The rapid dumping of Liberal adviser Andrew Hudgson is a sure sign the Morrison government is doing some rapid course correction in the way it deals with matters of sexual harassment and more.
Hudgson, who until yesterday was an adviser to Victorian Christian rightist Michael Sukkar, was named by Tasmanian Greens leader Cassie O’Connor as having called her a “meth-head cunt” in public last year.
O’Connor’s snapback serves, in part, as a response to Boothby MP Nicolle Flint’s attempt to put GetUp and Extinction Rebellion in the frame, although whether using parliamentary privilege to ping individual remarks made in the wider world — however vile — will end well for any of us, remains to be seen (irrelevant perhaps, but if the Tasmanian Greens could recruit some actual methhead cunts, they might have a chance in Braddon and Bass again).
But the Libs’ rapid response is something they wouldn’t have done even a week ago. Up to now they’ve luxuriated in the idea that the anger and resolution being expressed in the burgeoning “enough” movement would be confined to the “tertiary-educated”.
Apparently internal polling suggests it hasn’t been. It’s not surprising that it took polling to convince the Libs the issue would spread beyond the progressive classes.
The party is now substantially composed of culture warriors; they think any social issue is a product of agitation by an elite. The right’s identity is now largely dependent on defining itself against the progressivism — the independent existence of a formation like Thatcherism or neoconservatism is a distant memory.
To concede on the points being made by progressive movements not only surrenders political points; it grants legitimacy to the collectivist ideas about power and social process that undergird progressivism.
Such a concession corrodes classical liberal notions (or fictions) of individual responsibility and blame. For a fortnight the Libs have resisted joining the “enough” conversation because they’ve known they’d be on enemy terrain.
But clearly they now believe there’s no alternative but to make a radical shift in their process. Since this moment began, with Brittany Higgins’ allegation of rape, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been improvising his way through with a mix of personal animus towards every fresh attack and some basic sense that something is going on.
Already things he said only some days ago sound archaic — such as his “what if it was my daughter?” moment. This was an attempt to subsume progressivist notions of gender conflict into conservative familialist notions of mutual protection and love. It doesn’t appear to have worked for them, and it sounded odd from the start.
On a whole series of issues, most of them related to personal and bodily autonomy, Australians break about 70% in the progressive direction. Same-sex marriage, access to abortion, etc, are now secure at those numbers.
Other matters connected with our collective life tend to break the other way — 30-70, the 70% holding a conservative position — on issues such as refugee policy, the retention of Australia Day etc.
That leaves a 30-40% middle to play for. The Libs clearly hoped the “enough” movement could be framed in a way that put the 30-70 split into operation, especially in the case of Attorney-General Christian Porter and the written rape allegations made against him — which he strenuously denies.
Possibly they gained some limited traction on the Porter case, but any attempt to maximise it was swamped by subsequent events. Now they are learning that the “enough” issue is breaking 70-30 for the simple reason that it derives from the politics of direct personal experience, and not from a distant and imposed culture war.
This has most likely been an unwelcome shift in perceptions since a certain type of suburban Christian conservatism has spread substantially through the party in recent years, one which sees — and needs to see — there as being no substantial conflict between men and women in the social order.
This is quite different from Tony Abbott’s Grand Guignol Catholicism. The various forms of Hillsongism spreading throughout the Libs offers a personal religiosity geared not to a cosmic order but to a more individualised one, in which Jesus acts as a sort of career booster, life coach and spiritual Prozac.
That attitude has been responsible for their sluggishness in understanding how challenging these new events would be. But it also offers them some capacity to reappraise where they stand.
This is obviously so for Morrison, whose success in life has clearly been due to the fact that his enemies have successively underestimated him.
Morrison is the son of a cop who ran his own Christian religious sect. It doesn’t get much more patriarchal than that. Yet he worked most of his pre-politics life in tourism, a fairly louche trade.
