David Marr’s Quarterly Essay, ‘Power Trip: The Political Journey of Kevin Rudd’, already highlighted in the weekend papers, will no doubt garner even more attention now that it’s been released. Indeed, Marr was on the 7.30 Report tonight being interviewed on his piece by Kerry O’Brien.
Marr argues that Kevin Rudd is primarily driven by anger. Purportedly, this rage stems from his childhood experiences.
It’s a tortuously argued hypothesis. And it’s one I suspect that informed Marr’s conversations with others, rather than emerged from the evidence he examined. Marr himself highlights the notorious belief in Canberra circles that Rudd’s squeaky clean image was dissonant with the face he presented privately.
Marr contends that Rudd revealed himself as “most human” when he was angry at the conclusion of a dinner he’d had with the writer, and after Marr had told him that his argument in the essay was that Rudd’s “contradictions” were borne of rage. This seems to me to be absurd. I can’t imagine anyone under the same circumstances not being angry at such an insulting, wounding and trivialising line of argument.
Marr, it seems to me, was ‘thin-slicing’, using one aspect of his interpersonal experience with Rudd to confirm a purported broader pattern.
Certainly, the claim he makes that the only issues on which Kevin Rudd displays courage are those with some tenuous connection (in Marr’s mind) to his so-called childhood traumas seems to mask an unreflective disappointment that the issues Marr himself holds most dear are not the ones Labor is highlighting. And the selective quotation of Rudd’s first speech to Parliament obscures other statements of his political beliefs, and the public purposes that have inspired his career.
It may be true, as Marr contends, that we don’t really know Kevin Rudd. After this latest exercise in amateur psychologising, I’m not sure we need to know.
Surely Rudd should be judged on the public benefits of his actions, not on a whole bunch of inferences from his biography, and a highly selective cherry picking of evidence, a lot of which appears to come from those with an axe to grind.
I’m sure Marr would not like his own public career to be assessed on the basis of a reductive argument that one emotional state, putatively the result of childhood trauma, determines his entire life, and I’m not at all sure that he’s done anyone much of a service by doing that to Kevin Rudd, whatever his private failings may or may not be.
Elsewhere: Still Life With Cat.
Elsewhere: Trevor Cook.
Update: 7.30 Report transcript.
Update: Crikey has picked up this piece and republished it today.
Sounds like a jilted lover getting his revenge while all the usual suspects lap it up and spread the story with glee. How long will they keep this vendetta going? If I were Rudd I’d be angry too… no – ‘angry’ doesn’t quite do it.
Sounds like a jilted lover getting his revenge while all the usual suspects lap it up and spread the story with glee. How long will they keep this vendetta going? If I were Rudd I’d be angry too… no – ‘angry’ doesn’t quite do it.
Until the last few days I had immense respect for Marr, no more. How sad that the one Journo I thought had some integrity seems no better than the peers he so publicly despises.
Until the last few days I had immense respect for Marr, no more. How sad that the one Journo I thought had some integrity seems no better than the peers he so publicly despises.
Well, Rudd looks an odd beggar, but then don’t we all, under a spotlight close up, in our underwear first thing on a chilly morning.
The thing is there seems to be a bit of a dislocation, since Abbott is as at least as odd as Rudd, yet seems to attract in the polls only benefit for it.
Is a chunk of the electorate having a group hallucination of some sort, that the rest of us are beyond and don’t understand at this time?
i’d have thought that at the end of month that proved beyond any other the sterility of conservative delusionist reactive politics, not just in Australia but right across the world, that Abbott and his mob would have headed due south in the polls?
Well, Rudd looks an odd beggar, but then don’t we all, under a spotlight close up, in our underwear first thing on a chilly morning.
The thing is there seems to be a bit of a dislocation, since Abbott is as at least as odd as Rudd, yet seems to attract in the polls only benefit for it.
Is a chunk of the electorate having a group hallucination of some sort, that the rest of us are beyond and don’t understand at this time?
i’d have thought that at the end of month that proved beyond any other the sterility of conservative delusionist reactive politics, not just in Australia but right across the world, that Abbott and his mob would have headed due south in the polls?
Marr’s marred it for me too.
Marr’s marred it for me too.
I just read the essay. It was a fascinating insight into the man. My main reaction was pity. He does some like a real loner without many friends or confidants.
I agree with you though Mark. Amateur psychology makes for poor history.
I just read the essay. It was a fascinating insight into the man. My main reaction was pity. He does some like a real loner without many friends or confidants.
I agree with you though Mark. Amateur psychology makes for poor history.
I’ve read the essay. It rang true to me. Amateur psychologising? Maybe. But all senior politicians are subject to it. Scholarly? Not at all. It was standard middle-brow QE. Kicking the man when he is down? Yes, but so what?
I’ve read the essay. It rang true to me. Amateur psychologising? Maybe. But all senior politicians are subject to it. Scholarly? Not at all. It was standard middle-brow QE. Kicking the man when he is down? Yes, but so what?
Marr shows his true colours when he derides the residents of the mythical “Bumcrack East” as he is so fond to do, these are lesser mortals who occupy any other Postcode range outside the Upper North Shore.
Marr shows his true colours when he derides the residents of the mythical “Bumcrack East” as he is so fond to do, these are lesser mortals who occupy any other Postcode range outside the Upper North Shore.
“Who is the real Kevin Rudd?” The question itself is ridiculous. As if anyone is driven or summed up by one personal characteristic or tendency. I’m surprised at David Marr. I thought he was smarter than that.
And there’s nothing wrong with anger per se. It’s not only normal but requisite I would have thought for people serious about serious politics.
It’s also beside the point. This diffuse, vague but supposedly all-encompassing anger of Rudd’s, to the extent that it’s so significant and I don’t think Marr makes a convincing case it it, still leaves the man invisible in full view. Anger doesn’t at all explain his work methods, his social skills or lack of them, his inability to communicate, his leadership style or his disappointing policy back flips or inertia. And rooting around in his childhood experiences, which plainly still traumatise and pain him, for explanations for any of these would understandably have invited Rudd’s anger. Duh.
“Who is the real Kevin Rudd?” The question itself is ridiculous. As if anyone is driven or summed up by one personal characteristic or tendency. I’m surprised at David Marr. I thought he was smarter than that.
And there’s nothing wrong with anger per se. It’s not only normal but requisite I would have thought for people serious about serious politics.
It’s also beside the point. This diffuse, vague but supposedly all-encompassing anger of Rudd’s, to the extent that it’s so significant and I don’t think Marr makes a convincing case it it, still leaves the man invisible in full view. Anger doesn’t at all explain his work methods, his social skills or lack of them, his inability to communicate, his leadership style or his disappointing policy back flips or inertia. And rooting around in his childhood experiences, which plainly still traumatise and pain him, for explanations for any of these would understandably have invited Rudd’s anger. Duh.
I feel a little disturbed by Marr’s article. They often say that when you describe someone else’s faults, you are really describing a part of yourself; that is, you couldn’t see those aspects unless they were also part of you.
For Marr to dine with Rudd and happily be given lots of off the record information, then with steel coldness advise him that he was going to publically decimate his character on the eve of an election seems…. Well does it not say more about David Marr than it does about Rudd? It seems callous and whilst I don’t know Rudd, the piece instinctively seems to lack balance and compassion.
Anger is a valid emotion, some say it is the shadow side of positive qualities, such as passion for fairness and justice. Was Gandhi angry, was Mandela? Yes. I’m not putting Rudd in their league and like many am super disappointed with the ETS back down.
However, I have no doubt that politics is a hell of a tough place, and when you are passionate about what you do you over work which gives rise to the worst aspects of your personality. At least he works hard, at least he cared about Copenhagen. Given Rudd’s undoubtedly difficult childhood, I also find this article heartless on a human level. Rudd’s personal story about living in car etc is something that made him seem real to the public and did win hearts. It was a diamond in his PR story yet Marr seems to turn this true event into a bad thing. It seems to insinuate that anyone who has come from struggle street is somehow always psychologically flawed, it almost seems a bit snobby. He seems to belittle Rudd for having a deep felt understanding of what it is like to be totally vulnerable. To scorn such childhood suffering seems to come from someone born with a silver spoon in their mouth who doesn’t get what this might feel like.
I feel David Marr’s lack of compassion and steel like decimation of another reveals something even darker than he accuses Rudd of.
I feel a little disturbed by Marr’s article. They often say that when you describe someone else’s faults, you are really describing a part of yourself; that is, you couldn’t see those aspects unless they were also part of you.
For Marr to dine with Rudd and happily be given lots of off the record information, then with steel coldness advise him that he was going to publically decimate his character on the eve of an election seems…. Well does it not say more about David Marr than it does about Rudd? It seems callous and whilst I don’t know Rudd, the piece instinctively seems to lack balance and compassion.
Anger is a valid emotion, some say it is the shadow side of positive qualities, such as passion for fairness and justice. Was Gandhi angry, was Mandela? Yes. I’m not putting Rudd in their league and like many am super disappointed with the ETS back down.
However, I have no doubt that politics is a hell of a tough place, and when you are passionate about what you do you over work which gives rise to the worst aspects of your personality. At least he works hard, at least he cared about Copenhagen. Given Rudd’s undoubtedly difficult childhood, I also find this article heartless on a human level. Rudd’s personal story about living in car etc is something that made him seem real to the public and did win hearts. It was a diamond in his PR story yet Marr seems to turn this true event into a bad thing. It seems to insinuate that anyone who has come from struggle street is somehow always psychologically flawed, it almost seems a bit snobby. He seems to belittle Rudd for having a deep felt understanding of what it is like to be totally vulnerable. To scorn such childhood suffering seems to come from someone born with a silver spoon in their mouth who doesn’t get what this might feel like.
I feel David Marr’s lack of compassion and steel like decimation of another reveals something even darker than he accuses Rudd of.
I agree absolutely. Only, who is the subject?
I agree absolutely. Only, who is the subject?
I also have read the piece in entirety. I went to the Sydney launch of Marr’s book about the Henson saga and noted the fact that Marr commented several times in his adress that not a single parlamentarian came out in support of the arts community’s defence of Henson. Marr’s article presents Rudd in the bitchiest possible way and is a big time get square. Mealy mouthed and bitchy.
I also have read the piece in entirety. I went to the Sydney launch of Marr’s book about the Henson saga and noted the fact that Marr commented several times in his adress that not a single parlamentarian came out in support of the arts community’s defence of Henson. Marr’s article presents Rudd in the bitchiest possible way and is a big time get square. Mealy mouthed and bitchy.
It “rang true” to you Sam? Wtf do you know about Rudd that would make it “ring true” for you? Have you even met the man, spent anytime with him? Had private conversations, correspondence, phone calls?
Bizarre. And your response really highlights to me the danger and foolishness of this armchair, Rundle-style psychologising. People are so responsive to a narrative and the spectre of human connection – even when none is present – that they will let it over-ride both their knowledge, and a decision-making process that should be based around policy and actions, rather than nebulous ‘personal qualities’, conjured from a miasma of spin, hacks, and bad tv journalism.
I previously held a lot of respect for Marr, but if this doesn’t represent an bald attempt to cash in cheaply, I don’t know what would.
It “rang true” to you Sam? Wtf do you know about Rudd that would make it “ring true” for you? Have you even met the man, spent anytime with him? Had private conversations, correspondence, phone calls?
Bizarre. And your response really highlights to me the danger and foolishness of this armchair, Rundle-style psychologising. People are so responsive to a narrative and the spectre of human connection – even when none is present – that they will let it over-ride both their knowledge, and a decision-making process that should be based around policy and actions, rather than nebulous ‘personal qualities’, conjured from a miasma of spin, hacks, and bad tv journalism.
I previously held a lot of respect for Marr, but if this doesn’t represent an bald attempt to cash in cheaply, I don’t know what would.
Well I thought David Marr had a point about Rudd needing more sleep. He seems to have built up this myth for himself that he only needs a catnap now and then and still put supersonic stuff out. Perhaps a visit to a sleep therapy clinic is in order. Anyway, why does anyone have to be a specialist in psychology to portray someone in a piece of writing? David Marr is a brilliant writer with an unusual degree of perception into public personas. I enjoy reading his articles and don’t think his biting cynicism has to be partial to the way he votes. His piece the other day about Turnbull showing off his new iPad to his chums in Parliament was hilarious. It may play into the rapacious hands of the Murdoch press unfortunately though and for that I mourn in advance.
Well I thought David Marr had a point about Rudd needing more sleep. He seems to have built up this myth for himself that he only needs a catnap now and then and still put supersonic stuff out. Perhaps a visit to a sleep therapy clinic is in order. Anyway, why does anyone have to be a specialist in psychology to portray someone in a piece of writing? David Marr is a brilliant writer with an unusual degree of perception into public personas. I enjoy reading his articles and don’t think his biting cynicism has to be partial to the way he votes. His piece the other day about Turnbull showing off his new iPad to his chums in Parliament was hilarious. It may play into the rapacious hands of the Murdoch press unfortunately though and for that I mourn in advance.
CMMC said:
Which is odd, for someone living in Camperdown …
CMMC said:
Which is odd, for someone living in Camperdown …
@10 –
There’s a huge difference, Megan, between portraying someone and claiming to be able to discern that “anger” based on events in their childhood is determining for their public career.
@10 –
There’s a huge difference, Megan, between portraying someone and claiming to be able to discern that “anger” based on events in their childhood is determining for their public career.
Marr’s concluding argument does have something of the just-so story about it.
That said, there were some interesting things in the essay. For instance, the failings in the Rudd government’s decision-making processes, in large part due to Rudd’s inability to delegate and prioritize.
Similar things have been said for a couple of years now, but the message still doesn’t appear to be getting through.
Marr’s concluding argument does have something of the just-so story about it.
That said, there were some interesting things in the essay. For instance, the failings in the Rudd government’s decision-making processes, in large part due to Rudd’s inability to delegate and prioritize.
Similar things have been said for a couple of years now, but the message still doesn’t appear to be getting through.
While I’m not going to argue that this work is Marr’s finest, he is undoubtedly one of Australia’s most articulate commentators. He has spoken up strongly on important matters of principle, defended those whom it was not popular to defend and despite being a tad pompous is an admirable intellect.
And really, is he wrong about Rudd here? I don’t think so.
While I’m not going to argue that this work is Marr’s finest, he is undoubtedly one of Australia’s most articulate commentators. He has spoken up strongly on important matters of principle, defended those whom it was not popular to defend and despite being a tad pompous is an admirable intellect.
And really, is he wrong about Rudd here? I don’t think so.
This essay is just crap. I live in Kevin Rudd’s seat, and have met him several times, and this essay is glorified gossip. What David Marr reckons isn’t worth the ink it’s written in.
This essay is just crap. I live in Kevin Rudd’s seat, and have met him several times, and this essay is glorified gossip. What David Marr reckons isn’t worth the ink it’s written in.
Marr is not a registered psychologist, and as such, he has no credibility with psycho-analysis.
Marr is not a registered psychologist, and as such, he has no credibility with psycho-analysis.
Well said patrickg. And now one journalist’s opinion will be taken as fact by other journalists, and so it goes.
Well said patrickg. And now one journalist’s opinion will be taken as fact by other journalists, and so it goes.
@14 – how do you know, Fran? Have you met him personally? Have you worked with him?
How many people in positions of power have a tendency to be rude occasionally? If that is the case with Rudd, it justifies neither:
(a) a claim that anger primarily drives him (which is Marr’s claim, and which I find ludicrous);
(b) an assertion that he lacks empathy or care for the results of policy.
Gough Whitlam was famously supposed to be imperious in his personal relations, Hawkey notoriously arrogant when in his cups, etc. Yet Rudd somehow is the only one “driven” by anger and rage?
It really is risible when you think about it.
@14 – how do you know, Fran? Have you met him personally? Have you worked with him?
How many people in positions of power have a tendency to be rude occasionally? If that is the case with Rudd, it justifies neither:
(a) a claim that anger primarily drives him (which is Marr’s claim, and which I find ludicrous);
(b) an assertion that he lacks empathy or care for the results of policy.
Gough Whitlam was famously supposed to be imperious in his personal relations, Hawkey notoriously arrogant when in his cups, etc. Yet Rudd somehow is the only one “driven” by anger and rage?
It really is risible when you think about it.
Why, commenter whose name I’ve never seen before, I must look into this controversial Marr piece to see if he is also pushing the tory pundits’ “Kevvy nomates” meme (apart from everything else that’s wrong with the essay according to Mark). Who knows, perhaps he has actually picked up that particular ‘argument’ from sitting on a couch with Bolt all those Sundays.
