Scott Morrison, good old Scomo, daggy Dad, Mr Suburban…well that didn’t last long, did it? He was in trouble even before last night’s cataclysmic tweet of a clip of parliament – possibly illegal and featured a song glorifying “no strings attached, sex from the back”and asking n—s, ‘who f—ing tonite’. Presumably the question has been taken on notice].
He had already ceased to be Mr Boring, one of us, and become immediately identified as a God-botherer. He started in on the religion thing and then, apparently in answer to a question, suggested that one response to the drought would be to “pray for rain”. The remark was immediately jarring, in an Australian political context. Americans see such expressions of faith as heartfelt, a measure of character, even if they don’t share the sentiment. Here, Morrison sounds like the bloke in the blue skivvy at the BBQ, being too friendly, the one you know to avoid.
The sweet-Jesus-give-us-rain moment, and the feint towards Safe Schools sits ill with a parallel commitment to being a leader in the spirit of Menzies. Menzies was, of course, by the standards of our time, socially conservative. Even the mild progressive shifts within the party in the mid-’60s were too much for him; he quit and made it known he was voting DLP, as Harold Holt and others began mild liberal feints on anti-censorship, race relations, etc.
But the key phrase is “standards of the time”. Menzies wasn’t ostentatiously religious, because no one was, or needed to be; some vague Christian-deistic god was kinda sorta believed in by most people. By the mid-’60s, many people thought that having thousands of books banned by the government was absurd. But many didn’t. Howard managed to combine cultural warriordom – used mainly to regain the leadership in 1994 – with the Menzies style, by presenting progressives as the disruptive force, and himself as a champion of those wanting to be “comfortable and relaxed”.
Tony Abbott was, by contrast, the loony on the tram. “Please don’t sit next to me, please don’t sit next to me,” we all thought, for nearly two years. Part of the initial success of Turnbull was the sheer relief from anxiety we all felt as Abbott strode the national stage. Then he turned out to be some sort of optical illusion, which was worse. Now people just want it over with.
The reason there isn’t more ridicule about praying for rain is not that there are large numbers of interventionist God believers out there, organising prayer circles under clouds – which is the sort of thing you’ll actually find in the US. It’s that everyone has just given up on this government, even as a source of derisive amusement. Ostentatious religiosity could well make a terrible situation much much worse for the Coalition.
The right commentariat will encourage them in that because, as far as one can tell, they still believe that the religious right can represent the non-fanatical norm in the culture war. They seem genuinely unaware that the polarities have flipped since the first culture war in the early ’90s. Strange, because their culture war, then, was about warning what would happen if a secular-progressive culture/education system triumphed.
What would happen is this. They lost the war. Now everyone under about 40 has been educated in that framework. So they don’t see what the fuss is about. Even people who are somewhat racist, anti-refugee, anti-trans culture are, in other matters, far more attuned to gender equality, tolerance on sexuality, secular and “agnostic” – i.e. functionally atheist – in culture.
With a few responses, Morrison has made it difficult for himself to get back into the homo suburbiensis demeanour. The addled right commentariat aren’t helping. They still think they’re fighting the ’60s/’70s culture war: that progressives are libidinous and antinomian, worshipping will and dynamism. If only. Actually, the real problem for the right is that Christian values of sacrifice to the other have lodged so deeply in secular progressive culture, that Morrison – as a former runner of our hellish detention system – appears pompous, vain and hypocritical, not merely irritating.
It’s bizarre to watch the right keep on this line. Culture war got Howard the leadership and the Lodge. Culture war has got this lot almost nothing. They’ve lost on 18C, marriage equality, they can’t get the African gangs narrative going, religious freedom, the works. Still it keeps going.
They keep believing they’ll draw Labor into defending renaming helium as theylium or something, while Labor, having moved economically leftward, now has a shared economic-state program both of its wings can get behind. In Victoria, Labor wants to spend three decades building a rail tunnel to thoroughly reconstruct the city. Meanwhile, the prime minister’s praying for a miracle for the farmers. And for closer to home.
Well worth the read, if only for discovering my new favorite word of the day.
antinomian: a person who believes that Christians are released by grace from the obligation of observing the moral law. 🙂
Thanks, Paddy, you saved having to reach for the Oxford.
Despite not believing in the prayer scam I’d be willing to beseech any higher power/entity for an early election. How desperate we become…
Well done Paddy. My only criticism would be…Surely the business of being antinomian is something practised daily by the poor fools who believe in the Liberal Party?
Yes. The antinomian enriched Liberal party in an out of control downwards trajectory.
At some level it doesn’t really work, though. After all, the core of modern political Christianity is the wholesale rejection of the gospel message in favour of legislating Leviticus.
Yes Paddy, and for me the throwaway: ” . . . they’ll draw Labor into defending renaming helium as theylium or something.” Onya GRundle.
LOL That was a close run second HCM
Gave me an instant Tom Lehrer earworm. 🙂
Yep. Pretty hard to argue with any of that. Well put.
“Labor, having moved economically leftward..” Would like to believe it, but their support for the TPP suggests that several within the party are still drinking the neoliberal Kool-Aid.
This is apparently on the basis they intend to try and renegotiate bits of it after winning office via side letters.
Pretty sure there is a large tactical element to this- the TPP is not a battleground the ALP wants to fight on at this time. Opposing the TPP gives a renewed “Labor’s War on Business” / “Labor Hate Trade” campaign for Morrison to fight against, and for what, to bleat about a trade agreement the government would get through with votes from the cross-bench anyway? After 5 years of discipline to try and win back government against all the business and media forces arrayed against it, Labor is not risking anything now with the end in sight.
As Bumbler Beezleblub demonstrated, one cannot be a small enough target without disappearing into irrelevancy.
Morrison is one of those characters where the more exposure he gets, the more wary the voting public will be of him.
In many way he’d have been better going to an election early and minimising the coming landslide. I just get the feeling that this is all going to get very ugly for the Coalition Government.
The coalition say they exist to deny Labor the treasury benches and so prevent a thousand abominations from crawling out of the sea to ruin us. I feel the right knifed Turnbull because of the awful possibility he might win again. The thought of this drove them into madness.
“…the awful possibility he might win again. The thought of this drove them into madness.”
Yep.
The Liberal Party was literally founded on the basis of being the opposition to the ALP, uniting the splintered anti-Labor forces under one banner.
Nothing has really changed.
Couldn’t agree more. “They lost the war. Now everyone under about 40 has been educated in that framework”. The fact that they have anchored on this one tactic demonstrates the pure cluelessness of the Liberals.
You don’t have to be very old to have seen a few iterations of the manufactured existential crisis in response some minor social change. The sun came up in the morning and life was generally better, mainly because that was what the change was about.
Generally, people don’t change attitude in response to a particular argument, their views just change over time with the community around them (a few deaths helps). I know some that will flat-out deny they held certain views. They did, but they also tend to have a blind spot for their own errors.