Calls for former Australian PMs to stay silent are hypocritical examples of conservative cancel cultureCalls for former Australian PMs to stay silent are hypocritical examples of conservative cancel culture (msn.com)In the wake of Malcolm Turnbull’s witheringly accurate assessment of Scott Morrison’s character last week, conservative political operatives have become increasingly aggressive in demanding that former prime ministers observe “dignified” silence about the current government’s myriad failures.
© Provided by The Guardian Composite: Mick Tsikas/Joel Carrett/AAP
This, of course, is a transparent effort to shield Morrison from pointed criticism, particularly from his own side, ahead of the next federal election.
It is also breathtaking in its hypocrisy. Mysteriously these political attacks by the Murdoch media and government ministers, present and former, only seem to apply to former prime ministers who dare to criticise Morrison.
Related:
News Corp opponents team up to fight ‘cancer on democracy’ | Weekly beastWhere is the criticism of Tony Abbott, who has been published in Murdoch papers more than 30 times since leaving parliament? What about Abbott’s fortnightly podcast produced by the Institute of Public Affairs, where Abbott waxes lyrical about the evils of the Australian Labor party?
As a free speech advocate, I think Abbott is perfectly entitled to remain fully engaged in public political debate. In fact, later this month, Abbott and I are jointly appearing to launch a new book to which we’ve both contributed. Abbott’s right to contribute to the national political discourse did not end when he lost his seat.
© Composite: Mick Tsikas/Joel Carrett/AAP Former Australian prime ministers Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd. Rudd writes: ‘Political attacks by the Murdoch media and government ministers, present and former, only seem to apply to former prime ministers who dare to criticise Morrison.’
The bottom line with Murdoch’s recent attacks on Turnbull, Paul Keating and myself is that it is a new version of conservative cancel culture. Murdoch and Morrison routinely attack the political left for attempting to “cancel” the voices of those whom they disapprove. Which is precisely what they are now doing in relation to former prime ministers who do not share their world view. These conservatives bemoan “cancel culture” but they have turned it into an art form.
By anyone’s measure, Morrison leads one of the most incompetent governments in living memory. It is mired in allegations of corruption, internally riven, contemptuous of public trust, abusive of taxpayer funds, and reckless in the prosecution of our country’s national security and international relations. The fact that former Liberal leaders, such as Turnbull and John Hewson, are among its strongest critics speaks volumes.
Video: Cop 26 negotiations in Glasgow have a long way to go, says PM (PA Media) On the core questions of our time – including our national security, our economic security, and our climate security – it is therefore the responsibility of every Australian citizen to engage as fully and freely as they can. Democracy isn’t just something that happens in polling booths every three years. It is a rolling national conversation that should include as many Australians as possible.
On
Sky News on Sunday, Alexander Downer said that by attacking Morrison, Turnbull looked mean spirited and bitter, and accused us both of “playing out an act of vengeance”. The political strategy behind this confected outrage from Murdoch, Downer and other conservatives is clear. They know Turnbull’s criticisms of Morrison’s duplicitous character are devastatingly effective because they confirm what voters already know about the prime minister. If it wasn’t effective, they wouldn’t bother. But rather than debate the substance of the criticism, instead they seek to delegitimise the critics.
The tactic has been pioneered by the Murdoch empire over the past few years in the debate about Murdoch’s abuse of his media monopoly. Former prime ministers who keep quiet have been showered with soft coverage, praising them for their great dignity. Whereas those who continue to exercise their free speech in shining a light on Murdoch’s Liberal party protection racket get the opposite treatment. It’s pretty simple really. Downer’s deployment of this Murdochesque language on Sunday, followed by Barnaby Joyce the next day, suggests this strategy is migrating from the government’s media wing to its political wing. Expect to see other politicians intervening between now and the election, tarring former prime ministers as “embittered”, “aggrieved” or otherwise unwilling to “let go”. These are the standard Murdoch memes that have been deployed against Turnbull and myself whenever either of us have dared attack Murdoch as a cancer on democracy.
But if Murdoch, Morrison or his political camp think this strategy will drive me into silence, I have disappointing news to report. It won’t.
I was fully engaged in national debates on foreign policy, the economy, climate, health, education and reconciliation long before I became prime minister. And I expect to be fully engaged in them for many years to come.
It is ridiculous to expect that politicians who leave parliament will abandon the causes and values that drove them to seek public office in the first place. To do so would only reinforce in Australians’ minds the view that political leaders are amoral, self-interested and obsessed with wielding power for its own sake.
It would be especially galling for the public who supported them. Those individuals who were urged to become engaged in supporting them – either through their vote, their money or their time as a volunteer – would discover that their MP never believed in grassroots politics after all.
Good political leaders seek election because it is a powerful platform to pursue the causes that they have long championed outside the parliament. They know from experience that political change can emerge from any corner of public life – not just political parties, but also through unions, business, community organisations and the media.
It makes sense for Downer to think of politics only through the exclusive prism of parliamentary life. The heir to a conservative political dynasty, he felt entitled to a seat in parliament as his birthright, regardless of what he might do with it. So when he retired, what causes could he pursue? Downer would take a lobbying job with China’s Huawei, using his credibility as a former foreign minister to attack the Labor government’s national security decision to exclude them from the national broadband network. Then, like an English aristocrat handing off his polo mallet for the next chukka, Downer twice tried to install his own heir in his old seat.
As for Joyce’s credentials to enter this debate, the less said the better. So deep, for example, were his principles on opposing carbon neutrality that he decided to cash them in in one giant lot to keep his job as deputy PM.
There is great danger in the view that only serving politicians have a place in our public square. We should not reduce our democracy to a kind of partisan gladiatorial combat where two sides enter the arena and the Australian people simply watch on in horror. It is a recipe for further alienating the public from the government that they are supposed to run.
I don’t see our democracy as a political plaything preserved for Morrison, the Murdoch monopoly and their mates behind the scenes. They cherish the notion of “quiet Australians” because listening to hard truths is inconvenient. My view is different. If we value our democratic rights, we should all be very noisy indeed.