Morrison either wears his Christian heritage lightly and cynically, or he’s sincere but knows how to mediate with a world he believes to be fallen and corrupt. He appears capable of talking back to his own obsessions in a way that Abbott never was. That may well allow him and the leadership to do what they hate and acknowledge the social reality of a movement that now confronts them.
Certainly Labor would be foolish to see this moment as the deliverance it were waiting for, even with the buck-up of the West Australian result.
Morrison’s initial responses are often clumsy and damaging; his follow-up tends to be calibrated and effective. He may well be able to absorb this reversal, consolidate and reposition.
The fact that the movement is allowing itself to give prominence to Liberal women helps it along in that. The lift-shafting of poor puffy young Hudgson shows it’s determined to do it. And one has the creeping sense that Labor is about to find itself on the other end of the culture war as the revelations multiply.
Sexual violence inflicted upon (mostly) women by (mostly) men is but one aspect of the whole rubric of gender inequality which so diminishes our whole community. One might argue it is an expression, at an individual level, of a system which routinely privileges the convenience of men over the security, safety, health and dignity of women. We see this in employment, we see this in health, we see this in housing, we see this in superannuation balances. This privilege has been enabled, reinforced and expanded under LNP governments since Howard. It is their policy – no matter their bleatings in the last few weeks.
The challenge for labor is to draw a line between the egregious behaviour of individuals and its systemic enablement by the Morrison government through their policies of patriarchal privilege.
That doesnt really match the broad historical trend, though, does it? From 1996 to now, the coalition has been in power for 19 of the last 25 years. In that time, the general trebd of women entering the full time workforce, becoming greater proportins of the professions, being MPs etc etc has increased hugely. One might point to particular acts such as Abbott making himself minister for women etc – but none of it slowed the trend much, let alone reversed it.
Arguably, in terms of directed impoverishment, the single most explicitly retrograde govt act was the Gillard govt switching single mothers to newstart.
Yr not arguing that things have gone backward for women since 1996, are you? (As opposed to going backward forvwage earners as a whole)
The historical trend during this period has been one of intensifying class warfare conducted principally by the agents of the rentier classes, (that is the LNP, serenaded by the media and abetted by the ALP). In this context, Gillard’s treachery towards people on the SPB was but one of a series of processes to further immiserate the working class – with the broader intent of slashing incomes, and pushing even more people into the precarious economy. This is a burden which falls most heavily upon women. It is a feature of the program.
The mainstream political agenda has been to reduce and disrupt any and all expressions of working class solidarity which might lead to a challenge to the power of finance capital. A key component of this strategy has been to foster social division and enmity – especially along the fault lines of ethnicity and gender.
A particularly insidious element of this is the way a nauseating caricature of blokiness has been at once sanctified and simultaneously portrayed as threatened – Howard’s Battlers as they were once designated. (Although Hawke was also adept at exploiting this meme).
Bloke’s insecurities are constantly being tweaked. His manhood is constantly under threat from greenies, and from women in hijabs, and from Safe Schools, and from electric cars and from any number of other dread sources seeking to puncture the primacy of his priapic potency. At the same time the objective reality of the socio-economic environment contradicts the stereotypic expectation. Bloke is then urged to turn his resentment upon these sources of his discomfort – who happen, almost invariably, to be women.
This is not new. The difference, I think is the way it has been intensified in the last twenty years; the 2019 election result turned on it.
Sure, there’s now one or two women CEOs and more than a handful of women MPs, but the real gender wage gap has probably increased when you factor in the growth of precarious employment. From time to time you will see a presentable young woman in a hi-vis vest holding a lollipop at a roadworks site – but look at who is driving the heavy machinery. Occupations generally remain stubbornly gender divided; the ones which are predominantly female are predominantly the lowest paid.
All of the above – including the ongoing campaign of savagery upon womens’ bodies – are outcomes of deliberate, conscious policy and program decisions taken in the interests of a tiny number of people – most of whom don’t even live here. This, also, is not new.
