The 2008 US Presidential election is getting unprecedented coverage in Australia. The Presidential debates were covered live here on major stations, and our television news, online news, radio and newspaper news is giving the elections serious coverage.

But how do the two sides compare in an Australian sense? Not everyone in Australia is following the news, and the depth of understanding in probably weaker again.

Traditionally Australian political parties have affiliations to American parties (often formal), for example the Liberal Party of Australia (our conservative party) has ties to the Republicans, the Labor Party to the Democrats. This split is reflected amongst newspaper columnists as well, for example Andrew Bolt is fiercely pro-Republican, anti-Democrat, but the divide has never made sense to me, because the policy divide isn’t anywhere similar to the Australian picture.

My wife recently told my mother to think of the two sides this way: The Democrats are the Liberal Party, and the Republicans Family First, because both are to the right in an Australian sense, but one is clearly more religious. It’s a generalization to be sure, but lets test it.

How Obama compares to the last Howard Government (and where applicable the Rudd Government)

I’m a former Howard Government staffer, as was my wife, so I’ve got some grounding in what the Liberal Party did in office. These points may generalize a little bit, but they are accurate without always referencing every fine detail.

Healthcare

Howard: supported universal healthcare through the Australian Medicare system. Offered tax incentives to those who took private cover

Obama: doesn’t favor state sanctioned universal healthcare, but is looking at a fallback option outside of the private system, an affordable health care pool

Result: Obama to the right of Howard

Defence (or Defense in US English)

Howard: troops in Iraq (and generally supported Bush), but most Australian troops in Afghanistan. Pro ANZUS

Obama: favors pulling out Iraq, increasing troops in Afghanistan. Pro Anzus

Rudd: favors pulling out Iraq, has kept troops Afghanistan. Pro Anzus

Result: Obama is to the left of Howard only on Iraq. May be more interventionist then Rudd

Industry policy

Howard: spent billions on propping up car industry, subsidising other industries. Reduced tariffs but didn’t remove them all.

Obama: talks about investing in industry, retooling car industry.

Result: about the same

Free Trade

Howard: started signing free trade agreements later into his term, previously more a unilateralist. Generally free trade, although conceded may conditions in various FTA’s.

Obama: wants conditional FTA’s. Regarded as anti-free trade, but hasn’t ruled them out

Result: hard. Obama wants different conditions in FTAs, but Howard regularly had conditions as well, so Howard wasn’t a pure free trader either. Obama slightly to the left, but not by a lot.

Farm policy

Howard: unprecedented socialist on farm policy, billions in subsidies.

Obama: not clear. Farm subsidies aren’t talked about much because generally both sides in the US support them.

Result: about the same.

Welfare

Howard: cracked down on unemployment benefits, but didn’t abolish them. Number of disability pensioners ballooned. Australia still has a generous social welfare system

Obama: wants the state to look after people more, but hasn’t proposed Australian style system.

Result: Obama to the right.

Environment

Howard: soft on global warming, but backed clean coal and some alternative industries.

Obama: strong on global warming, talks about investing billions in green energy.

Rudd: talks strong on global warming, but hasn’t done much yet.

Result: the environment isn’t necessarily a left/ right divide anymore, but Obama to the left

Taxation policy

Howard: cut taxes at all levels while in power. Did offer tax cuts to middle class only at times. Didn’t offer relief in Fringe Benefits Tax but some Capital Gains Tax relief

Obama: will cut tax for middle class, increase for wealthy, but rates are still much lower then Australia

Result: actually about the same. Howard did target tax cuts for the middle class, and the wealthy still pay tax at higher rates.

Education

Local/ State issue in both countries at some levels.

Howard: increased funding in education, talked about choice and standards. Tax help for early childhood education/ daycare.

Obama: wants to increase funding in education, supports “charter schools.” Wants to target early childhood education.

Result: about the same. Obama more to the right on some things, left on others.

Higher Education

Howard: supported HECS/ HELP, the system where University students don’t pay upfront, but pay back the Government when they earn, although increased fees significantly. Government still major backer of University system

Obama: wants to make College more affordable. Is not proposing a HECs style scheme from what I’ve read. College in the US primarily private or nonprofit run.

Result: Obama is a shift to the left from Bush, but is still way to the right compared to Howard.

Retirement/ pensions

Howard: free market superannuation where savings are invested with fund managers. However, increased the compulsory rate employers must contribute to super.

Obama: anti-free market 401ks, but isn’t proposing compulsory employer contributions from what I can read

Result: about the same. Howard increased taxes on employers and forced them to contribute more to retirement savings, yet was to the right on where the money should go.