Why, commenter whose name I’ve never seen before, I must look into this controversial Marr piece to see if he is also pushing the tory pundits’ “Kevvy nomates” meme (apart from everything else that’s wrong with the essay according to Mark). Who knows, perhaps he has actually picked up that particular ‘argument’ from sitting on a couch with Bolt all those Sundays.
“I can’t imagine anyone under the same circumstances not being angry at such an insulting, wounding and trivialising line of argument.”
Well said, Mark.
I dont give a shit if a leader gets angry. What I want to know is what they get angry about.
“I can’t imagine anyone under the same circumstances not being angry at such an insulting, wounding and trivialising line of argument.”
Well said, Mark.
I dont give a shit if a leader gets angry. What I want to know is what they get angry about.
“And really, is he wrong about Rudd here? I don’t think so.”
Which is kind of the point, sort of.
patrickg, I’ve never met Rudd, but I know plenty of people who have, and from what they tell me, Marr is on the money.
Marr is bitchy, as only a well-connected, inner city Sydney gay man can be, but that doesn’t make his analysis of Rudd faulty.
Rudd is a prick with big hang ups. Nonetheless, I’ll be giving Labor my first preference and hope that Rudd emerges from the election as PM. Will you?
“And really, is he wrong about Rudd here? I don’t think so.”
Which is kind of the point, sort of.
patrickg, I’ve never met Rudd, but I know plenty of people who have, and from what they tell me, Marr is on the money.
Marr is bitchy, as only a well-connected, inner city Sydney gay man can be, but that doesn’t make his analysis of Rudd faulty.
Rudd is a prick with big hang ups. Nonetheless, I’ll be giving Labor my first preference and hope that Rudd emerges from the election as PM. Will you?
I think Rudd is an eminently professional official, but I don’t see him as a leader of men. I see him as more the indispensable aide.
You know those old-fashioned photo opps where the Men of Destiny got together and signed the Treaty, whilst their aides stood alertly behind them, ready to take a note or rattle off a figure off the top of their head?
Well Rudd is that guy. He is the Jeeves to the Alpha-Male.
Large organizations need guys like that. They make the wheels turn smoothly.
Unfortunately it is not within their power to set them in motion. For that you need a leader of men, the guy who rallies the troops for the coming battle.
Rudd should take some time off to read Weber “Politics as Vocation”. He might find some handy hints.
I think Rudd is an eminently professional official, but I don’t see him as a leader of men. I see him as more the indispensable aide.
You know those old-fashioned photo opps where the Men of Destiny got together and signed the Treaty, whilst their aides stood alertly behind them, ready to take a note or rattle off a figure off the top of their head?
Well Rudd is that guy. He is the Jeeves to the Alpha-Male.
Large organizations need guys like that. They make the wheels turn smoothly.
Unfortunately it is not within their power to set them in motion. For that you need a leader of men, the guy who rallies the troops for the coming battle.
Rudd should take some time off to read Weber “Politics as Vocation”. He might find some handy hints.
That may all be true Mark but there are other good points made by Marr.
It’s another indication that this government really is dysfunctional. Even his own Ministers seem to struggle to get access. Is it any wonder that policy rigor breaks down and we end up with ETS backflips and the inability to sell of the RSPT? I mean “super profits”, who came up with that beauty?
Even a simple example, like the advertising disaster, is there anyone telling Rudd, “I got a bad feeling about this”?
That may all be true Mark but there are other good points made by Marr.
It’s another indication that this government really is dysfunctional. Even his own Ministers seem to struggle to get access. Is it any wonder that policy rigor breaks down and we end up with ETS backflips and the inability to sell of the RSPT? I mean “super profits”, who came up with that beauty?
Even a simple example, like the advertising disaster, is there anyone telling Rudd, “I got a bad feeling about this”?
@12
Quite so, but politicians are so often portrayed with childhoods full of pivotal events, by themselves as much as everybody else. Kevin Rudd has often talked about the difficulties in his childhood. So has Malcolm Turnbull. John Howard also. Further afield we have America’s Franklin Roosevelt. The childhood events meme and the conjecture of what drove the man is almost standard political journalist genre. I’m damned if I’m paying $20 to read the whole essay, but perhaps Marr did not necessarily claim, but rather conjecture and theorise?
@12
Quite so, but politicians are so often portrayed with childhoods full of pivotal events, by themselves as much as everybody else. Kevin Rudd has often talked about the difficulties in his childhood. So has Malcolm Turnbull. John Howard also. Further afield we have America’s Franklin Roosevelt. The childhood events meme and the conjecture of what drove the man is almost standard political journalist genre. I’m damned if I’m paying $20 to read the whole essay, but perhaps Marr did not necessarily claim, but rather conjecture and theorise?
And really, is he wrong about Rudd here? I don’t think so.
But why would you think that Fran? What are you basing it on rather than other gossip etc?
Adrian, you and I may disagree about the influence of the media, but we’re on the same page with regards to its standards. This junky gossip-shite is bad enough when the pollie in question has actually resigned, but it’s essentially Woman’s Day scuttlebutt in this context.
Frankly, I don’t give a shit if Rudd is an arsehole big enough to pass a meteor. I care about his policies, his vision for the future, and his track record. These are the things that are
a) knowable
b) going to effect me – and every Australian – a hell of more than how he holds a teacup, whether his pillow is soaked with tears, or if his dog likes him.
Marr is directly contributing to the poverty of public debate and discourse that we regularly lament here at LP. He should be, if not ashamed of himself, at least mightily embarrassed.
And really, is he wrong about Rudd here? I don’t think so.
But why would you think that Fran? What are you basing it on rather than other gossip etc?
Adrian, you and I may disagree about the influence of the media, but we’re on the same page with regards to its standards. This junky gossip-shite is bad enough when the pollie in question has actually resigned, but it’s essentially Woman’s Day scuttlebutt in this context.
Frankly, I don’t give a shit if Rudd is an arsehole big enough to pass a meteor. I care about his policies, his vision for the future, and his track record. These are the things that are
a) knowable
b) going to effect me – and every Australian – a hell of more than how he holds a teacup, whether his pillow is soaked with tears, or if his dog likes him.
Marr is directly contributing to the poverty of public debate and discourse that we regularly lament here at LP. He should be, if not ashamed of himself, at least mightily embarrassed.
I haven’t read it yet and won’t comment on it until I have, but is there some reason why Rudd might have expected that Marr would not use things Rudd had told him? Other than the fact that politicians these days generally seem to depend on journalists not to report anything they don’t want reported?
I haven’t read it yet and won’t comment on it until I have, but is there some reason why Rudd might have expected that Marr would not use things Rudd had told him? Other than the fact that politicians these days generally seem to depend on journalists not to report anything they don’t want reported?
Further@25
That anger is perhaps a starting point. What else is there?
Further@25
That anger is perhaps a starting point. What else is there?
I haven’t read the essay so can you tell me if this idea of rage as motivator is Marr’s attempt to explain why Rudd is isolated and unable to delegate? I can’t say anything about Marr’s conclusions but I think the question is worth posing because that failure to delegate continues to make this government look really bad. Someone else today (? Marr on 7.30) was saying that cabinet processes have broken down and cabinet now consists of discussing questions that have already been decided by Rudd/Swan/Tanner/Gillard. And this week Garrett revealed he found out the ETS was dropped from the papers – that is beyond control freakery and into FUBAR territory
I haven’t read the essay so can you tell me if this idea of rage as motivator is Marr’s attempt to explain why Rudd is isolated and unable to delegate? I can’t say anything about Marr’s conclusions but I think the question is worth posing because that failure to delegate continues to make this government look really bad. Someone else today (? Marr on 7.30) was saying that cabinet processes have broken down and cabinet now consists of discussing questions that have already been decided by Rudd/Swan/Tanner/Gillard. And this week Garrett revealed he found out the ETS was dropped from the papers – that is beyond control freakery and into FUBAR territory
But Sam, that’s just gossip, too. Have you met David Marr as well? I’m kinda scared you’re gonna tell me what kind of person I am next!
As for Labor as first preference? Fuck no, those bastards have to earn that. I’ll be voting Green first, and then Labor. It’s not much, but it’s all I’ve got.
But Sam, that’s just gossip, too. Have you met David Marr as well? I’m kinda scared you’re gonna tell me what kind of person I am next!
As for Labor as first preference? Fuck no, those bastards have to earn that. I’ll be voting Green first, and then Labor. It’s not much, but it’s all I’ve got.
The pop psychology aside, Marr is simply articulating problems with Rudd’s governing style that are very well known amongst ALP staffers and the public service. And not just amongst those with an axe to grind. PatrickG, you ask Sam what his direct experience of Rudd is. But last time this subject came up on LP, and I admitted to having worked with Rudd in the past, Joe2 (and others) still wanted to dismiss what I had to say because I wrote under a pseudonym and sounded like I had an axe to grind. You see, to certain supporters there is never any acceptable evidence that a real problem exists. Much easier to blame the media or some other malign influence.
Mark says that we should judge Rudd on the public results of his actions, but if we judge those results negatively, surely we also have to understand what lies behind those poor results and decisions? And that takes us to the realm of decisions and actions often taken off the public record and behaviour most closely observed by those that because of their jobs cannot go on the public record to reveal the truth about the decision making process.
I can’t state this strongly enough, but Rudd’s office is a mess. Staff are both overworked and underutilised. Decision making is haphazard and excessively controlled by a media unit that knows little about policy. Morale is low. Rudd has worked through 4 climate change advisers in less than 4 years as opposition leader and PM. He manages his own time poorly because he cannot delegate or prioritize.
The obstructionism of the Senate and the bias of the MSM are genuine problems. But they are only part of the explanation for the government’s poor performance. The rest of the explanation is best found by looking within.
The pop psychology aside, Marr is simply articulating problems with Rudd’s governing style that are very well known amongst ALP staffers and the public service. And not just amongst those with an axe to grind. PatrickG, you ask Sam what his direct experience of Rudd is. But last time this subject came up on LP, and I admitted to having worked with Rudd in the past, Joe2 (and others) still wanted to dismiss what I had to say because I wrote under a pseudonym and sounded like I had an axe to grind. You see, to certain supporters there is never any acceptable evidence that a real problem exists. Much easier to blame the media or some other malign influence.
Mark says that we should judge Rudd on the public results of his actions, but if we judge those results negatively, surely we also have to understand what lies behind those poor results and decisions? And that takes us to the realm of decisions and actions often taken off the public record and behaviour most closely observed by those that because of their jobs cannot go on the public record to reveal the truth about the decision making process.
I can’t state this strongly enough, but Rudd’s office is a mess. Staff are both overworked and underutilised. Decision making is haphazard and excessively controlled by a media unit that knows little about policy. Morale is low. Rudd has worked through 4 climate change advisers in less than 4 years as opposition leader and PM. He manages his own time poorly because he cannot delegate or prioritize.
The obstructionism of the Senate and the bias of the MSM are genuine problems. But they are only part of the explanation for the government’s poor performance. The rest of the explanation is best found by looking within.
Mark said:
Rudd? Of course not. Yet it is clearly the case that he lacks the acumen to be in the top job. I would not have thought so in November 2007, but by August 2009, one certainly had cause to wonder.
Mark said:
Rudd? Of course not. Yet it is clearly the case that he lacks the acumen to be in the top job. I would not have thought so in November 2007, but by August 2009, one certainly had cause to wonder.
This “you’ve got to know the man personally to know what he’s like” meme is just so much horse shit. On this very blog the last four Liberal leaders have had their personalities dissected with laser-like precision.
And Rudd’s very same personality traits that Marr highlights have been been discussed at length here at length, especially in relation to his failure to formulate and carry a climate policy worth having (in the eyes of his critics on this blog).
Why is it so difficult to accept that Rudd’s childhood was influential on Rudd the man? That’s true of many people.
This “you’ve got to know the man personally to know what he’s like” meme is just so much horse shit. On this very blog the last four Liberal leaders have had their personalities dissected with laser-like precision.
And Rudd’s very same personality traits that Marr highlights have been been discussed at length here at length, especially in relation to his failure to formulate and carry a climate policy worth having (in the eyes of his critics on this blog).
Why is it so difficult to accept that Rudd’s childhood was influential on Rudd the man? That’s true of many people.
@33 –
It’s not, but that acceptance is very different from a claim that anger about his childhood has determined his political and personal approaches as a 50 something adult with a long professional and political career.
Similarly, his climate change policy woes are not normally discussed here in the silly terms that Marr proposes – where Rudd reserves his passion for issues somehow arising out of his early years, a claim made late in his essay which is in any case completely contradicted by the picture Marr paints of Rudd as having been passionate at Copenhagen about getting a positive outcome.
@33 –
It’s not, but that acceptance is very different from a claim that anger about his childhood has determined his political and personal approaches as a 50 something adult with a long professional and political career.
Similarly, his climate change policy woes are not normally discussed here in the silly terms that Marr proposes – where Rudd reserves his passion for issues somehow arising out of his early years, a claim made late in his essay which is in any case completely contradicted by the picture Marr paints of Rudd as having been passionate at Copenhagen about getting a positive outcome.
I don’t really think so. Marr’s attempt to explain this is as follows:,
I personally put more weight on the second part of the explanation than the first.
I don’t really think so. Marr’s attempt to explain this is as follows:,
I personally put more weight on the second part of the explanation than the first.
I still need to know when Rudd has displayed this so deeplty hidden anger – with an air hostess, with Kery O’Brien on the 7.30 report? With David Marr who so treachorously used up his precious time to get enough information to confirm his own pre-existing pop psychology theory about him?
And who are the people who ‘loathe’ him as Marr reported on the 7.30 report? None of them seem willing to front up with first hand reports of his loathsomeness. Apparently many of them were victims of Rudd’s workaholic persona i.e. couldn’t keep up with his pace. So? How many of us who’ve run a tight ship in school or office can attest to leaving behind a few malcontents who loathe us?
My own impression of Rudd’s persona, necessarily public via hundreds of media shots, is of a generally genial and friendly kind of man around whom children, hospital patients and staff seem quite comfortable. He seems to have a genuinely loving relationship with a warm and successful woman. He doesn’t seem afraid of physical contact either with the public at large or his wife. He’s not very good at working up confected rage in parliamentary debate. Whereas anger is built into every inch of Tony Abbott. If Rudd is an angry man then Abbott should be institutionalised immediately for community safety.
David Marr needs to look at himself and his own inner rage. His arch suggestion that much of his interview with Rudd was ‘in confidence’ doesn’t strenthen his argument at all. His seeming effort to give a ‘balanced’ opinion of Rudd to Kerry O’Brien in no way lessens the poisonous impact of his article which has been seized on by Rudd’s enemies. I agree with Anthony Nolan about this being bitchy payback re the Henson episode. Relish of his coup was written into his smug smile throughout that interview with O’Brien.
I still need to know when Rudd has displayed this so deeplty hidden anger – with an air hostess, with Kery O’Brien on the 7.30 report? With David Marr who so treachorously used up his precious time to get enough information to confirm his own pre-existing pop psychology theory about him?
And who are the people who ‘loathe’ him as Marr reported on the 7.30 report? None of them seem willing to front up with first hand reports of his loathsomeness. Apparently many of them were victims of Rudd’s workaholic persona i.e. couldn’t keep up with his pace. So? How many of us who’ve run a tight ship in school or office can attest to leaving behind a few malcontents who loathe us?
My own impression of Rudd’s persona, necessarily public via hundreds of media shots, is of a generally genial and friendly kind of man around whom children, hospital patients and staff seem quite comfortable. He seems to have a genuinely loving relationship with a warm and successful woman. He doesn’t seem afraid of physical contact either with the public at large or his wife. He’s not very good at working up confected rage in parliamentary debate. Whereas anger is built into every inch of Tony Abbott. If Rudd is an angry man then Abbott should be institutionalised immediately for community safety.
David Marr needs to look at himself and his own inner rage. His arch suggestion that much of his interview with Rudd was ‘in confidence’ doesn’t strenthen his argument at all. His seeming effort to give a ‘balanced’ opinion of Rudd to Kerry O’Brien in no way lessens the poisonous impact of his article which has been seized on by Rudd’s enemies. I agree with Anthony Nolan about this being bitchy payback re the Henson episode. Relish of his coup was written into his smug smile throughout that interview with O’Brien.
Amateur psychology eh?
