The Labor Party of Australia functions best when it can put two things together. The first is the talent and energy of working class individuals who desire a better life. The second is the means of upper class individuals who have empathy for and want a sense of collegiality with the man on the street.
The peak manifestation of this union is the Hawke-Keating government. Keating was a prodigious intellect, an archetypal self-starter, and possessed of indefatigable ambition. Coming from the working class but in possession of these qualities, it is unsurprising that he also stank of cultural cringe and was burdened by a chip on his shoulder. Hawke had a privileged background, was Oxford educated and felt at home in the member's pavillion. But he also had tremendous compassion and genuinely wanted to be invited to smash a few tinnies with the lads down on the shop floor. There is a famous story of Hawke being interrupted twice by a waitress (who referred to him as Bob) while conducting Prime Ministerial business, and him being completely fine with it. This story reflects our classless culture, but it also reflects Bob's inherent camaraderie with working class. Keating was of the working class and wanted out. Hawke was not of the working class but wanted in. Together, they made Australia rich and egalitarian: the progressive dream.
The greatest threat to the Labor party is its contamination with bourgeois aspirations. Keating's ambition was not to be bourgeois but to be Aristocratic, Lordly even, though in a strictly meritocratic way. He wanted to call the shots because he thought he was the best at it. His cultural proclivities - for fast cars and rock and roll in his youth and opera in his older age - are not those of the bourgeois. Fundamentally, the petit bourgeoisie desires material comfort, and security more generally. They are an inherently conservative bunch, or at least given to staid, riskless ventures (those are the words I would use to describe all of Australian federal politics at present). They are aspirational certainly, but for gloss, not substance. For tranquillity, not dynamism. It is unsurprising that the traditional occupations of the bourgeois are all in the professions - jobs for life; with solid, steady incomes and consistent social appreciation. Rock and roll, Wagner, structural adjustment and leadership where you make hard trade-offs constantly are not the abode of the bourgeois. More importantly, the bourgeoisie wants to rise above the working class, not bring it along. The bourgeoisie does not want change to the class structure of society, but it is precisely such change that is required for Labor to prosper. The recent elections in the UK and US make it abundantly clear that when the left forgets about economic class and focuses instead on the political goals of left-identifying members of the bourgeoisie it does horribly.
I am worried that the Labor party is presently infected with bourgeois culture. Its gradual disconnection from the unions (for good reason admittedly) and the geographic retreat to the corridors of power that the internet and polling has facilitated means that it has lost its connection to workers. Senior figures from the reform era tell me that the Hawke-Keating cabinet "wore out a lot of shoe leather" doing "retail politics" directly to voters. Shorten instead calls the shots from a private jet surrounded by a cabal of pollsters. Labor's ranks are filled with kids from bourgeois backgrounds, so it is unsurprising that the organisation is now riven through with bourgeois sentiment. This is evident from the policies that the parties present. Identitarian battles rather than class battles, "pro-worker" policies that are populist rather than effective (like protecting jobs rather than developing better learn-fare, income security and reactivation programs), and foreign policy that is diplomatic (read: glamorous) rather than about ensuring a steady flow of investment (read: jobs) to Australia.
The two best indicators I've come across for this are, admittedly, anecdotal. The first, which I believe I read in a Gittens article but it might have been Jericho, is that not a single Federal Labor MP has their child in a public school. That is an absolute disgrace! How are you to serve your constituency if you don't even know what they are dealing with? The second is the scandal around Tony Burke charging taxpayers to fly first class with his aide (now partner). Leaving aside the outrageousness of charging the taxpayer, what the fuck is a Labor frontbencher doing flying first class! You represent the people! Be among the people! I am reminded here of an infamous quote from Gough Whitlam, another excellent example of the Aristocrat who wants camaraderie with the man in the street. He was addressing the cabinet:
"I travel economy and I am a great man. I could travel economy for the rest of my life and I would still be a great man. But most of the people around this table are pissants and they could travel first class for the rest of their life and they would still be pissants."
You can't be an effective Labor party if your deepest, most primordial instinct regarding the working class is to separate yourself from it.
P.S. after a recent conversation something crystalised for me: Labor is becoming the party of the envious middle class against the liberal party of the avaricious ruling class.
