Howard has certainly been aided by the weaknesses of the political opposition in challenging these identity narratives (see Dyrenfurth 2007). But even here Howard has demonstrated a significant capacity to define the terms of debate in such a way as to limit the possibility for contestation without opponents being viewed as unpatriotic or lacking courage-as ''un-Australian'' (Smith 2006;McDonald and Merefield 2010).…”