I declare a “write like David Marr” day.
Marr is incapable of seeing the poor who gain power in any way other than an emotional reaction because he’s a homosexual?
(am I doing this right?)
Abbott can’t think straight because his undies are too tight around his massive nuts, Gillard is poised to wreak Ranga Revenge on everybody who teased her at high school, Howard could never live up to his middle name because his dad only owned a service station. Albanese has nerd rage. Joe Hockey eats a lot of aggression, along with a lot of pizza.
This is kinda fun!
Amateur psychology eh?
I declare a “write like David Marr” day.
Marr is incapable of seeing the poor who gain power in any way other than an emotional reaction because he’s a homosexual?
(am I doing this right?)
Abbott can’t think straight because his undies are too tight around his massive nuts, Gillard is poised to wreak Ranga Revenge on everybody who teased her at high school, Howard could never live up to his middle name because his dad only owned a service station. Albanese has nerd rage. Joe Hockey eats a lot of aggression, along with a lot of pizza.
This is kinda fun!
I may not be a David Marr level headshrinker, but I have a recollection of a very public episode involving Rudd where the man showed himself to have mastered whatever anger management issues he has (or has never friggin’ had): the PM’s very, very tiring nephew.
There is no way a person of such influence is able to talk about such matters if they don’t have their emotions under control. If Rudd is driven by anger then Van Thanh Rudd would be stoking his fire big time, and the govt. press handlers would have long since been instructed to tell the meeja that Van’s behaviour is off limits, that it’s family business. Instead we have Kevin willingly playing fair and square with Performance Artist Dude when being interviewed (I’m pretty certain Ronald Reagan never went this far in public when Ron Jr was up to his shenanigans).
Fault my reasoning, Marr apologists. If the personal is political explain why Rudd is open about this one subject, particularly, as others have mentioned, he cares so little about building bridges to the arty farty crowd.
Though I suppose that could just be a subject for the forthcoming Quaterly Essay about Rudd being an incredible faker, the consumate hollow man…
I may not be a David Marr level headshrinker, but I have a recollection of a very public episode involving Rudd where the man showed himself to have mastered whatever anger management issues he has (or has never friggin’ had): the PM’s very, very tiring nephew.
There is no way a person of such influence is able to talk about such matters if they don’t have their emotions under control. If Rudd is driven by anger then Van Thanh Rudd would be stoking his fire big time, and the govt. press handlers would have long since been instructed to tell the meeja that Van’s behaviour is off limits, that it’s family business. Instead we have Kevin willingly playing fair and square with Performance Artist Dude when being interviewed (I’m pretty certain Ronald Reagan never went this far in public when Ron Jr was up to his shenanigans).
Fault my reasoning, Marr apologists. If the personal is political explain why Rudd is open about this one subject, particularly, as others have mentioned, he cares so little about building bridges to the arty farty crowd.
Though I suppose that could just be a subject for the forthcoming Quaterly Essay about Rudd being an incredible faker, the consumate hollow man…
@37 – yep, that’s right, Rob, and to the degree that he does have a badly organised office, etc, and I’m sure LO is on the money there @ 33, that’s entirely separable from Marr’s hypothesis, which I really think is both scantily supported and offensive, and his lack of ability to connect that with the alleged drive behind Rudd’s whole modus operandi just further reinforces the vacuous and nasty nature of the underlying claim.
@37 – yep, that’s right, Rob, and to the degree that he does have a badly organised office, etc, and I’m sure LO is on the money there @ 33, that’s entirely separable from Marr’s hypothesis, which I really think is both scantily supported and offensive, and his lack of ability to connect that with the alleged drive behind Rudd’s whole modus operandi just further reinforces the vacuous and nasty nature of the underlying claim.
Patricia, Rudd wouldn’t exactly be the first public figure whose behaviour in private was rather different to his public persona.
Patricia, Rudd wouldn’t exactly be the first public figure whose behaviour in private was rather different to his public persona.
@29 – Laura, Marr said that he talked off the record to Rudd before having dinner with him, and that discussion at the dinner itself was on the record. He says he used quotes from Rudd throughout the essay which were derived from the dinner discussion.
He’s saying that the discussion after dinner where Rudd supposedly revealed his true self and became angry was off the record. I don’t know enough about journalistic ethics to say whether or not he gets himself off the hook of making that the central claim in his essay by refusing to say what Rudd actually said to him.
@29 – Laura, Marr said that he talked off the record to Rudd before having dinner with him, and that discussion at the dinner itself was on the record. He says he used quotes from Rudd throughout the essay which were derived from the dinner discussion.
He’s saying that the discussion after dinner where Rudd supposedly revealed his true self and became angry was off the record. I don’t know enough about journalistic ethics to say whether or not he gets himself off the hook of making that the central claim in his essay by refusing to say what Rudd actually said to him.
I’m going with Anthony Nolan @ 10.
I’m going with Anthony Nolan @ 10.
Here’s the 7.30 Report transcript, which comes with the headline “Marr discusses Kevin Rudd’s ‘angry heart’”:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2920783.htm
Here’s the 7.30 Report transcript, which comes with the headline “Marr discusses Kevin Rudd’s ‘angry heart’”:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2920783.htm
LO, I’m not opposed to a decent analysis of the inner workings of Rudd’s office, and his personality, it’s the speculation I object to – about his childhood, his private motivations, etc. It’s beyond the scope of journalism – of anyone but a telepath.
Regarding his personality and his office, I have no doubt there are major problems with both. So if Rudd’s gone through so many staff, would it have killed Marr to have substantively interviewed a couple, with real quotes rather than indirect language and “feelings” he resorts to? Likewise, would it have been difficult for him to source some information organisational socio/psych-ology to illustrate how and why this situation has arisen and continued (and there is reams of super-well research stuff about decision-making and organisations)?
Would it have been hard to put Rudd’s actions vis his media unit in the context of the broader field of public relations and compare/contrast Rudd’s approach with how other politicians – locally and internationally – practise it, and how it reflects/reacts to the changing field of journalism?
But no, it’s a lot easier – and very catchy – to lay it on his childhood on the basis of three conversation and an iced vovo. Marr has ignored the forest for one particular tree; Rudd is not a vacuum, to act like every force operating on him is an internal one is just silly, and shoddy journalism. I’m not saying that his childhood hasn’t had an impact, of course it has – but to monomaniacally bear down on it whilst ignoring the wider, varied context is simply all too typical from a media more interested in stories and personalities than facts and policies.
LO, I’m not opposed to a decent analysis of the inner workings of Rudd’s office, and his personality, it’s the speculation I object to – about his childhood, his private motivations, etc. It’s beyond the scope of journalism – of anyone but a telepath.
Regarding his personality and his office, I have no doubt there are major problems with both. So if Rudd’s gone through so many staff, would it have killed Marr to have substantively interviewed a couple, with real quotes rather than indirect language and “feelings” he resorts to? Likewise, would it have been difficult for him to source some information organisational socio/psych-ology to illustrate how and why this situation has arisen and continued (and there is reams of super-well research stuff about decision-making and organisations)?
Would it have been hard to put Rudd’s actions vis his media unit in the context of the broader field of public relations and compare/contrast Rudd’s approach with how other politicians – locally and internationally – practise it, and how it reflects/reacts to the changing field of journalism?
But no, it’s a lot easier – and very catchy – to lay it on his childhood on the basis of three conversation and an iced vovo. Marr has ignored the forest for one particular tree; Rudd is not a vacuum, to act like every force operating on him is an internal one is just silly, and shoddy journalism. I’m not saying that his childhood hasn’t had an impact, of course it has – but to monomaniacally bear down on it whilst ignoring the wider, varied context is simply all too typical from a media more interested in stories and personalities than facts and policies.
@46 – agreed, patrickg, and well said.
@46 – agreed, patrickg, and well said.
I’m not going with Anthony Nolan @ 10. Marr himself did no favours to Henson when he published his book on the affair. As I recall, it made matters worse for Henson.
There’s no doubt that Marr is a legend in his own lunchtime. He aims to be a player, not just a reporter of the players. But that doesn’t make him wrong.
I’m not going with Anthony Nolan @ 10. Marr himself did no favours to Henson when he published his book on the affair. As I recall, it made matters worse for Henson.
There’s no doubt that Marr is a legend in his own lunchtime. He aims to be a player, not just a reporter of the players. But that doesn’t make him wrong.
Mark @
Of course Kevin Rudd was angry! David Marr was messing around with his personal myth-making. Lots of leaders have myths and they are particularly precious about the ones they create and put about themselves. The trouble with Rudd is that his meteoric rise to the top has left little time to substantiate the myths he has been propagating about himself from Kevin 07. Now it’s all starting to implode. Will he make it???
Mark @
Of course Kevin Rudd was angry! David Marr was messing around with his personal myth-making. Lots of leaders have myths and they are particularly precious about the ones they create and put about themselves. The trouble with Rudd is that his meteoric rise to the top has left little time to substantiate the myths he has been propagating about himself from Kevin 07. Now it’s all starting to implode. Will he make it???
@49 – Megan, I think Rudd would have been justifiably angry to hear from Marr that he planned to explain his entire life as some sort of ressentiment deriving from his childhood. Very justifiably, completely leaving aside any concerns about his image or whatever.
@49 – Megan, I think Rudd would have been justifiably angry to hear from Marr that he planned to explain his entire life as some sort of ressentiment deriving from his childhood. Very justifiably, completely leaving aside any concerns about his image or whatever.
patrickg @46, the Quarterly Essay is middle-brow. It is Andre Rieu in words, on mostly important subjects. You want references to the organisational behaviour literature? Go read an academic journal.
patrickg @46, the Quarterly Essay is middle-brow. It is Andre Rieu in words, on mostly important subjects. You want references to the organisational behaviour literature? Go read an academic journal.
Well the inflated sense of indispensibility is one of the eternal pitfalls of political power isn’t it? People have been commenting on that tendency since the Caesars, if not before. Rudd’s micromanaging was public knowledge almost from day one but he does not seem to have moderated that tendency and from an outsider perspective, it seems to be getting worse. If he still sees it as a virute someone needs to disabuse him quickly and maybe Marr will be the catalyst for that. Does anyone know if those observations about the workings of cabinet are true BTW?
Well the inflated sense of indispensibility is one of the eternal pitfalls of political power isn’t it? People have been commenting on that tendency since the Caesars, if not before. Rudd’s micromanaging was public knowledge almost from day one but he does not seem to have moderated that tendency and from an outsider perspective, it seems to be getting worse. If he still sees it as a virute someone needs to disabuse him quickly and maybe Marr will be the catalyst for that. Does anyone know if those observations about the workings of cabinet are true BTW?
Dunno how realistic it would be to get any ex-staffers to speak on the record.
Very much so. He might also have considered drawing comparisons with governments past.
Dunno how realistic it would be to get any ex-staffers to speak on the record.
Very much so. He might also have considered drawing comparisons with governments past.
Elsewhere: Trevor Cook.
Elsewhere: Trevor Cook.
The other useful thing about the Marr piece, it reminded me how bad Rudd’s acceptance speech was.
The other useful thing about the Marr piece, it reminded me how bad Rudd’s acceptance speech was.
Hmmm, I just read the O’Brien interview transcript, and I have to admit Marr comes across (in print) as someone who is not motivated by any malicious intent.
But he’s digging for a literary narrative, not a critique of policy/leadership for policies’/leadership’s sake.
I have a feeling he wants a larger work to come out of this. Then we’d have David’s biographical oeuvre that consists of a book on Garfield Barwick, a book on Patrick White, then a book on Kevin Rudd. Which creative type follows the Rudd book, I wonder.
Hmmm, I just read the O’Brien interview transcript, and I have to admit Marr comes across (in print) as someone who is not motivated by any malicious intent.
But he’s digging for a literary narrative, not a critique of policy/leadership for policies’/leadership’s sake.
I have a feeling he wants a larger work to come out of this. Then we’d have David’s biographical oeuvre that consists of a book on Garfield Barwick, a book on Patrick White, then a book on Kevin Rudd. Which creative type follows the Rudd book, I wonder.
Mark @50.
Well if it had been John Howard, he would have just given one of his fatuous smiles, laughed it off and gone serenely on with the business of buggering the Lucky Country. A narcissist like Malcolm Turnbull might have been marginally more annoyed. One wonders if the man has a sense of humour and a sense of perspective and detachment about what people write about him. Why on earth does it matter what David Marr is scribbling when there are ten thousand more important issues to do with the country? When Alan Ramsay called Kevin Rudd a ‘precious, prissy little prick’ in his lovely wonderfully acerbic way, maybe he had a point.
Mark @50.
Well if it had been John Howard, he would have just given one of his fatuous smiles, laughed it off and gone serenely on with the business of buggering the Lucky Country. A narcissist like Malcolm Turnbull might have been marginally more annoyed. One wonders if the man has a sense of humour and a sense of perspective and detachment about what people write about him. Why on earth does it matter what David Marr is scribbling when there are ten thousand more important issues to do with the country? When Alan Ramsay called Kevin Rudd a ‘precious, prissy little prick’ in his lovely wonderfully acerbic way, maybe he had a point.
An excerpt from Trevor Cook’s post (linked above) which is pertinent to a lot of this discussion:
An excerpt from Trevor Cook’s post (linked above) which is pertinent to a lot of this discussion:
PatrickG
Ex-staffers won’t comment on the record until Rudd is no longer in power. Most still have careers that could be negatively affected by such public comments.
PatrickG
Ex-staffers won’t comment on the record until Rudd is no longer in power. Most still have careers that could be negatively affected by such public comments.
@57 –
(a) Marr’s Quarterly Essay runs to 80 odd pages, and by virtue of the length and place of publication purports to be a more considered and well researched effort than the usual op/ed guff/abuse. Rudd would have had, I think, a reasonable belief that Marr would have taken a fair and incisive look at his career, and not reduced all of it to some putative childhood trauma. Very few journalists would have got the access Marr got;
(b) As has already been noted on this thread, all Marr’s Essay will serve to do, given that only a relatively small number will read it, is fuel the vicious personal aspect of the ‘media narrative’.
After all it fits perfectly with the existing view of the journosphere.
Leaving aside how Rudd might personally feel about the essay, obviously reinforcing this notion that he’s weird, inauthentic, two faced, etc. which is all over the media has electoral implications. An Abbott victory would certainly be an important issue for the country.
@57 –
(a) Marr’s Quarterly Essay runs to 80 odd pages, and by virtue of the length and place of publication purports to be a more considered and well researched effort than the usual op/ed guff/abuse. Rudd would have had, I think, a reasonable belief that Marr would have taken a fair and incisive look at his career, and not reduced all of it to some putative childhood trauma. Very few journalists would have got the access Marr got;
(b) As has already been noted on this thread, all Marr’s Essay will serve to do, given that only a relatively small number will read it, is fuel the vicious personal aspect of the ‘media narrative’.
After all it fits perfectly with the existing view of the journosphere.
Leaving aside how Rudd might personally feel about the essay, obviously reinforcing this notion that he’s weird, inauthentic, two faced, etc. which is all over the media has electoral implications. An Abbott victory would certainly be an important issue for the country.
Nickws @ 56 – when I saw the interview on the 7:30, my overall impression of Marr was that he was still quite supportive of Rudd as PM. Just pointing out what he sees as problems in the way the government is working at his theory as to the reasons behind it.
I don’t think Marr’s article will do Rudd any political damage – nothing really new there.
Nickws @ 56 – when I saw the interview on the 7:30, my overall impression of Marr was that he was still quite supportive of Rudd as PM. Just pointing out what he sees as problems in the way the government is working at his theory as to the reasons behind it.
I don’t think Marr’s article will do Rudd any political damage – nothing really new there.
Within him or you L.O.@ 33?
I still think it reasonable to question whether someone with the moniker “Labor Outsider” might have some ‘issues’ with the leader of the organisation that they are, presumably, currently outside.
You worked with him a while back and it did not end up well. Maybe your views about his messy desk and style simply need to be seen in the light of bad blood rather than gospel truth.
Within him or you L.O.@ 33?
I still think it reasonable to question whether someone with the moniker “Labor Outsider” might have some ‘issues’ with the leader of the organisation that they are, presumably, currently outside.
You worked with him a while back and it did not end up well. Maybe your views about his messy desk and style simply need to be seen in the light of bad blood rather than gospel truth.
I found it enjoyable and seemingly plausible, but agree that it could be completely wrong, and ought to be politically irrelevant.