Good wrap Griselda.
Bloke’s insecurities are constantly being tweaked. His manhood is constantly under threat from greenies, and from women in hijabs, and from Safe Schools, and from electric cars and from any number of other dread sources seeking to puncture the primacy of his priapic potency. At the same time the objective reality of the socio-economic environment contradicts the stereotypic expectation. Bloke is then urged to turn his resentment upon these sources of his discomfort – who happen, almost invariably, to be women.
I’d feel sorry (sorrier!) for the poor bastards if they weren’t so viciously attacking their perceived enemy and looked deeper to see who the real enemy is!
I agree with this. The problem is that too many men do not see sex as something you do with another person. When you do something with another person consent is written into doing something together with another. Each person knows that they want to have sex with the other person and knows that the other person wants to have sex with them and knows that you know that they know what you want to do with them. The problem is that outdated traditions have clouded what many people instinctively want to do so that some men, perhaps about a third of them, think that sex is only something that they do and the other person is just an object rather than a person with whom they are doing something together with. Anyone who has had sex with another person should know that if the other person is not acting with you then it would be better if you simply masterbated rather than involve another person in masturbation with relying primarily on your hands. We have inherited false virtues from the past. Chastity is not a virtue. Having sex with another person in a way that might lead to a good life together with that person is the virtue. Lust is not a vice. Lust helps with having sex with another person that might lead to a good life with them. The vice is being so alienated from having sex with another person that you are capable of raping another person. These tired old religious and legal ideas that support gender equality need to go. Education without illusions is what men need.
Some typos: support gender inequality. Blame the correction guesser, although I should have not have written “with” twice in one sentence.
The movement is not giving prominence to Liberal women – that is down to the media who uncritically regurgitated the attacks on Labor women and leadership by Nicole Flint who has never previously lifted a finger to help any of her ‘sisters’. The warning however is apt but so far the PM has shown that he has no ability to actually consider the impact on women of pork barreling or cuts to budgets or reports on how women can be helped.Hillsong is no help either.
Nicole willingly joined the big swinging dicks. How could she have failed to notice the Ditch the Witch signs when Gillard was PM? Crocodile tears from the very right wing Nicole. As a resident of Boothby, I wont miss her at all.
Nicole Flint obviously did not get any support from the Liberal party sisterhood and then cried foul because the Labor party women did not give her the support she felt she was owed.
Poor Nicole, perhaps her Christian group were also not up to the task, either.
As the say “If you want a friend and you work in politics, get a dog”.
As another resident of Boothby, I won’t miss her either!!
Unfortunately, Sooty has the ability to pivot if necessary.
I wouldn’t be surprised if childcare becomes “free” just before the next election.
The squatter of Kirrabilli House is a desperate man looking to keep his views, an unhappy Jen does not bear thinking on.
It took weeks for Hyacinth to be prised out Kirribilli House in 2007 after the Rodent lost Bennelong and the election.
That’s a highly original political strategy Rundle has suggested to the Tasmanian Greens in Braddon & Bass.
ha ha that idea resonated with me too!
Worrying that Labor might get caught up in the claims is not really the point is it? Because of course it will. Why did 100K women march because harassment is a constant reality of all women’s lives whether studying, working or walking down the street. And, there is no effective way to deal with each individual harassment event. The opportunity is to create an environment where it stops happening and also put in place something that works which provides consequences to the men who commit the harassment. Rape as a crime is only successfully prosecuted 1% of the time (when it is reported) – so how about a target to get that to the same figure as say murder and implement things like Women only police stations or other strategies that are proven to work overseas. It’s Morrison’s deer in the headlights, the ‘please can we not talk about this’ expression that is creating the problem for the Liberals.
There’s a reason rapists are bashed in prison by other males. Contrary to what is portrayed in the media the vast majority of men despise rapists, myself included. The theory that most men condone this behaviour towards women needs to be stop if women actually want the support of those men. Do they want this backing or do they want gender warfare. Casting most men as complicit isn’t going help this worthy cause. Moderate women need to speak up and defend moderate men, and doing that would demonstrate their leadership ability. Win win.