The peak manifestation of this union is the Hawke-Keating government. Keating was a prodigious intellect, an archetypal self-starter, and possessed of indefatigable ambition. Coming from the working class but in possession of these qualities, it is unsurprising that he also stank of cultural cringe and was burdened by a chip on his shoulder. Hawke had a privileged background, was Oxford educated and felt at home in the member's pavillion. But he also had tremendous compassion and genuinely wanted to be invited to smash a few tinnies with the lads down on the shop floor. There is a famous story of Hawke being interrupted twice by a waitress (who referred to him as Bob) while conducting Prime Ministerial business, and him being completely fine with it. This story reflects our classless culture, but it also reflects Bob's inherent camaraderie with working class. Keating was of the working class and wanted out. Hawke was not of the working class but wanted in. Together, they made Australia rich and egalitarian: the progressive dream.
The greatest threat to the Labor party is its contamination with bourgeois aspirations. Keating's ambition was not to be bourgeois but to be Aristocratic, Lordly even, though in a strictly meritocratic way. He wanted to call the shots because he thought he was the best at it. His cultural proclivities - for fast cars and rock and roll in his youth and opera in his older age - are not those of the bourgeois. Fundamentally, the petit bourgeoisie desires material comfort, and security more generally. They are an inherently conservative bunch, or at least given to staid, riskless ventures (those are the words I would use to describe all of Australian federal politics at present). They are aspirational certainly, but for gloss, not substance. For tranquillity, not dynamism. It is unsurprising that the traditional occupations of the bourgeois are all in the professions - jobs for life; with solid, steady incomes and consistent social appreciation. Rock and roll, Wagner, structural adjustment and leadership where you make hard trade-offs constantly are not the abode of the bourgeois. More importantly, the bourgeoisie wants to rise above the working class, not bring it along. The bourgeoisie does not want change to the class structure of society, but it is precisely such change that is required for Labor to prosper. The recent elections in the UK and US make it abundantly clear that when the left forgets about economic class and focuses instead on the political goals of left-identifying members of the bourgeoisie it does horribly.
I am worried that the Labor party is presently infected with bourgeois culture. Its gradual disconnection from the unions (for good reason admittedly) and the geographic retreat to the corridors of power that the internet and polling has facilitated means that it has lost its connection to workers. Senior figures from the reform era tell me that the Hawke-Keating cabinet "wore out a lot of shoe leather" doing "retail politics" directly to voters. Shorten instead calls the shots from a private jet surrounded by a cabal of pollsters. Labor's ranks are filled with kids from bourgeois backgrounds, so it is unsurprising that the organisation is now riven through with bourgeois sentiment. This is evident from the policies that the parties present. Identitarian battles rather than class battles, "pro-worker" policies that are populist rather than effective (like protecting jobs rather than developing better learn-fare, income security and reactivation programs), and foreign policy that is diplomatic (read: glamorous) rather than about ensuring a steady flow of investment (read: jobs) to Australia.
The two best indicators I've come across for this are, admittedly, anecdotal. The first, which I believe I read in a Gittens article but it might have been Jericho, is that not a single Federal Labor MP has their child in a public school. That is an absolute disgrace! How are you to serve your constituency if you don't even know what they are dealing with? The second is the scandal around Tony Burke charging taxpayers to fly first class with his aide (now partner). Leaving aside the outrageousness of charging the taxpayer, what the fuck is a Labor frontbencher doing flying first class! You represent the people! Be among the people! I am reminded here of an infamous quote from Gough Whitlam, another excellent example of the Aristocrat who wants camaraderie with the man in the street. He was addressing the cabinet:
"I travel economy and I am a great man. I could travel economy for the rest of my life and I would still be a great man. But most of the people around this table are pissants and they could travel first class for the rest of their life and they would still be pissants."
You can't be an effective Labor party if your deepest, most primordial instinct regarding the working class is to separate yourself from it.
P.S. after a recent conversation something crystalised for me: Labor is becoming the party of the envious middle class against the liberal party of the avaricious ruling class.
Hang on, Greens watermelons are the latte bourgeois, ALP is just old fashioned social democrats trying to help out most people, Greens are mostly university educated maxrist wannabees living in nice gentrified suburbs, who are really just greedy people like the right are
ReplyDeleteI think you might be thinking a bit too categorically. And note that my article is mostly about *young* Labor and the frontbench, not the grassroots members of each party or their voters.
ReplyDelete