I like Marr’s writing, but this essay says a lot about the way he approaches politics: through an ahistorical, interpersonal lens. This is the ‘interior’ view of power, and makes for entertaining reading when done well. I think it can easily lead us away from the consideration of more important things.
I found it enjoyable and seemingly plausible, but agree that it could be completely wrong, and ought to be politically irrelevant.
I like Marr’s writing, but this essay says a lot about the way he approaches politics: through an ahistorical, interpersonal lens. This is the ‘interior’ view of power, and makes for entertaining reading when done well. I think it can easily lead us away from the consideration of more important things.
“The other useful thing about the Marr piece, it reminded me how bad Rudd’s acceptance speech was.”
Maybe that’s what the polls are about. People don’t want another one!
I never really thought that at the moment of greatest glory, witnessing the Rodents absolutely ignominious demise (loses own seat too, LOL!), that I’d find myself glancing at my watch after 5 minutes.
“The other useful thing about the Marr piece, it reminded me how bad Rudd’s acceptance speech was.”
Maybe that’s what the polls are about. People don’t want another one!
I never really thought that at the moment of greatest glory, witnessing the Rodents absolutely ignominious demise (loses own seat too, LOL!), that I’d find myself glancing at my watch after 5 minutes.
“reinforcing this notion that he’s weird, inauthentic, two faced, etc”
I didn’t take this from the essay at all – quite the opposite. But I suppose that it could be cited to reinforce such a view if cited selectively.
“reinforcing this notion that he’s weird, inauthentic, two faced, etc”
I didn’t take this from the essay at all – quite the opposite. But I suppose that it could be cited to reinforce such a view if cited selectively.
The same story has come through in multiple media accounts, joe2, and I’ve also heard the same directly from somebody who was in a position to know.
The same story has come through in multiple media accounts, joe2, and I’ve also heard the same directly from somebody who was in a position to know.
@60
Yes but only if people aren’t already wondering just what kind of person Kevin Rudd is eg does he have a principle left? He’s ditched a core promise (ie implementing the environment protection scheme) and made a lot of people angry and disgusted. Personally I am disgusted at the way his government progressively watered down the issue, in the end proposing something – anyway…
My point is, David Marr’s article would be of no consequence without a policy backflip of this magnitude. It’s not good enough for Rudd to be angry about what people are saying. He has to get real. My God I hope he does – my worst nightmare is voting for the Greens next election, only to see them form a minority government with that sociopath Tony Abbott and the Liberals – a la what has happened in the UK.
@60
Yes but only if people aren’t already wondering just what kind of person Kevin Rudd is eg does he have a principle left? He’s ditched a core promise (ie implementing the environment protection scheme) and made a lot of people angry and disgusted. Personally I am disgusted at the way his government progressively watered down the issue, in the end proposing something – anyway…
My point is, David Marr’s article would be of no consequence without a policy backflip of this magnitude. It’s not good enough for Rudd to be angry about what people are saying. He has to get real. My God I hope he does – my worst nightmare is voting for the Greens next election, only to see them form a minority government with that sociopath Tony Abbott and the Liberals – a la what has happened in the UK.
Come on now, the chances of an LNP-Green Federal govt are nil.
On current numbers, I wouldn’t rule out an ALP-Green one though!
Come on now, the chances of an LNP-Green Federal govt are nil.
On current numbers, I wouldn’t rule out an ALP-Green one though!
@67 – that’s right, Megan, and that’s why the timing is fairly deadly.
@65 – yep, ag, but that’s how I’ve got no doubt it will be disseminated through the media.
@67 – that’s right, Megan, and that’s why the timing is fairly deadly.
@65 – yep, ag, but that’s how I’ve got no doubt it will be disseminated through the media.
@68 Lefty E
You reckon? They voted with the Liberals against the Greenhouse Emissions Trading Scheme…
@68 Lefty E
You reckon? They voted with the Liberals against the Greenhouse Emissions Trading Scheme…
Marr’s article is fascinating, if nothing else. A lot of it ties in with what I’ve heard about Rudd from other sources within the ALP and elsewhere. As for his thesis about Rudd being motivated by anger/resentment, I doubt that Marr is in a position to truly know what motivates Rudd and his guess is as superfluous and elementary as any other pundit’s would be -even with all his supposed insight.
I wish he’d do one on Abbott as well. It could be fascinating
Marr’s article is fascinating, if nothing else. A lot of it ties in with what I’ve heard about Rudd from other sources within the ALP and elsewhere. As for his thesis about Rudd being motivated by anger/resentment, I doubt that Marr is in a position to truly know what motivates Rudd and his guess is as superfluous and elementary as any other pundit’s would be -even with all his supposed insight.
I wish he’d do one on Abbott as well. It could be fascinating
Megan
#70
“They (Greens) voted WITH the Liberals against the Greenhouse Emissions Trading Scheme”
Rudd KEPT his 2007 Electon promise to bring in a co2 Scheme as recommended by Garnaut and intoduced th 5% ETS co2 reduction Scheme as Garnaut recomended
Greens Party sold out co2 mitigation in oz , and sided with CC Deniest Liberal Party
David Marr ‘essay’ is BS , deserves no discussion
Megan
#70
“They (Greens) voted WITH the Liberals against the Greenhouse Emissions Trading Scheme”
Rudd KEPT his 2007 Electon promise to bring in a co2 Scheme as recommended by Garnaut and intoduced th 5% ETS co2 reduction Scheme as Garnaut recomended
Greens Party sold out co2 mitigation in oz , and sided with CC Deniest Liberal Party
David Marr ‘essay’ is BS , deserves no discussion
The 7.30 Report segment ended with this exchange:
What a pity the interview ended when Marr seemed about to say something positive about Rudd as a politician! But then O’Brien in all the important interviews wastes time talking about the wrong stuff.
I had some reservations about Rudd when he won the leadership, but then most leaders have flaws. I have reservations about Gillard too.
I haven’t read Marr’s essay so I’ll restrict myself to some related information.
Therese Rein was on the Student Press Call segment on Madonna King’s program last week. They did really well, Therese and the kids, and they did discuss Kevin. Therese certainly spoke warmly about him and volunteered that he really cares about health and climate change.
Much is being made of a meeting in Copenhagen when Rudd was said to let fly with a blistering assessment of the role of the Chinese. Louise Dodson on The Insiders last Sunday made much of the fact that he did this in the presence of representatives of NGOs as well as the press. This was supposed to make him a bad diplomat.
Given that Kevin was a “friend of the chair” and that he and Wong worked their butts off, and given Mark Lynas’s assessment of what the Chinese did, I’m glad he let fly.
I gave a brief account of what happened at Copenhagen according to Der Spiegel in this post. It wasn’t pretty. The proximal events were cause enough for anger without digging around in his childhood.
Louise Dodson also said that deferring the CPRS had been discussed in Cabinet and was then discussed by the kitchen cabinet of Rudd, Gillard, Swan and Tanner. Swan was keen on postponing it, supported by Gillard. Swan wanted more space and clear air for dealing with the Henry tax review. Tanner was against. Rudd sat on the fence, but eventually came down on Swan’s side. It was to go back to Cabinet, but was leaked instead.
It’s strange that Obama is being criticised at present for not letting fly about the oil spill.
The 7.30 Report segment ended with this exchange:
What a pity the interview ended when Marr seemed about to say something positive about Rudd as a politician! But then O’Brien in all the important interviews wastes time talking about the wrong stuff.
I had some reservations about Rudd when he won the leadership, but then most leaders have flaws. I have reservations about Gillard too.
I haven’t read Marr’s essay so I’ll restrict myself to some related information.
Therese Rein was on the Student Press Call segment on Madonna King’s program last week. They did really well, Therese and the kids, and they did discuss Kevin. Therese certainly spoke warmly about him and volunteered that he really cares about health and climate change.
Much is being made of a meeting in Copenhagen when Rudd was said to let fly with a blistering assessment of the role of the Chinese. Louise Dodson on The Insiders last Sunday made much of the fact that he did this in the presence of representatives of NGOs as well as the press. This was supposed to make him a bad diplomat.
Given that Kevin was a “friend of the chair” and that he and Wong worked their butts off, and given Mark Lynas’s assessment of what the Chinese did, I’m glad he let fly.
I gave a brief account of what happened at Copenhagen according to Der Spiegel in this post. It wasn’t pretty. The proximal events were cause enough for anger without digging around in his childhood.
Louise Dodson also said that deferring the CPRS had been discussed in Cabinet and was then discussed by the kitchen cabinet of Rudd, Gillard, Swan and Tanner. Swan was keen on postponing it, supported by Gillard. Swan wanted more space and clear air for dealing with the Henry tax review. Tanner was against. Rudd sat on the fence, but eventually came down on Swan’s side. It was to go back to Cabinet, but was leaked instead.
It’s strange that Obama is being criticised at present for not letting fly about the oil spill.
If John Howard had said Chinese f**kers are trying to ratf**k us I suspect that the media would be analysing such behaviour as symbolic of a deep seated racism, probably steming from some childhood truma. The media is littered with idiots.
I don’t care why Rudd is such a bad PM. I just want him to stop being a bad PM. Removing him from office seems like the best way to achieve that.
If John Howard had said Chinese f**kers are trying to ratf**k us I suspect that the media would be analysing such behaviour as symbolic of a deep seated racism, probably steming from some childhood truma. The media is littered with idiots.
I don’t care why Rudd is such a bad PM. I just want him to stop being a bad PM. Removing him from office seems like the best way to achieve that.
Interesting contrast indeed, Brian.
Interesting contrast indeed, Brian.
Ron said:
We’ve been over this many times here Ron. He did no such thing. Garnaut produced a painting to stand amongst the Renaissance masters. Rudd got together with the naughty boys behind the toilets and scribbled a line drawing with the rude bits highlighted and did mock outrage when both the prudes and the art lovers were offended.
Ron said:
We’ve been over this many times here Ron. He did no such thing. Garnaut produced a painting to stand amongst the Renaissance masters. Rudd got together with the naughty boys behind the toilets and scribbled a line drawing with the rude bits highlighted and did mock outrage when both the prudes and the art lovers were offended.
No Terje. Howard supporters would have loved for Howard to say that.
However…as you know from our past debates I am massively biased. I think Rudd has been an excellent PM. However when even David Marr is talking about his unsuitability as PM maybe it’s time to surrrender and realise that what I’m seeing doesn’t even come close to lining up with reality.
I see one of the beswt PM’s ever. The vast majority of Australia sees the worst PM since Whitlam. Should I overcome the cult of personality thing and vote Liberal for the good of Australia? Maybe.
No Terje. Howard supporters would have loved for Howard to say that.
However…as you know from our past debates I am massively biased. I think Rudd has been an excellent PM. However when even David Marr is talking about his unsuitability as PM maybe it’s time to surrrender and realise that what I’m seeing doesn’t even come close to lining up with reality.
I see one of the beswt PM’s ever. The vast majority of Australia sees the worst PM since Whitlam. Should I overcome the cult of personality thing and vote Liberal for the good of Australia? Maybe.
I understand anger. Anger can be useful, creative, motivating; especially in business or politics. But like anything, it can be over-used, curdle and go sour. Whatever anger might once have propelled a 20- or even a 30-something Rudd would surely by now have been largely sublimated — by age, raising a family, and the trappings of conspicuous success.
RM @ 16:
Exactly. Saying that someone is angry can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s a form of non-hypnotic suggestion. Imagine if your social and media diet consisted of hundreds of daily messages a week saying that you are angry. You have a bad temper. Bound to have an impact on your temperament after a while, innit?
How many of you have had a conversation with your spouse/significant other that runs something like this?:
Scene: A tranquil domestic idyll.
Spouse: “What’s the matter dear?”
You: “Nothing, I’m fine.”
Spouse: “You look grumpy.”
You: “No, really, I’m fine.”
Spouse: “No, something’s bothering you, isn’t it?”
You (slightly bothered): “Uh…no.”
Spouse: “Tell me what’s the matter.”
You (getting testy now): “Nothing’s the matter.”
Spouse: “Yes, there is. I know you, you’re angry about something.”
You: “NO I’M NOT!!!”
I understand anger. Anger can be useful, creative, motivating; especially in business or politics. But like anything, it can be over-used, curdle and go sour. Whatever anger might once have propelled a 20- or even a 30-something Rudd would surely by now have been largely sublimated — by age, raising a family, and the trappings of conspicuous success.
RM @ 16:
Exactly. Saying that someone is angry can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s a form of non-hypnotic suggestion. Imagine if your social and media diet consisted of hundreds of daily messages a week saying that you are angry. You have a bad temper. Bound to have an impact on your temperament after a while, innit?
How many of you have had a conversation with your spouse/significant other that runs something like this?:
Scene: A tranquil domestic idyll.
Spouse: “What’s the matter dear?”
You: “Nothing, I’m fine.”
Spouse: “You look grumpy.”
You: “No, really, I’m fine.”
Spouse: “No, something’s bothering you, isn’t it?”
You (slightly bothered): “Uh…no.”
Spouse: “Tell me what’s the matter.”
You (getting testy now): “Nothing’s the matter.”
Spouse: “Yes, there is. I know you, you’re angry about something.”
You: “NO I’M NOT!!!”
@76 Sounds like hatred {with anger]Fran.
@76 Sounds like hatred {with anger]Fran.
Just on the ETS. For a brilliant article outlining why we should be very sceptical of AGW mitigation measures and including a broad range of sensitivity analysis I hope you will all agree that the following analysis is well worth a read.
http://johnhumphreys.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/benefit-cost-analysis-for-the-ets/
In short it reviews the literature and shows why there is no credible way for an ETS to pass a cost benefit analysis. Not even with wildly favourable assumptions on both the cost and benefit side of the equation. Please read it.
Just on the ETS. For a brilliant article outlining why we should be very sceptical of AGW mitigation measures and including a broad range of sensitivity analysis I hope you will all agree that the following analysis is well worth a read.
http://johnhumphreys.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/benefit-cost-analysis-for-the-ets/
In short it reviews the literature and shows why there is no credible way for an ETS to pass a cost benefit analysis. Not even with wildly favourable assumptions on both the cost and benefit side of the equation. Please read it.
LO and Robert it would have been easy to get some anonymous, but direct quotes from the legion of ex-staffers, but Marr doesn’t even do that. It’s all “morale is bad, X is happening at the office” from on high. It’s not too much to ask for anonymous quotes.
Again, I’m not questioning the contention that his office is a mess – that kind of turnover rate should be very alarming – but left with Marr’s interpretations from unnamed, unsourced conversations, I certainly question what he may have left out, or put his own spin on.
LO and Robert it would have been easy to get some anonymous, but direct quotes from the legion of ex-staffers, but Marr doesn’t even do that. It’s all “morale is bad, X is happening at the office” from on high. It’s not too much to ask for anonymous quotes.
Again, I’m not questioning the contention that his office is a mess – that kind of turnover rate should be very alarming – but left with Marr’s interpretations from unnamed, unsourced conversations, I certainly question what he may have left out, or put his own spin on.
“That said, there were some interesting things in the essay. For instance, the failings in the Rudd government’s decision-making processes, in large part due to Rudd’s inability to delegate and prioritize.”
I agree Robert. I’d like to see wider cabinet consultation.
And I’m also starting now to think that Annabel Crabb was right in stating that Rudd needs more sleep.
Interestingly, I thought Marr made Rudd sound like a cross between Howard & Nixon. Tho, I’m a wee bit suspect of his motivations recalling the article that started the run of “bullying” comments related to Gordon Brown. It does seem like Marr has gone down that seedy path. Interesting considering how much of the media is trying to create a three or more horse race…not unlike that we saw in the UK election. Profiteering I imagine for a press that is on the nose.
I’m also wondering about how many journos/commentators might be backing Julia Gillard for vested interest reasons?
Poor old Ruddy, he’s become the media’s piñata that keeps on giving. I hope they choke on the sweets.
N’
“That said, there were some interesting things in the essay. For instance, the failings in the Rudd government’s decision-making processes, in large part due to Rudd’s inability to delegate and prioritize.”
I agree Robert. I’d like to see wider cabinet consultation.
And I’m also starting now to think that Annabel Crabb was right in stating that Rudd needs more sleep.
Interestingly, I thought Marr made Rudd sound like a cross between Howard & Nixon. Tho, I’m a wee bit suspect of his motivations recalling the article that started the run of “bullying” comments related to Gordon Brown. It does seem like Marr has gone down that seedy path. Interesting considering how much of the media is trying to create a three or more horse race…not unlike that we saw in the UK election. Profiteering I imagine for a press that is on the nose.
