Via John Barrdear, Peter Martin relates a story of the different approaches by Peter Costello and John Howard. The way the story is written Costello comes off as the dumb bureaucrat blind to political realities and consumed by graphs and other boring things like mathematics and budgets, and so forth.

However, in that little quip of a story Costello comes off better than either the Democrats or John Howard. Costello gives the Democrats a long discussion on budgets, cost effectiveness and what can be afforded. Costello is the empirical rationalist. However the reply from the Democrats is a political quip:

"At one point Costello said: Natasha, you don't appear to understand the numbers. To which she replied: I do understand the numbers Peter, you don't have them in the Senate and you won't be passing this bill"

So the Democrats were talking politics when Costello was talking mathematical and economic realities. Why would they be surprised when they get into Howard's office and he starts talking politics? Why would they be floored at all? They made a quip saying they didn't come to Costello to be convinced by empirical or rational arguments, they wanted a political solution; not an economic one. Why would they be surprised when Howard immediately talked politics with them?

I think it is a story to make the bureaucrat sound out of touch, when in reality there were political solutions being enforced and the political horse trading that is so often detested from politicians being made out as the noble, human and in-touch methodology. There has been a strong commitment to Australia getting its public debt under control, and it has been bureaucrats like Costello who actually understand numbers, economics and rational arguments; and more so, apply them over politics that have made a difference in that area.

By comparison the US has not, for instance Cheney's statement that "deficits don't matter", they do of course, economically they can be disastrous, Cheney was saying they don't matter politically.

For John Howard, his political ear led him to trash limited government, limited executive power, and even the public purse. Each new policy from him in the latter half of his time as Prime Minister was a political game to get re-elected. The "Children Overboard" affair, the Aboriginal intervention; with each new application of politics governance got worse and worse. However, during this period the power of the executive and national government continued to grow at the expense of a decentralised system. The same laws continue to be on the books.

Personally I prefer the dry economic rationalist who has empirical arguments rather than politics. I know politics are necessary, the position of least dissatisfaction is necessary to obviate violence and include as many political interest factions as possible, but a rational argument should be enough in most cases.