A good leader is judged on how successfully he reacts to the unexpected – as Harold McMillan put it, to “events, dear boy, events.” (That’s where Whitlam failed, and Hawke succeeded). But a great leader has more than this. A great leader has vision, one which offers not only good government, but also an idea of the nation.

De Gaulle had it in his “certaine idée de la France,” Churchill had it when he led the nation against the Nazis. Reagan and Thatcher had it too, and while the elites hated both, history has been kinder. A gentler assessment of Bush, disadvantaged by his inability to communicate to the American people as Reagan could, is also likely.

Menzies and Curtin wore this mantle of greatness, but among recent Australian leaders, only Howard has attained this. Unlike Keating’s flawed idea of Australia, Howard’s has struck a note with the rank and file. Misled by most in the commentariat, who share an irrational hatred of him, Beazley, Crean and Latham did not understand this. They tried desperately to distinguish themselves, and their idea of Australia, from his.

Rudd has learned from their mistakes. That’s why he suggests he shares Howard’s vision, that he will only be tinkering at the edges. His most effective line of attack is to call Howard “a clever politician,” thus demonstrating that he too is clever. Of course Howard is a clever politician. His reaction to the climate change campaign shows this. He diffused the issue without giving a blank cheque to the ideologues. But Howard is also the bravest of the brave. Who else would have risked everything in the GST election – and just to hand it all to ingrate state politicians? Now, while even some conservative columnists are in a poll driven panic, demanding he go, Howard remains firm and in command.

The question is whether Kevin Rudd, The Australian’s “multi-millionaire who has spent almost his entire working life on the public payroll,” will really be another John Howard. To be this he will have to impose his will on a caucus and cabinet filled to the brim with former union bosses and party apparatchiks. Once in office, they’re likely to reject the Howard/Rudd vision, and try to restore union dominance, pushing a left agenda at home and abroad. Prime Minister Rudd of course won’t be President Rudd, notwithstanding the mantra that our elections have somehow become “presidential.” If he resists, he’ll be reined in, or he’ll be pulled down.

Curtin had precisely this problem. In the nation’s darkest hour, he and Menzies should have governed together as Churchill and Atlee did. The left would not have that – they knew that Menzies would not have tolerated – for one minute – their treachery, particularly the undermining of the war effort on the waterfront. The endless struggle against them was no doubt a significant factor in Curtin’s premature death.

So how would a Prime Minister Rudd handle them? His ultimate act of courage would be to follow the example of W.M. Hughes and Joseph Lyons, and cross the floor, perhaps even leading a new conservative party. Or he could follow the example of the once protestant Henri of Navarre who to rule France is said to have declared: “Paris vaut bien une messe.” (Paris is well worth a mass.)

Is the Lodge worth a conversion?