I’m also wondering about how many journos/commentators might be backing Julia Gillard for vested interest reasons?
Poor old Ruddy, he’s become the media’s piñata that keeps on giving. I hope they choke on the sweets.
N’
While I’ve been critical of ALP failures in significant policy areas and attribute this to Rudd’s leadership the thing that always stands in his favour, and of which Marr ought to have been mindful, is that Rudd is not John bloody Howard.
While I’ve been critical of ALP failures in significant policy areas and attribute this to Rudd’s leadership the thing that always stands in his favour, and of which Marr ought to have been mindful, is that Rudd is not John bloody Howard.
“Rudd got together with the naughty boys behind the toilets and scribbled a line drawing with the rude bits highlighted and did mock outrage when both the prudes and the art lovers were offended.”
Fran, he seems to me that Rudd worked hard at Copenhagen but like our planet got screwed over. He did put up an ETS that got knocked down due to Tony Abbott. And apparently he was “torn” about delaying the ETS. Wheras, Julia Gillard & Wayne Swan weren’t. Why aren’t Julia & Wayne copping it?
Sure, Rudd’s government could of sold it better…and yes, I’d like to see more negotiations w/ The Greens…but the reality is the world has dropped the ball on this issue.
Why is it that Kevin Rudd has to be bashed time & time again? I’m seeing a kind of bullying towards a PM that I’ve never seen before.
There is obviously more than one way to assassinate a leader.
N’
“Rudd got together with the naughty boys behind the toilets and scribbled a line drawing with the rude bits highlighted and did mock outrage when both the prudes and the art lovers were offended.”
Fran, he seems to me that Rudd worked hard at Copenhagen but like our planet got screwed over. He did put up an ETS that got knocked down due to Tony Abbott. And apparently he was “torn” about delaying the ETS. Wheras, Julia Gillard & Wayne Swan weren’t. Why aren’t Julia & Wayne copping it?
Sure, Rudd’s government could of sold it better…and yes, I’d like to see more negotiations w/ The Greens…but the reality is the world has dropped the ball on this issue.
Why is it that Kevin Rudd has to be bashed time & time again? I’m seeing a kind of bullying towards a PM that I’ve never seen before.
There is obviously more than one way to assassinate a leader.
N’
tssk …
Between “worst PM since Whitlam” and “one of the best PMs ever” there is a lot of ground. Personally, I’d rank Whitlam as Australia’s best PM ever, with daylight to second. I’m not even sure who number 2 would be he’s so far back. It could be Rudd. Howard would almost certainly be the worst, all things considered.
But I digress. Rudd faced a much greater problem than did Hawke or Keating and had a dreadful political legacy with which to work. By that standard, he did passably well, but of course, that was still a long way short of what was needed, and as it turns out, he lacked the political acumen to get us where we needed to be. He was a useful tool to dislodge Howard but less impressive as a change-authoring PM.
That’s something I would not have thought in 2007, despite the evident similarities between him and his predecessor.
tssk …
Between “worst PM since Whitlam” and “one of the best PMs ever” there is a lot of ground. Personally, I’d rank Whitlam as Australia’s best PM ever, with daylight to second. I’m not even sure who number 2 would be he’s so far back. It could be Rudd. Howard would almost certainly be the worst, all things considered.
But I digress. Rudd faced a much greater problem than did Hawke or Keating and had a dreadful political legacy with which to work. By that standard, he did passably well, but of course, that was still a long way short of what was needed, and as it turns out, he lacked the political acumen to get us where we needed to be. He was a useful tool to dislodge Howard but less impressive as a change-authoring PM.
That’s something I would not have thought in 2007, despite the evident similarities between him and his predecessor.
Thankyou for a little bit of thoughtful balance, Brian@73. I am sure that if Obama did publicly let fly it would merely provide an alternative avenue to feed an attack.
In the case of Rudd there is a frenzy of anger directed at him and with it now the laughable claim, when he responds to it, that he must somehow be unhinged.
For this round of biff it was a female journalist from The Australian who dropped the flag for an all out de-stabilising assault on the P.M. because the media pack had had enough of him.
Many from all sides of the political spectrum have since piled on , in true Aussie style, attacking him for his failures around their area of interest without the slightest consideration of his achievements or the difficulties he has confronted.
He has been a good P.M. working extremely hard for us all and is currently being given absolutely no credit for the many good things he has done in his short period in office.
Thankyou for a little bit of thoughtful balance, Brian@73. I am sure that if Obama did publicly let fly it would merely provide an alternative avenue to feed an attack.
In the case of Rudd there is a frenzy of anger directed at him and with it now the laughable claim, when he responds to it, that he must somehow be unhinged.
For this round of biff it was a female journalist from The Australian who dropped the flag for an all out de-stabilising assault on the P.M. because the media pack had had enough of him.
Many from all sides of the political spectrum have since piled on , in true Aussie style, attacking him for his failures around their area of interest without the slightest consideration of his achievements or the difficulties he has confronted.
He has been a good P.M. working extremely hard for us all and is currently being given absolutely no credit for the many good things he has done in his short period in office.
What also surprises me is that Rudd doesn’t get any credit for overcoming a really difficult childhood full of death, illness, poverty and homelessness. Instead, it’s played out as a negative which has left him fatally flawed.
Surely, any person who becomes PM has to be a bit weird and wired up differently than most of us.
What also surprises me is that Rudd doesn’t get any credit for overcoming a really difficult childhood full of death, illness, poverty and homelessness. Instead, it’s played out as a negative which has left him fatally flawed.
Surely, any person who becomes PM has to be a bit weird and wired up differently than most of us.
“It’s strange that Obama is being criticised at present for not letting fly about the oil spill.”
Indeed Brian.
I think we have a press & other media so desperate to hook-in readers & viewers that they are willing to make an issue out of anything.
Mock outrage obviously sells.
And puts recent politicians in a no-win situation. Can’t be good for the development of our politics. Will end up like some demolition derby.
N’
“It’s strange that Obama is being criticised at present for not letting fly about the oil spill.”
Indeed Brian.
I think we have a press & other media so desperate to hook-in readers & viewers that they are willing to make an issue out of anything.
Mock outrage obviously sells.
And puts recent politicians in a no-win situation. Can’t be good for the development of our politics. Will end up like some demolition derby.
N’
I agree with you Fine however in the real world the general wisdom is that Rudd is a fake whereas Abbott is the real deal.
This takes me all the way back to Catholic school where the kids knew who the welfare case of the school was and would show their Christian values by kicking the shit out of him each lunch for not knowing his place.
I can’t see the issues that everyone else can.
I agree with you Fine however in the real world the general wisdom is that Rudd is a fake whereas Abbott is the real deal.
This takes me all the way back to Catholic school where the kids knew who the welfare case of the school was and would show their Christian values by kicking the shit out of him each lunch for not knowing his place.
I can’t see the issues that everyone else can.
Nasking said:
You can’t simply work hard — you need to work smart. It was very clear early on that getting an agreement would be a tough gig, so I don’t necessarily blame him for much of the failure at Copenhagen, but to the the extent he contributed tio the conext of discussuion, he seemed a lot closer to the minimalists than the maximalists there. He needed to argue more strongly for transfer payments to the developing world, perhaps setting up regional grouping pools to ensure regional agreements on reductions in CO2 intensity, each of them having a first world funding patron or two.
Not really. The game was lost way before that when the started negotiating with the Libs on how much pork to put into the scheme. It was that move that leveraged the deniers into power and subverted the Turnbullistas. That of course was their aim –to make the then Opposition leader carry the can for the policy into his own ranks and wedge them. Abbott, who had earlier advocated passing whatever Rudd had proposed, in concert with the Minchin-Abetz-Tuckeyites now smelled weakness both in Rudd and in Turnbull and was able to destroy the wedge by overturning the leader, the policy and all associated with it. When Copenhagen failed, as it was always going to, the wedge reversed. Rudd played this very badly — a case of too clever by half. running dead, he turned the whole moral challenge thing into a piece of disingenuous political game-playing. He nearly got away with it, but thankfully, he didn’t. This was and is a serious issue.
He should have implemented Garnaut with Jesuitical fervour and told the Coalition that as this was the conclusion of an independent and progefession review, if they wanted to shed the denier tag they had better just deal with their ignorati and pass it. If they had wimped out, he can then load all of the blame on them and move on. Libs are at mercy of psychopathic misanthropic deniers — rats in the ranks — and refuse to accept will of the people in 2007. DD Trigger in place. Issue resolved and move on. Simple.
Nasking said:
You can’t simply work hard — you need to work smart. It was very clear early on that getting an agreement would be a tough gig, so I don’t necessarily blame him for much of the failure at Copenhagen, but to the the extent he contributed tio the conext of discussuion, he seemed a lot closer to the minimalists than the maximalists there. He needed to argue more strongly for transfer payments to the developing world, perhaps setting up regional grouping pools to ensure regional agreements on reductions in CO2 intensity, each of them having a first world funding patron or two.
Not really. The game was lost way before that when the started negotiating with the Libs on how much pork to put into the scheme. It was that move that leveraged the deniers into power and subverted the Turnbullistas. That of course was their aim –to make the then Opposition leader carry the can for the policy into his own ranks and wedge them. Abbott, who had earlier advocated passing whatever Rudd had proposed, in concert with the Minchin-Abetz-Tuckeyites now smelled weakness both in Rudd and in Turnbull and was able to destroy the wedge by overturning the leader, the policy and all associated with it. When Copenhagen failed, as it was always going to, the wedge reversed. Rudd played this very badly — a case of too clever by half. running dead, he turned the whole moral challenge thing into a piece of disingenuous political game-playing. He nearly got away with it, but thankfully, he didn’t. This was and is a serious issue.
He should have implemented Garnaut with Jesuitical fervour and told the Coalition that as this was the conclusion of an independent and progefession review, if they wanted to shed the denier tag they had better just deal with their ignorati and pass it. If they had wimped out, he can then load all of the blame on them and move on. Libs are at mercy of psychopathic misanthropic deniers — rats in the ranks — and refuse to accept will of the people in 2007. DD Trigger in place. Issue resolved and move on. Simple.
Ute Man @ ?,
Word around Earlwood, near where I grew up, was that Howard was bullied mercilessly at school because he was an annoying little prick. One of my mates had a theory that the whole of Howard’s PMship was motivated by getting back on people who had done him wrong over the years, which was why he was such a bastard.
Now to David Marr and Kevin Rudd.
As much as I admire Marr as a journalist and a person (from afar; I haven’t met him)I have to say I’m always a bit suspicious of the use of pyscho-history as a tool for analysis. (My own forays into this realm many years ago had me concluding Jack Lang was a sociopath – wisdom got the better part of creativity and I left it out of my honours thesis.) The point of all this being, probably even if you’re a trained professional psycho-therapist,(which I’m not) this stuff can lead you down dangerous inconclusive paths and is better edited out at a final rewvision, if only for reasons of accuracy.
Of course, if Rudd was to send Marr an e-mail ir a letter comparing him to the Chinese at Copenhagen, well, that’s evidence, ain’t it?
Ute Man @ ?,
Word around Earlwood, near where I grew up, was that Howard was bullied mercilessly at school because he was an annoying little prick. One of my mates had a theory that the whole of Howard’s PMship was motivated by getting back on people who had done him wrong over the years, which was why he was such a bastard.
Now to David Marr and Kevin Rudd.
As much as I admire Marr as a journalist and a person (from afar; I haven’t met him)I have to say I’m always a bit suspicious of the use of pyscho-history as a tool for analysis. (My own forays into this realm many years ago had me concluding Jack Lang was a sociopath – wisdom got the better part of creativity and I left it out of my honours thesis.) The point of all this being, probably even if you’re a trained professional psycho-therapist,(which I’m not) this stuff can lead you down dangerous inconclusive paths and is better edited out at a final rewvision, if only for reasons of accuracy.
Of course, if Rudd was to send Marr an e-mail ir a letter comparing him to the Chinese at Copenhagen, well, that’s evidence, ain’t it?
Shorter comments thread: Marr’s analysis is brilliant because it confirms what I already thought/Marr’s gossip-mongering is rubbish because I don’t believe any of it.
But I did admire the brilliant non-sequitur @ 24 of ‘Marr is bitchy, as only a well-connected, inner city Sydney gay man can be’. No stereotyping to see here folks!
Shorter comments thread: Marr’s analysis is brilliant because it confirms what I already thought/Marr’s gossip-mongering is rubbish because I don’t believe any of it.
But I did admire the brilliant non-sequitur @ 24 of ‘Marr is bitchy, as only a well-connected, inner city Sydney gay man can be’. No stereotyping to see here folks!
I’d just like to make a couple of points.
Firstly, I am unable to know this, but it seems as if David Marr is trying to have it both ways about the Prime Minister in order to drive sales for his essay. That is, he must knowingly have used the word, ‘anger’, as he knew that it would generate copy from other media outlets and publicise his work. However, on the other hand, he has been at pains to describe this ‘anger’ as a positive force that motivates the PM towards doing good for the country.This analysis would drive people who support the PM towards purchasing the essay. Thus, IMHO, a deliberate move to use that word, but a self-interested one, as opposed to a vindictive one. Well, I certainly hope so because surely Marr must realise that with the election of an Abbott-led government homosexuals would again be in the sights of the homophobes, and Abbott would casually turn a blind eye to their subsequent travails.
I’d just like to make a couple of points.
Firstly, I am unable to know this, but it seems as if David Marr is trying to have it both ways about the Prime Minister in order to drive sales for his essay. That is, he must knowingly have used the word, ‘anger’, as he knew that it would generate copy from other media outlets and publicise his work. However, on the other hand, he has been at pains to describe this ‘anger’ as a positive force that motivates the PM towards doing good for the country.This analysis would drive people who support the PM towards purchasing the essay. Thus, IMHO, a deliberate move to use that word, but a self-interested one, as opposed to a vindictive one. Well, I certainly hope so because surely Marr must realise that with the election of an Abbott-led government homosexuals would again be in the sights of the homophobes, and Abbott would casually turn a blind eye to their subsequent travails.
My second point: I would have thought that people in general would have perceived raging against the machine, which is essentially what Marr appears to describing in the PM’s behaviour, as a good thing in a Labor PM?
My second point: I would have thought that people in general would have perceived raging against the machine, which is essentially what Marr appears to describing in the PM’s behaviour, as a good thing in a Labor PM?
Ken 92
every well-connected, inner city Sydney gay man that I know, and I know a lot of them, is bitchy. That’s not necessarily a criticism.
Some stereotypes exist for a reason.
Ken 92
every well-connected, inner city Sydney gay man that I know, and I know a lot of them, is bitchy. That’s not necessarily a criticism.
Some stereotypes exist for a reason.
Surely, any person who becomes PM has to be a bit weird and wired up differently than most of us.
It’s interesting you should say that, Fine, I think you’re on the money, and much has been made of the fact that a highly disproportionate number of US presidents, for example, have had emotionally absent fathers (dead, alchoholic, not on the scene etc). What that means is anyone’s guess, but yeah I think it definitely takes a special someone to even want the top job, let alone get it.
Surely, any person who becomes PM has to be a bit weird and wired up differently than most of us.
It’s interesting you should say that, Fine, I think you’re on the money, and much has been made of the fact that a highly disproportionate number of US presidents, for example, have had emotionally absent fathers (dead, alchoholic, not on the scene etc). What that means is anyone’s guess, but yeah I think it definitely takes a special someone to even want the top job, let alone get it.
Shorter version of the Marr essay doing the rounds in the media. Rudd is angry therefore Rudd=Latham therefore <Abbott.
Shorter version of the Marr essay doing the rounds in the media. Rudd is angry therefore Rudd=Latham therefore <Abbott.
Actually, in a stright toss up between Latham and Abbott — no contest for me. Latham wins hands down.
Sure he was a legend in his own mind and a rightwing thug — i.e. like Abbott — but what he proposed doing was a lot less offensive.
Actually, in a stright toss up between Latham and Abbott — no contest for me. Latham wins hands down.
Sure he was a legend in his own mind and a rightwing thug — i.e. like Abbott — but what he proposed doing was a lot less offensive.
Sam, are you suggesting that Rudd is gay because he’s bitchy?
Sam, are you suggesting that Rudd is gay because he’s bitchy?
I finished the QE with my toast this morning.