I think you know full well that the principle reason for the low *conviction* rate isn’t due to some great gender conspiracy (which absolutely exists in many countries). Its a great rallying call for the sisterhood but the police have said it loud and clear, it is because sexual activity by its nature happens in private where there are no witnesses. If there is no evidence of any form of coercion then even the most horrible behaviour comes down to one persons word against another. Like it or not our legal system is based on the concepts of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘sparing 9 of the guilty to prevent 1 of the innocent’.
I fully agree that many victims (male or female, adult or children) don’t feel comfortable coming forward either thru shame, fear that they wont be believed, fear that they will be brutalised by the legal system or that they will be punished by others. I think you have the full support of most men to stop this happening. You have my full support.
But you need to stop this male conspiracy stuff or half of Australia will simply switch off.
Only a man could have written this.
That claim is a vile aspersion on women. (see Dr William Acton….)
Two birds, one stone?
For a “metaphorical virgin” he seems to have one heck of a potty mouth? …. How many Liberal polling booths has he worked on?
Is Hudgson anything more than a sacrificial, expendable deadwood goat – hardly one of his front-line seraphs – another stunt, allowing Scotty to look like he’s doing something and the fleeting illusion that he cares?
Scotty’s “enemies” in NZ and Oz tourism certainly underestimated him – right out the door.
Sacrificial goat? His comments are two years old, O’Connell didn’t hear them anyway (they had to be breathlessly relayed by her Flak before they could transmit ‘offense/harassment’ – talk about devotion to open comms, Greens! – and they were reported/investigated/dismissed at the time. For whatever that might (not) be worth.
So, yeah…you would have thought the whole thing – from the original potty-mouthed schoolyard sin, through the ‘offence’ so very carefully taken, to the lip service investigation/dismissal, to the belated theatrical sacking – is one gigantic exercise in Identity Politics cynicism. The contempt all of these practised simulacrum thespians have for us takes the breath away.
Welcome to the future, folks. The planet is burning, the economy is cleaving into untenable Super Rich Few v. Dirt Poor Many, and everywhere, to-the-death despots and counter-revolutions are sprouting. And Australia’s privileged Information Classes are spiralling up their own narcissistic bums in a game of passive aggressive me-too-ism.
Gah, O’Connor. Apols.
Oh Jack, that’s how I feel too – I feel your anguish.
And I don’t think either of us is denying for a moment that lots of appalling and outrageous stuff happens to women, because they are women, all the time. But to have that problem hijacked for a cynical exercise in identity politics, while the planet burns and the 1% get mega-richer, just kills me.
If it brings down this government and we have a hope, a vague hope of better things with an alternative one then it is worth it because NOTHING ELSE has stuck to these teflon …. etc etc!
Et tu, Beth?! You should go into cynical machine politics!
You’re right, I suppose…provided this continues to ‘play out’ (ie in cynical terms) in Labor’s ‘favour’, IAW Rundle’s 70/30 rule. Not entirely sure it will. Lots of people seem to like Morrison the daggy dad, in the big swing seats. His cumbersome referrals to his wife/daughters etc may have jarred badly with the Info Classes for now, and may continue to do so. But it may not, too, especially as GR notes if the Libs continue to play ruthless, brazen ‘switcheroo’ on this issue opportunistically. My guess is that News will start rolling out the ‘pro-patriarchy/sexual behaviour continence’ social conservative women’s voices now and gazump the sexual agency/consent discussions with ‘parental/family values’ memes, big time. But we’ll see.
..sorry Beth…’may have jarred badly with women beyond the Info Class for now, and…’, etc. There seems certainly a more universal anger among women than the usual ‘Big DV’ suspects for now. How long it endures and whether it translates into progressive or social conservative political advantage/change I think remains to be seen.
I have to live in hope!