Now that Joycegate — how did this never become a “-gate”? — has quieted for a moment, it might be worth making a few points that got less than full consideration. When the story broke, there was a big push to argue a total separation of private and public life.
Then many progressives realised what hamstrung them: Joyce had made private life a public issue in the plebiscite, so goose, gander, sauce. Actually I think that’s off the mark; there’s nothing inconsistent about being a shagger, and believing in traditional marriage only.
What’s inconsistent, and what makes Barnaby Joyce’s entire private life fair game is the argument conservatives make about the necessary structure and form of social life. Conservatism — and the National Party is a conservative one — argues that social order is precarious, that the world is more complex than any knowledge system can encompass.
Thus tradition should be respected, and changed gradually and piecemeal. Concrete “given” institutions, such as the nuclear biological family are anchors of a society. Therefore they demand renunciation: you give up some individual desires — like an affair with that hair-twirling hottie in the roller-disco outfit — to preserve order.
For a century or more, progressives have argued against this. Tradition is a source of domination, misery and lack of flourishing, they have said. Better risk chaos than live in misery. Within this debate are different ideas about what it is to be human, creatures born in sin versus the hope that rational, reflective life may be possible.
With the desperate defence of Joyce’s privacy, conservatives conceded the final redoubt of their defence to progressives. Indeed they overshot: in their disregard of a child on the way from this affair, the right is stepping into the territory of post-Woodstock 1970s era cultural nihilism, that even progressives pulled back from.
The curtain-raiser to this was the Milo Yiannopoulos tour: all these advocates of traditional order desperate to be seen with the blonde bomber, a defender of the positive character of young adolescent-adult sex, a troll of uproar and disorder, Aleister Crowley meets Justin Bieber. Political Viagra for a movement drained by its lack of autonomous values, and its self-definition with regard to the left.
It is not merely Joyce’s media fate, but his behaviour itself that was a consequence of this nihilism. This is something that even those on the right who see something gone very wrong won’t acknowledge.
Take Paul Kelly’s op-ed in today’s Oz, a piece pinging round the echo chamber with laughter and ridicule. Kelly finally gets that there’s been a crisis in conservatism, but guess whose fault it is? Progressives! Their campaigns for sexual surveillance has turned Joycegate into the “cult of victimisation”.
There is that, in the air, but that’s not what’s at work here. No progressives called for a minister-staffer sex ban. Takes a lot of guile to blame this “what the butler saw” move on the left! Turnbull improvised that — from the right — as a political stopgap. In fact, progressives criticised those on the left, for breaking their own ban on politicising consensual relations, for cheap gain.
The cultural and political crisis of our time is not a product of the progressivism Kelly has always hated – but of the liberal economics/social conservative model he has espoused for decades. The unbounded market has now worn away all grounded meaning, so that movement can no longer stably exist. Into that cultural vacuum has rushed statist progressivism.
What’s fair game and what isn’t, in these matters, depends on the person concerned. “Politician eats steak” is no story — unless it’s an MP for the Animal Liberation Party. Conservative pollies who want to advocate “family values” in, among other things, welfare systems, pro-marriage tax regimes, health, contraception and abortion law, religious freedom, etc, etc, should expect no quarter. We will find out, and expose, if you have cast your seed upon the waters. Barnaby himself? He couldn’t withstand even one more scandal …
Having your snout in every available trough and self-interpreting every guideline in your own favour isn’t a good look when you’re part of a victim-blaming government that issues debt notices against the poor and requires them to prove, somehow, that the debt isn’t owed while at the same time starting to pay it off.
Well, if so, watch for the public sentiment to shift pretty fast: dump Joyce and the biggest losers will of course be both his ex-wife and kids AND his new partner and unborn child. His capacity to financially support them all will be pretty much halved overnight…not such a great look, really, for a Spiv PM on a huge independent (Spiv Economics) income who’s thrown his Coalition co-leader under a bus within a few months of the Coalition-fillipping Tamworth by-election (over an issue he very bloody well knew all about then). Sure, people will dance on Barnaby’s carcass for a bit, but that’ll get old quickly. Natalie Joyce has been on the Tele FP already, fairly grimly asking not be cut financially adrift exactly when she needs it least. Then again, maybe her new BFF the well-to-do, respectably-still-married, Posh City twinsetter Mrs Lucy can organise some nice charitable food packages for her and the girls, if BJ does lose the ministerial loot. One thing about your filthy rich urban progressive, they’ll always be there with a discreet little handout for the poor, fallen, rural woman…
Political anger always eventually defaults to money issues – inequality, (un)fairness, rip-offs, spivvery, greed. It’s been three or four decades since voters got a clear view of the ugly fiscal reality behind Spiv Economics, but the fast-dwindling remaining economic pennies are dropping very fast now. That’s why the Paul Kelly/AFR Alberici-bashing crews are having such very public nervous breakdowns now…
Impeccable analysis from the writer, as usual.
It’s hard to make a case for not reducing Joyce’s income from the taxpayer to a mere $200,000 or so because it would inconvenience his families. He’s had – what is it, 24 years? on the public purse to get a bit of a nest egg together. His income as a backbencher would be several times what the average Australian supports his/her family on. Perhaps they could get to know the local Salvos store like we did when our children were growing up.
I get what you are saying, but Joyce has a huge talent for hooking up to wealth. He’ll be ok – Gina and her fellow travelers will foot the bill when the tax payers no longer are.
Or maybe it’s wealth hooking up to Joyce. How attractive will he be, to wealth or women, when he’s a powerless backbencher or worse?
woopwoop, cmon, you know how bonkaby wins those gals, he`s tamworths Erroll Flynn, those dashing good looks with that great mop of tousled hair and that slender athletic build and oozing charm and personality, how could any lusty wench not be attracted and fall under his devilish spell.
How depressingly accurate.
I confess to not knowing why Barnaby Joyce is/was called the retail politician. However, judging by the current lack of talent in the National Party, all we have to do is wait a while before getting the lot the lot- wholesale.
Gina Rinehart is impressed by Cousin Jethro’s skills, dubbing him ‘a champion of farming’ as she handed over a $40K congratulatory cheque last November.
Perhaps it’s time for him to cut his political losses (and ours) & put himself forward to run Gina’s newly acquired S Kidman enterprise. What with all his water management & agricultural know-how ‘n all.
Joyce is corrupt he recently bought back a water licence worth less than $38 million for $76 million from one of his many irrigator friends, if all he gets is being tossed out of the parliament then he can count himself lucky, I couldn’t care less about anyone who has lived well off him for all the years that he has been ripping off the majority of tax payers
The ongoing ‘Joycegate’ grief for Turnbull must, in retrospect, make Utegate look like comparatively happy times.
The good thing about the polemics of our Polonius of the Press gallery is that they are always post hoc ergo propter hoc and thus appeal only to the terminally deluded.
Pity there isn’t a heavy curtain he could hide behind when needed.
Is grundle mixing his cliches “if you have cast your seed upon the waters.” deliberately, sort meta double innuendo tautological oxymoron?
Onan cast his seed upon the ground – Gen 38:9 but the point of Eccl 11:1 “cast bread upon the waters” means to do something now so that it will bring benefit later.
Neither of which applies to Barnyard. If only.