If you look at it as an essay about Rudd’s political development through various Christianities, the Foreign Affairs department and the Queensland bureaucracy, with extra guff about childhood and “rage” tacked on each end, it’s quite interesting and informed. I was pleasantly suprised by how well Marr seems to know the ALP, it’s better than the usual standard of press gallery Kremlinology—you’ve just got to ignore the rat-fucking tell-all and the thin-slicing as you’ve described it Mark. Of course editing it out properly would have shortened the essay by half.
The unreported argument in the QE is the role of the Catholic and Anglican churches and Protestantism on Rudd’s praxis; that Rudd’s sense of leadership is based on finding a personal, inward solution of “decency” to small and large crises, rather than trusting other peoples’ judgement. That wasn’t tortuously argued at all—public religion is Marr’s strong point.
I finished the QE with my toast this morning.
If you look at it as an essay about Rudd’s political development through various Christianities, the Foreign Affairs department and the Queensland bureaucracy, with extra guff about childhood and “rage” tacked on each end, it’s quite interesting and informed. I was pleasantly suprised by how well Marr seems to know the ALP, it’s better than the usual standard of press gallery Kremlinology—you’ve just got to ignore the rat-fucking tell-all and the thin-slicing as you’ve described it Mark. Of course editing it out properly would have shortened the essay by half.
The unreported argument in the QE is the role of the Catholic and Anglican churches and Protestantism on Rudd’s praxis; that Rudd’s sense of leadership is based on finding a personal, inward solution of “decency” to small and large crises, rather than trusting other peoples’ judgement. That wasn’t tortuously argued at all—public religion is Marr’s strong point.
I’ll go along with that. It’s kind of stunning how quickly he’s fallen, and the distance he’s fallen seems to me far in excess of his shortcomings.
I’ve not had a chance to get hold of the essay yet, but it sounds to me as though it’s an exercise in the sort of work Judith Brett was doing so brilliantly a few years back, on Menzies, Hawke and Howard. How much one values it depends entirely on how much one values psychoanalytic readings of people or of anything else; some of us find them valuable, useful and enlightening, and Brett (who is a Professor of Political Science) was and still is brilliant at it; I’ll be really interested to hear her take on the Marr essay.
I’ll go along with that. It’s kind of stunning how quickly he’s fallen, and the distance he’s fallen seems to me far in excess of his shortcomings.
I’ve not had a chance to get hold of the essay yet, but it sounds to me as though it’s an exercise in the sort of work Judith Brett was doing so brilliantly a few years back, on Menzies, Hawke and Howard. How much one values it depends entirely on how much one values psychoanalytic readings of people or of anything else; some of us find them valuable, useful and enlightening, and Brett (who is a Professor of Political Science) was and still is brilliant at it; I’ll be really interested to hear her take on the Marr essay.
Some comments here appear to suggest that Marr should have taken into consideration the possible electoral fallout of painting a less than rosy portrait of the prime minister before deciding to write what he’s written. That amuses me.
I also don’t see why a biographer should not write biography, in whatever mode he wishes, within the law. To say he ought to have stuck to just discussing Rudd’s professional track record is a bit like saying he should have written his biography of Patrick White only by discussing Whilte’s literary work.
Some comments here appear to suggest that Marr should have taken into consideration the possible electoral fallout of painting a less than rosy portrait of the prime minister before deciding to write what he’s written. That amuses me.
I also don’t see why a biographer should not write biography, in whatever mode he wishes, within the law. To say he ought to have stuck to just discussing Rudd’s professional track record is a bit like saying he should have written his biography of Patrick White only by discussing Whilte’s literary work.
“It’s strange that Obama is being criticised at present for not letting fly about the oil spill.”
Just as an aside, Don Watson has a typically thoughtful piece about Obama in the current issue of The Monthly, in which he notes that his “preternatural calm”, apparent throughout his life from college through to the presidency, does have the continual effect of irritating idealogues on all sides.
There’s outrage at his lack of outrage!
“It’s strange that Obama is being criticised at present for not letting fly about the oil spill.”
Just as an aside, Don Watson has a typically thoughtful piece about Obama in the current issue of The Monthly, in which he notes that his “preternatural calm”, apparent throughout his life from college through to the presidency, does have the continual effect of irritating idealogues on all sides.
There’s outrage at his lack of outrage!
]’fdsa/vxzfewq
]’fdsa/vxzfewq
Yey well I can’t say that I can agree with you there, LeftyE@104, but I am a Labor apologist.
Yey well I can’t say that I can agree with you there, LeftyE@104, but I am a Labor apologist.
For once I agree with Lefty E.
Chill. She’s bi.
For once I agree with Lefty E.
Chill. She’s bi.
Fran Barlow
Senate Handsard records prove your varous claims ar faulty
first , there were two not one diferent 5% CPRS Bills attempted by Kevin Rudd thru Senate
Fact is Kevin rudd promised in 2007 to introduce a co2 reduction Scheme based on a Report to be completed by Ross Garanut Thereafter Garnaut produced a Final Report SPECIFICALY recomending a 5% CPRS only , which Rudd then legislated a FIRST 5% CPRS Bill !!…and which Greens and Libs Partys rejected twice…Senate records show this
Your attempts to deny these Senate public records is unbeleivable
They show it was th Liberal and Greens Partys that blocked a co2 mitigation Scheme
Rudd was SO committed to having a sensiblee Climate Change polisy in oz , unlike Libs and Greens , that he subsequently took politcal risk of negotaiting with Libs for a SECOND separate CPRS Bill, seeing Greens Party refused to negotaite at all and demanded a stupid minimum 25% CPRS cut
That SECOND separate 5% CPRS Bill attracked2 Lib Senators and had Greens voted for it a CPRS Bill was passed , but Greens a third time voted down a CPRS Bill
Rudd is criticised for being ONLY politcal Party that attempted a co2 reduction Scheme , and attacks come from wreckers of co2 reducton (Liberals & Greens)
spin is Kevin rudd abandoned ETS when in fact he did not , Rudd introduced 2 diferent CPRS Bills whereas it was Greens and Liberal Partys who abandoned an ETS co2 mitigaton by rejecting it ….three times , spread over 2 separate CPRS Bills
I realize CC facts ar somewhat inconvenient to Liberals and Greens , but deel with it , both of those Partys cynically used CC for partisian politcal vote chasing only
Fran Barlow
Senate Handsard records prove your varous claims ar faulty
first , there were two not one diferent 5% CPRS Bills attempted by Kevin Rudd thru Senate
Fact is Kevin rudd promised in 2007 to introduce a co2 reduction Scheme based on a Report to be completed by Ross Garanut Thereafter Garnaut produced a Final Report SPECIFICALY recomending a 5% CPRS only , which Rudd then legislated a FIRST 5% CPRS Bill !!…and which Greens and Libs Partys rejected twice…Senate records show this
Your attempts to deny these Senate public records is unbeleivable
They show it was th Liberal and Greens Partys that blocked a co2 mitigation Scheme
Rudd was SO committed to having a sensiblee Climate Change polisy in oz , unlike Libs and Greens , that he subsequently took politcal risk of negotaiting with Libs for a SECOND separate CPRS Bill, seeing Greens Party refused to negotaite at all and demanded a stupid minimum 25% CPRS cut
That SECOND separate 5% CPRS Bill attracked2 Lib Senators and had Greens voted for it a CPRS Bill was passed , but Greens a third time voted down a CPRS Bill
Rudd is criticised for being ONLY politcal Party that attempted a co2 reduction Scheme , and attacks come from wreckers of co2 reducton (Liberals & Greens)
spin is Kevin rudd abandoned ETS when in fact he did not , Rudd introduced 2 diferent CPRS Bills whereas it was Greens and Liberal Partys who abandoned an ETS co2 mitigaton by rejecting it ….three times , spread over 2 separate CPRS Bills
I realize CC facts ar somewhat inconvenient to Liberals and Greens , but deel with it , both of those Partys cynically used CC for partisian politcal vote chasing only
joe2, can’t you just feel the outrage? What’s the matter with you? You need to join a Q&A audience to feel the outrage at what the govermin has done/hasn’t done, what are Rudd has said/hasn’t said etc etc, and then you’ll be a Labor apologist no more.
And don’t forget to remember that while we live in a country that’s economically the envy of most, it’s all the govermin’s fault.
joe2, can’t you just feel the outrage? What’s the matter with you? You need to join a Q&A audience to feel the outrage at what the govermin has done/hasn’t done, what are Rudd has said/hasn’t said etc etc, and then you’ll be a Labor apologist no more.
And don’t forget to remember that while we live in a country that’s economically the envy of most, it’s all the govermin’s fault.
‘I realize CC facts ar somewhat inconvenient to Liberals and Greens , but deel with it , both of those Partys cynically used CC for partisian politcal vote chasing only’
True, but it’s all Rudd’s fault because he didn’t communicate this properly or blame the other side as much as he should in which case he would be just another politician blaming the opposition. Or something.
You just need to remember that whatever happens it’s all the govermin’s fault, or more specifically, Kevin Rudd’s.
‘I realize CC facts ar somewhat inconvenient to Liberals and Greens , but deel with it , both of those Partys cynically used CC for partisian politcal vote chasing only’
True, but it’s all Rudd’s fault because he didn’t communicate this properly or blame the other side as much as he should in which case he would be just another politician blaming the opposition. Or something.
You just need to remember that whatever happens it’s all the govermin’s fault, or more specifically, Kevin Rudd’s.
No all you need to do Ron is show how similar in structure the CPRS was to Garnaut’s proposal. Good luck with that.
No all you need to do Ron is show how similar in structure the CPRS was to Garnaut’s proposal. Good luck with that.
PC @ 101,
Heven’t read a lot of Brett’s work, except some of her stuff on Menzies, which I did enjoy.
In my current area of research there’s at least one character, Sir Henry Clinton who was more than a bit of a psychological basket case, and more than amenable to the techniques of psycho-history. And I’ve enjoyed reading that. (So is Washington, I suspect, but, although I’ve read a fair bit on him, the most recent revisionary work looks more at his political acumen.Un-canonising him if you like.
I’m just not sure that missing one’s mother/hating one’s father etc is necessarily a drive to one’s actions in adulthood. After all parents are usually replaced by much more interesting people. And, in any case, with growingf cancer rates one might all argue that we’re suffering from repressed anger at the world because its a bastard of a place.
PC @ 101,
Heven’t read a lot of Brett’s work, except some of her stuff on Menzies, which I did enjoy.
In my current area of research there’s at least one character, Sir Henry Clinton who was more than a bit of a psychological basket case, and more than amenable to the techniques of psycho-history. And I’ve enjoyed reading that. (So is Washington, I suspect, but, although I’ve read a fair bit on him, the most recent revisionary work looks more at his political acumen.Un-canonising him if you like.
I’m just not sure that missing one’s mother/hating one’s father etc is necessarily a drive to one’s actions in adulthood. After all parents are usually replaced by much more interesting people. And, in any case, with growingf cancer rates one might all argue that we’re suffering from repressed anger at the world because its a bastard of a place.
@96 –
A point Marr notes.
@96 –
A point Marr notes.
Haven’t read it yet, but would rely on Liam’s take. I agree the anger thing is a bit of a stretch, at least as the motivator, but there may be something of a tin ear regarding his ability to read the political concerns, as distinct from the media noise. And LO’s concerns about an inability to delegate or to include may be one cause of trouble.
Somewhere there must be a little haunting of Goss lasting only one term with Rudd as his chief adviser. From memory the opposition was every bit as dopey as Abbott’s lot. The punters do tend to vote out rather than vote in, which may give Terje some hope.
The general economic indicators, however, are so good that you’d expect him to survive despite all the mineral industry noise at the moment.
Haven’t read it yet, but would rely on Liam’s take. I agree the anger thing is a bit of a stretch, at least as the motivator, but there may be something of a tin ear regarding his ability to read the political concerns, as distinct from the media noise. And LO’s concerns about an inability to delegate or to include may be one cause of trouble.
Somewhere there must be a little haunting of Goss lasting only one term with Rudd as his chief adviser. From memory the opposition was every bit as dopey as Abbott’s lot. The punters do tend to vote out rather than vote in, which may give Terje some hope.
The general economic indicators, however, are so good that you’d expect him to survive despite all the mineral industry noise at the moment.
Having just read David Marr’s Q.E. I agree with Mark that the hypothesis is tortously argued and likewise suggest that it is built around “conversations with others”, some of them being in the Canberra Press Gallery. The suggestion already made that it is in some sense a payback for Rudd’s viewpoint on Bill Henson’s work also rings true.
It is disappointing that Marr’s work in this particular instance seems to represent nothing more than a nit-picking exercise which he has tried to dress up as political analysis. The attempt at psychologising is less than believable. Marr would have us believe that the man he refers to as having “emotional resilience” is an “angry” persona at base. The two aspects don’t sit together, nor do they line up with Marr’s references to Rudd’s “decency”. An emotionally resilient person does not have an anger problem.
The essay has all the appearance of a stitch-up of past and present gossip points which has been given a head and a tail.
I think I’d be very angry if, after long discussions with Marr, he revealed that he was going to stich me up and the dressing down he says he got from Rudd would be perfectly understandable, which Marr has seized upon to put the tail on his work. But I suspect that in reality the core anger David Marr is trying to attach to Rudd is his own.
Having just read David Marr’s Q.E. I agree with Mark that the hypothesis is tortously argued and likewise suggest that it is built around “conversations with others”, some of them being in the Canberra Press Gallery. The suggestion already made that it is in some sense a payback for Rudd’s viewpoint on Bill Henson’s work also rings true.
It is disappointing that Marr’s work in this particular instance seems to represent nothing more than a nit-picking exercise which he has tried to dress up as political analysis. The attempt at psychologising is less than believable. Marr would have us believe that the man he refers to as having “emotional resilience” is an “angry” persona at base. The two aspects don’t sit together, nor do they line up with Marr’s references to Rudd’s “decency”. An emotionally resilient person does not have an anger problem.
The essay has all the appearance of a stitch-up of past and present gossip points which has been given a head and a tail.
I think I’d be very angry if, after long discussions with Marr, he revealed that he was going to stich me up and the dressing down he says he got from Rudd would be perfectly understandable, which Marr has seized upon to put the tail on his work. But I suspect that in reality the core anger David Marr is trying to attach to Rudd is his own.
I wish Tssk that when you said
that you had stopped there with the metaphorical question to which answered itself naturally ‘Of course not!’ Instead you suggest ‘maybe’ you’ll vote Liberal. Or was that intended as a rhetorical musing too?
I’m with people like joe2 who will continue to defend Rudd as a good prime minister. I think the vast majority of Australians were right in their early approval of Rudd tho’ perhaps over-optimistic about how much even the most conscientious of leaders can achieve in satisfying most of the people most of the time in any body politic. Obama, no doubt will suffer similar disenchantment.
Rudd has been subject to sniping innuendo and attack by the right from the very beginning of his leadership in efforts to show he has feet of clay. Silly things like the Scores outing, a hairdryer, rumors of disaffected staff, a brief and angry outburst after long and frustrating hours of negotiation over climate change had finally ended with Chinese obdurance. All of these pettifogging episodes have been mushroomed up by a largely hostile and a venemous Opposition into a dark cloud of suspicion over Rudd’s persona.
And after all these clear attempts at character assassination what do we have? A country on a sound economic footing in a world where everywhere else there is instability. A PM blamed for backflip in ‘shelving’ the ETS when it was in fact treachery within the Liberal party which brought it undone. We have a still united and apparently loyal cabinet where only one suggestion of scandal was early nipped in the bud, compared with multiple scandals and resignations in Howard’s first adminisration. Similarly in comparison with that same Liberal government’s unchallenged gross abuses of our money we have now widespread criticism of this government for using a moderate amount of public funds to explain a proposed tax on outragesous mining profits by exploitative and largely overseas companies.
Recently someone on the Opposition benches with surprising honesty outlined yet again the ‘failure’ of the home insulation program in terms of four deaths and 157 housefires. Of course he didn’t mention the million or so homes insulated, the subsequent improval in safety statistics in the industry, the many thousands of jobs created and the huge benefit to the economy at large. Something is very wrong in our democracy if our media are not attacking that kind of misrepresentation and distortion.
Instead they and even here we are discussing at length the character failings of a good man in terms of a hypothetical inner rage evidenced only by a handful of minor expressions of irritation only occasionally extreme! If Jesus were around today he’d be taking a scourge to us all!
