The artless dodger

IT is the politics of the absurd: when Peter Costello wanted the leadership, he found the Liberal Party denied him. But when the party was keen to anoint him, Costello chose his own form of denial. The Liberal Party declined Costello and now Costello has declined the Liberal Party. This saga is a bizarre end to the leadership ambitions of the man widely hailed from the time of his 1990 entry into national politics as a certain future Liberal prime minister.

Costello fooled everybody and, perhaps in the end, he fooled himself. He was the perfect candidate for the highest office, possessing stature, brains, wit and projection.

Yet Costello's political character fell short of the requirements for the prime ministership in a conundrum that will be debated for many years.

The golden path that Costello travelled towards the Lodge was too golden and his progress seemed too perfect. Elected to parliament at 32, deputy leader at age 36, treasurer when he was 38 years old to John Howard, a generation older, a leadership transition seemed inevitable. It is scarcely a surprise that Costello, the Liberal Party and the media felt his ultimate appointment was in the Lodge.

But politics is a morality play on life. It never delivers the easy path. It conspires instead to obstruct and plague those whose ambitions are highest. Consider the two most successful Liberal prime ministers.

Robert Menzies was a first-time failure compelled to stand down as PM in 1941 during World War II and, in his second incarnation, he struggled for six long years as Opposition leader, losing the 1946 election and prevailing only in 1949 at his final chance, when defeat would have cast him as one of the great failures in Australia's political history. People have forgotten that Menzies' post-1949 success was built on a series of brutal rejections and long years on the Opposition benches.

Howard's story is well known because it is more recent. Like Menzies, Howard had two incarnations as leader, and like Menzies, he served six years as Opposition leader, initially 1985-89 and then 1995-96, before becoming the second longest serving PM after Menzies.

The idea of Menzies or Howard rebuffing the Liberal party when it desperately needed their leadership would have been inconceivable. Howard would have walked over broken glass to accept the Liberal leadership on any day the party extended that privilege. Not Costello.

Costello's decision to put his leader's cue in the rack is understandable. Those who know the crippling pressures of politics would not deny such consideration. It means, however, that Costello is different. Costello does not possess the same commitment or stamina in adversity as Menzies and Howard in their trench struggles to become successful prime ministers.

The idea that Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke or Paul Keating would have walked away from a chance to become leader of their party is also inconceivable. Such politicians had a will to power in its elemental and honourable dimensions. In politics they strove relentlessly to marshal support, develop plans for Australia's future and plan an assault on their party's leadership. They went to political war in these struggles not because they were power crazy but because they were consumed by a self-belief that is the lifeblood of political victory and achievement.

Costello is made from different mettle. The signs were always there. "I am not going to retire in politics," he told me during an interview in August 1998. He was adamant. His mind had settled that question, and it was still in Howard's first term. Costello was ever aware of the limits of political existence.

"I have always decided that, in my life, politics won't take its totality," he said. "I have a limited view of politics. There is an awful lot that politics can't fix. I think politicians have let themselves down by claiming to be able to do too much."

Costello can be either admired or damned for this perspective.

Such remarks reveal sharp differences between Howard and Costello. Howard was a lifelong political warrior who never planned a career after politics.

For Howard, politics was enough. Howard, more than Costello, was a Liberal Party tribalist. It was not unusual to hear Howard declare that he loved the Liberal Party. It wasn't just a vehicle he supported but fundamental to his way of life. Howard had a deep sense of responsibility and obligation to the Liberal Party.

Costello, of course, was loyal and deeply attached to the Liberal party. My argument is that his attachment to politics as a vocation and to the Liberals as a party was of a different dimension to that of Howard. This is partly a function of generations.

It was tied, however, to Costello's singular belief there was only one path for him to the Lodge: in a smooth transition gifted by Howard's retirement.

For Costello, this path had an irrefutable rationale: it was in the interests of the Liberal Party, of Howard and of himself as successor. It was a "best of times" transition. It was neat, it avoided political bloodshed and it renewed the government.

"I think the party realises that I have deposited a lot of loyalty with the party in the bank," Costello told me in 1998. It was a loyalty strategy that finally became too frayed at the edges.

The evidence is that Costello could never bring himself to seriously contemplate an alternative: marshalling numbers against Howard, resignation to the backbench or a challenge. He wasn't going to gamble. He shunned brinkmanship or any hint of "crash through or crash". For Costello, there was no other path to the prize.

As time advanced, Costello's position became fatalistic. He didn't believe Howard would resign yet, and unable to adopt another strategy, he clung to a doomed option. In the end, he let Howard decide his fate. Denied the prime ministership by Howard, Costello was left after the 2007 election loss unwilling to create a new narrative for himself. That remains the position. The shadow of Howard overhangs Costello still.

He has no future as an Opposition backbencher. Any such ongoing status is a farce. Leadership or the exit door are the only viable options and Costello, this week, seemed to rule out the leadership.

There is no gainsaying what the Liberal Party needs: it is crying out for a sustained period of strong and credible leadership on policy, presentation and organisation. The re-establishment of the party's credentials will take time and effort. There is no easy, overnight or public relations answer.

Costello is the outstanding candidate and his removal from the field is a serious setback for the Liberals. If Costello is ever to become leader, now is the hour.

His rejection of that call must only provoke more speculation. If Costello thinks there is a real chance of defeating the Rudd Government, would he not accept the responsibility of leadership? If he stays on the backbench, does he not recognise that his mere presence undermines the leader?

Tony Abbott predicted this week that Costello's decision means "he will live forever with this haunting sense of what might have been". Abbott's argument is correct. Yet it underestimates Costello, who has had many years to decide what he is prepared to live with.