I wish Tssk that when you said
that you had stopped there with the metaphorical question to which answered itself naturally ‘Of course not!’ Instead you suggest ‘maybe’ you’ll vote Liberal. Or was that intended as a rhetorical musing too?
I’m with people like joe2 who will continue to defend Rudd as a good prime minister. I think the vast majority of Australians were right in their early approval of Rudd tho’ perhaps over-optimistic about how much even the most conscientious of leaders can achieve in satisfying most of the people most of the time in any body politic. Obama, no doubt will suffer similar disenchantment.
Rudd has been subject to sniping innuendo and attack by the right from the very beginning of his leadership in efforts to show he has feet of clay. Silly things like the Scores outing, a hairdryer, rumors of disaffected staff, a brief and angry outburst after long and frustrating hours of negotiation over climate change had finally ended with Chinese obdurance. All of these pettifogging episodes have been mushroomed up by a largely hostile and a venemous Opposition into a dark cloud of suspicion over Rudd’s persona.
And after all these clear attempts at character assassination what do we have? A country on a sound economic footing in a world where everywhere else there is instability. A PM blamed for backflip in ‘shelving’ the ETS when it was in fact treachery within the Liberal party which brought it undone. We have a still united and apparently loyal cabinet where only one suggestion of scandal was early nipped in the bud, compared with multiple scandals and resignations in Howard’s first adminisration. Similarly in comparison with that same Liberal government’s unchallenged gross abuses of our money we have now widespread criticism of this government for using a moderate amount of public funds to explain a proposed tax on outragesous mining profits by exploitative and largely overseas companies.
Recently someone on the Opposition benches with surprising honesty outlined yet again the ‘failure’ of the home insulation program in terms of four deaths and 157 housefires. Of course he didn’t mention the million or so homes insulated, the subsequent improval in safety statistics in the industry, the many thousands of jobs created and the huge benefit to the economy at large. Something is very wrong in our democracy if our media are not attacking that kind of misrepresentation and distortion.
Instead they and even here we are discussing at length the character failings of a good man in terms of a hypothetical inner rage evidenced only by a handful of minor expressions of irritation only occasionally extreme! If Jesus were around today he’d be taking a scourge to us all!
When you think of Rudd’s legacy as PM – think ’2020 summit’
When you think of Rudd’s legacy as PM – think ’2020 summit’
@ PatriciaWA
If Jesus were around today attempting to take a scourge to us all I suspect he’d be locked up as a terrorism suspect. He was after all a man of middle eastern appearance. /derail
“The early stuff was conventional for the genre. Hardscrabble local youth, no money, no frills, his mom a pillar of strength, his dad working two jobs to make ends meet. Almost certainly exaggerated. If you take political candidates as a population sample, then the United States is a Third World country. Everyone grows up poor, running water is a luxury, shoes are rare, a square meal is a cause for jubilant celebration.” Lee Child Gone Tomorrow (a Jack Reacher novel) pg 82 (trade paperback edition)
@ PatriciaWA
If Jesus were around today attempting to take a scourge to us all I suspect he’d be locked up as a terrorism suspect. He was after all a man of middle eastern appearance. /derail
“The early stuff was conventional for the genre. Hardscrabble local youth, no money, no frills, his mom a pillar of strength, his dad working two jobs to make ends meet. Almost certainly exaggerated. If you take political candidates as a population sample, then the United States is a Third World country. Everyone grows up poor, running water is a luxury, shoes are rare, a square meal is a cause for jubilant celebration.” Lee Child Gone Tomorrow (a Jack Reacher novel) pg 82 (trade paperback edition)
When you think of Rudd’s legacy as PM – think saved us from the GFC.
When you trhink of Hooward’s legacy – think Tampa.
When you think of Rudd’s legacy as PM – think saved us from the GFC.
When you trhink of Hooward’s legacy – think Tampa.
Patricia WA…one of the reasons why I was musing is I’m just tired of the noise. If Abbott were voted in would the noise stop?
I’ve found the cognitive dissonance becoming so elevated that instead of doing what I try to do constantly (forcing myself to read and watch articles and programs to which I know I will disagree) I’m finding instead that I’ve stopped watching TV. I’ve stopped reading the newspapers. I only briefly look at the politics online now.
I don’t want to find myself in a political echo chamber but as it is I feel like I used to at the end of the Howard era where all the media were saying seemed at odds at what my view is.
The only thing that caught me by surprise in the media of late was last night on the 7pm project I saw Joe Hockey offered a free kick at Rudd “so have you seen him blow up? Does he get that mad really?” and Hockey declined to take it.
What the current media environment is doing in reality rather than leading me to the correct decision (vote Abbott, vote Abbott, VOTE ABBOTT) it’s just turning me off politics totally.
Patricia WA…one of the reasons why I was musing is I’m just tired of the noise. If Abbott were voted in would the noise stop?
I’ve found the cognitive dissonance becoming so elevated that instead of doing what I try to do constantly (forcing myself to read and watch articles and programs to which I know I will disagree) I’m finding instead that I’ve stopped watching TV. I’ve stopped reading the newspapers. I only briefly look at the politics online now.
I don’t want to find myself in a political echo chamber but as it is I feel like I used to at the end of the Howard era where all the media were saying seemed at odds at what my view is.
The only thing that caught me by surprise in the media of late was last night on the 7pm project I saw Joe Hockey offered a free kick at Rudd “so have you seen him blow up? Does he get that mad really?” and Hockey declined to take it.
What the current media environment is doing in reality rather than leading me to the correct decision (vote Abbott, vote Abbott, VOTE ABBOTT) it’s just turning me off politics totally.
The ‘Rudd saved us from the GFC’ meme is interesting…. but unfortunately doesn’t really hold close examination. Stimulus spending was going on everywhere – so thath’s not really a point of difference. There were, however, three key points of difference for Australia -
1. We entered the GFC in much better economic condition than other countries.
2. We had a much stronger domestic banking business than other countries,
3. We had a vibrant resource industry leveraged to the fast growing Chinese economy. Once Chinese stimulus spending kicked in in early 2009 we rapidly recovered.
I’m not sure Rudd had much to do with any other those points!
Nope – I think I’ll stick with ‘Think Rudd, think 2020 summit’ – that about sums him up. Lots of talk, promises, gunna do, wanna do, shoulda do…. didn’t.
The ‘Rudd saved us from the GFC’ meme is interesting…. but unfortunately doesn’t really hold close examination. Stimulus spending was going on everywhere – so thath’s not really a point of difference. There were, however, three key points of difference for Australia -
1. We entered the GFC in much better economic condition than other countries.
2. We had a much stronger domestic banking business than other countries,
3. We had a vibrant resource industry leveraged to the fast growing Chinese economy. Once Chinese stimulus spending kicked in in early 2009 we rapidly recovered.
I’m not sure Rudd had much to do with any other those points!
Nope – I think I’ll stick with ‘Think Rudd, think 2020 summit’ – that about sums him up. Lots of talk, promises, gunna do, wanna do, shoulda do…. didn’t.
Andrew,
To me, crucially we entered the period with no net federal government debt. I do not agree that stimulus spending “saved” us, but even if I did think that then the fact that big spending was possible was only built on the fact that borrowing under these circumstances was easy.
The people that left the federal government in that situation should be recognised, if not thanked, by those that believe the stimulus was needed – even if they did not agree with all of their policies.
Andrew,
To me, crucially we entered the period with no net federal government debt. I do not agree that stimulus spending “saved” us, but even if I did think that then the fact that big spending was possible was only built on the fact that borrowing under these circumstances was easy.
The people that left the federal government in that situation should be recognised, if not thanked, by those that believe the stimulus was needed – even if they did not agree with all of their policies.
I know what you mean tssk. I was once an avid viewer of ABC news and current affairs, but now
Andrew, my facile one liner has more validity than your facile one liner.
I know what you mean tssk. I was once an avid viewer of ABC news and current affairs, but now
Andrew, my facile one liner has more validity than your facile one liner.
No – it doesn’t Adrian. I debunked yours. Mine still stands.
No – it doesn’t Adrian. I debunked yours. Mine still stands.
I’ll take the 2020 summit over Tampa.
I’ll take the 2020 summit over Tampa.
I’ll bet that Rudd doesn’t care too much what Marr thinks of him. Why should he?
Rudd, like him or hate him, has achieved much more than Marr ever will and will go on to achieve much more.
Sour grapes? Tall poppy syndrome? Is Marr’s boyfriend a multi-millionaire?
I’ll bet that Rudd doesn’t care too much what Marr thinks of him. Why should he?
Rudd, like him or hate him, has achieved much more than Marr ever will and will go on to achieve much more.
Sour grapes? Tall poppy syndrome? Is Marr’s boyfriend a multi-millionaire?
Thanks for that tssk. You reflect my own state of mind exactly. I was loath to watch 4 Corners last night for much the same reason. Came to it late and reluctantly to be pleasantly surprised by Sarah Ferguson’s really grappling with the issue and clearly presenting not only the government’s, Henry’s and the unions’ case but the opinions of so many others like Fels, Hewson and Mayne inter alia supporting them.
I find it hard to write coherent opinion lately, I feel so frustrated by most debate, even here. None of the ridiculous scenarios which used to come to me in verse and gave me a lot of fun seem to arise spontaneously any more. I notice that determined loyalists like adrian and joe2 are increasingly brief in their comments too.
Yes, I too noticed that hesitation and then failure to respond by Joe Hockey to have a go at Rudd which gave me pause to reconsider my hitherto totally negative opinion of him. So why wasn’t that good instinct there in evidence earlier when loyalty to Turnbull would have made such a difference, or was he just out-manoevred by Minchin, Abbott and Co?
Thanks for that tssk. You reflect my own state of mind exactly. I was loath to watch 4 Corners last night for much the same reason. Came to it late and reluctantly to be pleasantly surprised by Sarah Ferguson’s really grappling with the issue and clearly presenting not only the government’s, Henry’s and the unions’ case but the opinions of so many others like Fels, Hewson and Mayne inter alia supporting them.
I find it hard to write coherent opinion lately, I feel so frustrated by most debate, even here. None of the ridiculous scenarios which used to come to me in verse and gave me a lot of fun seem to arise spontaneously any more. I notice that determined loyalists like adrian and joe2 are increasingly brief in their comments too.
Yes, I too noticed that hesitation and then failure to respond by Joe Hockey to have a go at Rudd which gave me pause to reconsider my hitherto totally negative opinion of him. So why wasn’t that good instinct there in evidence earlier when loyalty to Turnbull would have made such a difference, or was he just out-manoevred by Minchin, Abbott and Co?
You must have been at of town Andrew @ 120. Tip and the Tight Arse were sworn to balance the budget, at all costs. The thought of bums fighting for the dole was never a concern of theirs anyway. They would have stuffed it up big time.
You must have been at of town Andrew @ 120. Tip and the Tight Arse were sworn to balance the budget, at all costs. The thought of bums fighting for the dole was never a concern of theirs anyway. They would have stuffed it up big time.
The salient points of 127 notwithstanding, the quoted argument works both ways.
If we are expected to think that Costello would have been as good during the GFC it is reasonable to expect us to think that the ALP would have been as responsible in the pre-GFC boom. After all, the Labor government was returning budget surpluses. So the implication that the fiscal responsibility of Costello and Howard is some virtue unique to them isn’t really warranted.
The salient points of 127 notwithstanding, the quoted argument works both ways.
If we are expected to think that Costello would have been as good during the GFC it is reasonable to expect us to think that the ALP would have been as responsible in the pre-GFC boom. After all, the Labor government was returning budget surpluses. So the implication that the fiscal responsibility of Costello and Howard is some virtue unique to them isn’t really warranted.
Joe2 and Martin B – you seem to be shooting at the wrong target. I was making no statement at all about Costello or Howard – I was simply pointing out that the meme of ‘Rudd saved us from the GFC’ is wrong. And it’s certainly not believed by the electorate who are smart enough to know the real reasons we did ok (as per my post at 120)
Rudd’s current troubles are because he doesn’t stand for anything. He’s all spin. He’s taken the ‘art of politics’ to new depths that even Howard didn’t reach. It’s all best summarised by my ‘facile one-liner’ – ‘Think Rudd, think 2020 summit’.
Joe2 and Martin B – you seem to be shooting at the wrong target. I was making no statement at all about Costello or Howard – I was simply pointing out that the meme of ‘Rudd saved us from the GFC’ is wrong. And it’s certainly not believed by the electorate who are smart enough to know the real reasons we did ok (as per my post at 120)
Rudd’s current troubles are because he doesn’t stand for anything. He’s all spin. He’s taken the ‘art of politics’ to new depths that even Howard didn’t reach. It’s all best summarised by my ‘facile one-liner’ – ‘Think Rudd, think 2020 summit’.
Debunking Marr. On second reading my annoyance at this drivelling esay is escalating.
Marr writes of Rudd:
A few quotes to illustrate those claims would not go astray. As for irritating the press I’d hope so because they give everyone else the shits.
Marr writes:
If it is rubbish then why reproduce unattributed speculation?
Marr then continues:
Only if you think the Twilight Zone is reality TV.
Bah.
Debunking Marr. On second reading my annoyance at this drivelling esay is escalating.
Marr writes of Rudd:
A few quotes to illustrate those claims would not go astray. As for irritating the press I’d hope so because they give everyone else the shits.
Marr writes:
If it is rubbish then why reproduce unattributed speculation?
Marr then continues:
Only if you think the Twilight Zone is reality TV.
Bah.
More bullshit piled upon bullshit Andrew. You may get your lines from Liberal headquarters, but you have to do better than ‘the only reason we escaped recession was ’cause of the Liberals’.
In calling your one liners facile, I think I your three and four liners are worse.
More bullshit piled upon bullshit Andrew. You may get your lines from Liberal headquarters, but you have to do better than ‘the only reason we escaped recession was ’cause of the Liberals’.
In calling your one liners facile, I think I your three and four liners are worse.
The fact that Marr’s piece has generated such heat says more about the current state of political commentary in this country than anything else.
Marr probably knew that in the current climate he needed to have a negative slant in order to get any attention.
The fact that Marr’s piece has generated such heat says more about the current state of political commentary in this country than anything else.
Marr probably knew that in the current climate he needed to have a negative slant in order to get any attention.
Marr’s a self-righteous, pompous hack, like the rest of them. Next!
Marr’s a self-righteous, pompous hack, like the rest of them. Next!
I think that is right Adrian. If Abbott had experienced childhood hardship like Rudd then the press would treat him like he was the advent of the second coming. As it is Abbott pronounces on everything from his daughter’s hymen to the an AGW conspiracy and he is treated as “authentic” and a model of masculinity.
Marr writes of Senator George Georges that he was “an old fossil” who was the first live labour man Rudd ever heard speak.
Old fossil,eh? My recollection is that he played a significant role in toppling Jo regarding the march ban. Would that we had a few more fossils like that these days.
The trouble with Marr’s rubbish is that it will influence frothing inner city nitwits who don’t have the capacity for or historical knowledge for critical reading.
I think that is right Adrian. If Abbott had experienced childhood hardship like Rudd then the press would treat him like he was the advent of the second coming. As it is Abbott pronounces on everything from his daughter’s hymen to the an AGW conspiracy and he is treated as “authentic” and a model of masculinity.
Marr writes of Senator George Georges that he was “an old fossil” who was the first live labour man Rudd ever heard speak.
Old fossil,eh? My recollection is that he played a significant role in toppling Jo regarding the march ban. Would that we had a few more fossils like that these days.
The trouble with Marr’s rubbish is that it will influence frothing inner city nitwits who don’t have the capacity for or historical knowledge for critical reading.
1/ Fran
I notice you now back pedal from Senate records proving Rudd introduced 2 separate 5% CPRS Schemes and that Garnaut recomended only a 5% CPRS ,and that that Greens had demanded a non negotable 25% CPRS foolish cut , and those 2 separate Bills were rejectd BY LIBERAL and GREENS Party a total of 3 times
and ALL this is in Handsard records , proving Liberals & Greens (NOT and Kevin Rudd) abandoned co2 mitigation , facts abit too inconvenient for your and MSN spin narative anti Rudd of rudd abandoning when in fact othr 2 Partys did so
2/ Andrew
“The ‘Rudd saved us from the GFC’ meme is interesting…. but unfortunately doesn’t really hold close examination”
only if you an econamic novice Latest Treasury Accounts show 81.8% of growth came DIRECTLY from Stimulus spending !…assume you not understand what derives from ‘growth’
3/ David Marr ‘essay’
So if David Marr wrote an essay that Bob Browns childhood frustraton of being homosexual resulted in denial of reality decision making capacity , and this trait has caused his curent adult personality of mouthing CC motherhood coments lacking practicol co2 reduction reality and commitment…it seems those Rudd haters now praising David Marr “expertness” in persoanliuty disorders may then change tunes , whereas I’d not change tunes and still call Marr unexpert , with a chip on his sholder
2/
1/ Fran
I notice you now back pedal from Senate records proving Rudd introduced 2 separate 5% CPRS Schemes and that Garnaut recomended only a 5% CPRS ,and that that Greens had demanded a non negotable 25% CPRS foolish cut , and those 2 separate Bills were rejectd BY LIBERAL and GREENS Party a total of 3 times
and ALL this is in Handsard records , proving Liberals & Greens (NOT and Kevin Rudd) abandoned co2 mitigation , facts abit too inconvenient for your and MSN spin narative anti Rudd of rudd abandoning when in fact othr 2 Partys did so
2/ Andrew
“The ‘Rudd saved us from the GFC’ meme is interesting…. but unfortunately doesn’t really hold close examination”
only if you an econamic novice Latest Treasury Accounts show 81.8% of growth came DIRECTLY from Stimulus spending !…assume you not understand what derives from ‘growth’
3/ David Marr ‘essay’
So if David Marr wrote an essay that Bob Browns childhood frustraton of being homosexual resulted in denial of reality decision making capacity , and this trait has caused his curent adult personality of mouthing CC motherhood coments lacking practicol co2 reduction reality and commitment…it seems those Rudd haters now praising David Marr “expertness” in persoanliuty disorders may then change tunes , whereas I’d not change tunes and still call Marr unexpert , with a chip on his sholder
2/
What’s Belinda’s take on the essay?
What’s Belinda’s take on the essay?
@134 – thanks for pointing that out, anthony. It really grated for me when I read the essay too. Senator George Georges was a politician of unusual courage and integrity at a time when such qualities were in very short supply in the Queensland ALP. It made me wonder who Marr had been talking to in Queensland.
I should add that while he obviously had the predictable stories of complaint about Rudd’s time in Goss’ office (where it’s certainly true to say that he hardly made himself popular in the party or the public service) I’d never heard the claim before that Rudd was inefficient. If anything, the claim at the time was usually that he was too efficient in running rings round Ministers and staffers (many of whom were pretty unimpressive). Knowing something first hand of that era in Queensland, I really started to think that Marr’s sources were people with axes to grind.
I was hardly a fan of the Goss government, and indeed it was during its tenure that I left the ALP. But a very one-sided and in some instances wrong perspective on it was presented in Marr’s essay.
@134 – thanks for pointing that out, anthony. It really grated for me when I read the essay too. Senator George Georges was a politician of unusual courage and integrity at a time when such qualities were in very short supply in the Queensland ALP. It made me wonder who Marr had been talking to in Queensland.
I should add that while he obviously had the predictable stories of complaint about Rudd’s time in Goss’ office (where it’s certainly true to say that he hardly made himself popular in the party or the public service) I’d never heard the claim before that Rudd was inefficient. If anything, the claim at the time was usually that he was too efficient in running rings round Ministers and staffers (many of whom were pretty unimpressive). Knowing something first hand of that era in Queensland, I really started to think that Marr’s sources were people with axes to grind.
I was hardly a fan of the Goss government, and indeed it was during its tenure that I left the ALP. But a very one-sided and in some instances wrong perspective on it was presented in Marr’s essay.
Ron
You are babbling. When you have suitably composed yourself and can make a coherent point, please do so. It’s far from clear what you are claiming and I lack the interest to unpick it.
It’s perfectly simple. Garnaut proposed a scheme. Rudd reduced it to “input” and produced a scheme that was a dog’s breakfast of loopholes for the polluters to avoid action and then amended it to include even more, leaving out agriculture and transport and handing out even more largesse. It was a slap in the face to those who took the issue seriously. Had he called it the big polluter payola scheme, it would have been more accurate.
Thankfully, the desire of Rudd to lock in pollution subsidies until he was long gone was stopped and The Greens at least retained their integrity.
Ron
You are babbling. When you have suitably composed yourself and can make a coherent point, please do so. It’s far from clear what you are claiming and I lack the interest to unpick it.
It’s perfectly simple. Garnaut proposed a scheme. Rudd reduced it to “input” and produced a scheme that was a dog’s breakfast of loopholes for the polluters to avoid action and then amended it to include even more, leaving out agriculture and transport and handing out even more largesse. It was a slap in the face to those who took the issue seriously. Had he called it the big polluter payola scheme, it would have been more accurate.
Thankfully, the desire of Rudd to lock in pollution subsidies until he was long gone was stopped and The Greens at least retained their integrity.
And this is related to Marr’s essay how?
Fran, could you please stop addressing people with phrases such as “you are babbling”? Please note the comments policy!
And this is related to Marr’s essay how?
Fran, could you please stop addressing people with phrases such as “you are babbling”? Please note the comments policy!
Have only just watched the 7.30 report interview with David Marr…and feel disappointed, by the pettiness of it all. Shame David Marr, we know you can write, reminiscent of White, but this just seems like spite, puritanical shite.
Have only just watched the 7.30 report interview with David Marr…and feel disappointed, by the pettiness of it all. Shame David Marr, we know you can write, reminiscent of White, but this just seems like spite, puritanical shite.
Sinister Rudd Link
- from our Diplomatic Correspondent, Frantisek Barlov, Prague
The photograph reproduced in the article linked by “Still Life With Cat” gives a startling clue that domestic journalists have missed.
Note the number plate of the Volkswagen beetle: PLO – - -.
We are concluding:
(a) the Rudd family is early supporter of PLO, world’s most dangerous clandestine terror group of that time with Soviet links
(b) automobile is made in Germany, hotbed of fascism & anti-semitism, and has eastern part with Soviet links
(c) Rudd family sleeps in car: classic modus operandi of “sleeper agent”, whether PLO or KGB
(d) boy Rudd openly associates with car, despite sinister linkings
(e) adult Rudd displays poor tradecraft by not destroying this revealing photograph
(f) Rudd government expels Israeli diplomat, this cannot be coincidental
(g) Diplomat Rudd’s close connections with China are obvious cover for continuing PLO role
(h) “Venona” decrypts show agent with code name ‘Klanger’ occupies senior position in an Australian newspaper
(i) When will publisher show interest in my Cold War memoirs, Deep Penetration: Beautiful Women and Dangerous Spies??
Sinister Rudd Link
- from our Diplomatic Correspondent, Frantisek Barlov, Prague
The photograph reproduced in the article linked by “Still Life With Cat” gives a startling clue that domestic journalists have missed.
Note the number plate of the Volkswagen beetle: PLO – - -.
We are concluding:
(a) the Rudd family is early supporter of PLO, world’s most dangerous clandestine terror group of that time with Soviet links
(b) automobile is made in Germany, hotbed of fascism & anti-semitism, and has eastern part with Soviet links
(c) Rudd family sleeps in car: classic modus operandi of “sleeper agent”, whether PLO or KGB
(d) boy Rudd openly associates with car, despite sinister linkings
(e) adult Rudd displays poor tradecraft by not destroying this revealing photograph
(f) Rudd government expels Israeli diplomat, this cannot be coincidental
(g) Diplomat Rudd’s close connections with China are obvious cover for continuing PLO role
(h) “Venona” decrypts show agent with code name ‘Klanger’ occupies senior position in an Australian newspaper
(i) When will publisher show interest in my Cold War memoirs, Deep Penetration: Beautiful Women and Dangerous Spies??
Fair enough Mark@139. You say it’s out of bounds? Fair enough.
New Text: You are writing incoherently…
Was that in conformity with the comments policy? It was certainly true based on Ron’s Para 1. If he were a bowler and I the striker, that delivery would have pitched wide of the cut strip and been short enough to beat the grasping right hand of a leaping first slip.
Fair enough Mark@139. You say it’s out of bounds? Fair enough.
New Text: You are writing incoherently…
Was that in conformity with the comments policy? It was certainly true based on Ron’s Para 1. If he were a bowler and I the striker, that delivery would have pitched wide of the cut strip and been short enough to beat the grasping right hand of a leaping first slip.
Fran , clearly your post description shows you know as little about Cricket as you do about Climate Change , a duck
It does seem Green Party wish to forget Senate records clearly showing Greens demanding a non negoigable 25% CPRS cut as there principal excuse for blocking two Kevin Rudd 5% CPRS Bills 3 times… Senate Handsard proves this
You can spam as much as you like (and use red herings about Garnaut’s content), but Senate records prove your narative spin of Rudd abandoning CPRS is false seeing Rudd legislated for a CPRS twice , and in fact those Senate records and votes prove Greens and Liberals abandoned co2 mitigation
Relevanse to David Marr essay is your pro Marr take is just anothr example of where you accept unsourced and unexpert spin only because it is anti Rudd , instead of facts and substanse
Fran , clearly your post description shows you know as little about Cricket as you do about Climate Change , a duck
It does seem Green Party wish to forget Senate records clearly showing Greens demanding a non negoigable 25% CPRS cut as there principal excuse for blocking two Kevin Rudd 5% CPRS Bills 3 times… Senate Handsard proves this
You can spam as much as you like (and use red herings about Garnaut’s content), but Senate records prove your narative spin of Rudd abandoning CPRS is false seeing Rudd legislated for a CPRS twice , and in fact those Senate records and votes prove Greens and Liberals abandoned co2 mitigation
Relevanse to David Marr essay is your pro Marr take is just anothr example of where you accept unsourced and unexpert spin only because it is anti Rudd , instead of facts and substanse
Ok, this discussion should end, or go somewhere else. I can’t see any relevance to the post. Thanks.
Ok, this discussion should end, or go somewhere else. I can’t see any relevance to the post. Thanks.
This is a text-based medium Ron. Your posting runs afoul of the rule that “when stuck in a hole, first stop digging”. Perhaps it’s not your fault.
With Mark’s injunction in mind I’m going to be as polite as I can manage and not further characterise your commentary.
Be well with yourself …
This is a text-based medium Ron. Your posting runs afoul of the rule that “when stuck in a hole, first stop digging”. Perhaps it’s not your fault.
With Mark’s injunction in mind I’m going to be as polite as I can manage and not further characterise your commentary.
Be well with yourself …
@137+134
Did he really slander George Georges? Marr is a bastard.
@137+134
Did he really slander George Georges? Marr is a bastard.
I have watched and read Marr’s comments about Kevin Rudd.
Since when have journalists become professional psychologists. Did Marr check his assumptions with Rudd?
Methinks Marr should read The Brothers Karamazov
to quote the Defense Attorney;-
” why must we assume what we imagine, or imagine what we have assumed?…………..what if the thing went quite differently, what if you have created a novel around quite a different person? That’s just it you have created a different person.”
…………..
I have watched and read Marr’s comments about Kevin Rudd.
Since when have journalists become professional psychologists. Did Marr check his assumptions with Rudd?
Methinks Marr should read The Brothers Karamazov
to quote the Defense Attorney;-
” why must we assume what we imagine, or imagine what we have assumed?…………..what if the thing went quite differently, what if you have created a novel around quite a different person? That’s just it you have created a different person.”
…………..
Marr’s piece on Rudd consists of three parts:
1. The vast majority is a narrative, ascertainable from published records, of Rudd’s upbringing and public life. The major themes are Rudd’s attempts to marry his moral and religious convictions to his professional life and his status as an outsider striving to become a player. While this part is by no means authoritative or exhaustive, my intuition is that it is an accurate enough pen portrait of Rudd. That intuition cannot become judgment until there is a full and frank examination of the available documentation.
2. A brief account of Rudd’s attempts to explain or to edit his own story. We see here how insecure and defensive Rudd is about his own story. Much more could be made of this section. I think it is the germ of a very interesting piece.
3. The coda where Marr claims to have confronted Rudd with his own take and Rudd’s allegedly angry response to this. This section is all tell and absolutely no show. It is a poor piece of writing. Having taken the reader on an interesting journey, Marr was duty-bound to be far more explicit about the way in which Rudd expressed his anger at allegedly been exposed. Yet there is none of that.
Marr has teased his readers and left them unsatisfied. Either he is lazy or he is making it up.
Marr’s piece on Rudd consists of three parts:
1. The vast majority is a narrative, ascertainable from published records, of Rudd’s upbringing and public life. The major themes are Rudd’s attempts to marry his moral and religious convictions to his professional life and his status as an outsider striving to become a player. While this part is by no means authoritative or exhaustive, my intuition is that it is an accurate enough pen portrait of Rudd. That intuition cannot become judgment until there is a full and frank examination of the available documentation.
2. A brief account of Rudd’s attempts to explain or to edit his own story. We see here how insecure and defensive Rudd is about his own story. Much more could be made of this section. I think it is the germ of a very interesting piece.
3. The coda where Marr claims to have confronted Rudd with his own take and Rudd’s allegedly angry response to this. This section is all tell and absolutely no show. It is a poor piece of writing. Having taken the reader on an interesting journey, Marr was duty-bound to be far more explicit about the way in which Rudd expressed his anger at allegedly been exposed. Yet there is none of that.
Marr has teased his readers and left them unsatisfied. Either he is lazy or he is making it up.
“Either he is lazy or he is making it up”
Or he had reached the word limit set by the editor.
I agree, BTW, that Marr got is badly wrong on George Georges, a the real Qld ALP hero, along with Dennis Murphy of the late 70s, early 80s.
“Either he is lazy or he is making it up”
Or he had reached the word limit set by the editor.
I agree, BTW, that Marr got is badly wrong on George Georges, a the real Qld ALP hero, along with Dennis Murphy of the late 70s, early 80s.
Marr’s character assassination of Rudd continues. Rudd is all about anger, apparently, rather than the benign intentions of Tony Abbott?
Marr’s grapes are sour.
Marr’s character assassination of Rudd continues. Rudd is all about anger, apparently, rather than the benign intentions of Tony Abbott?
Marr’s grapes are sour.
Regardless of what one may think of it, isn’t it a shame that a number of commenters on this thread feel they have to find a deep seated reason for Marr’s motives, like, say his homosexuality and thereby make the same forays into some truly terrible armchair psychology in their attempts to dismantle his piece?
Regardless of what one may think of it, isn’t it a shame that a number of commenters on this thread feel they have to find a deep seated reason for Marr’s motives, like, say his homosexuality and thereby make the same forays into some truly terrible armchair psychology in their attempts to dismantle his piece?
Sorry. I don’t buy the gay hissy fit theory. Quite frankly, I think Marr is too professional and ethical for that. After all, he didn’t have to tell Rudd what his hypothesis was, did he? And that’s all it is. Its not proven, IMO.
Sorry. I don’t buy the gay hissy fit theory. Quite frankly, I think Marr is too professional and ethical for that. After all, he didn’t have to tell Rudd what his hypothesis was, did he? And that’s all it is. Its not proven, IMO.
Nobody messes with Senator George Georges on my watch. He’s a semi-sacred figure on for the QLD left: whether they’re ALP, or otherwise.
I’m glad he was the first ALP figure Rudd heard speak. He had principles, and never took a step back. It gave us all great courage to see a Federal Senator stand with us against Bjelke’s blue thugs when they charged and beat us up for demanding the basic civil liberties, like the right to demonstrate. Where were you trendy southern left-liberals then?
Marr – you’re a great, ethical journalists, and I’m a fan. But learn some QLD history my friend – and recant of this appalling slur on a great, great man.
Nobody messes with Senator George Georges on my watch. He’s a semi-sacred figure on for the QLD left: whether they’re ALP, or otherwise.
I’m glad he was the first ALP figure Rudd heard speak. He had principles, and never took a step back. It gave us all great courage to see a Federal Senator stand with us against Bjelke’s blue thugs when they charged and beat us up for demanding the basic civil liberties, like the right to demonstrate. Where were you trendy southern left-liberals then?
Marr – you’re a great, ethical journalists, and I’m a fan. But learn some QLD history my friend – and recant of this appalling slur on a great, great man.
I disagree.
The emotional burden of this essay is borne by the last four pages — the walk on the beach and the confrontation. Some of the narrative of Rudd’s childhood and public life could have been redacted or edited down.
We only needed three or four paragraphs of detail on how Rudd expressed his anger (if indeed he did) for Marr to have made something of his controversial coda to his essay.
I disagree.
The emotional burden of this essay is borne by the last four pages — the walk on the beach and the confrontation. Some of the narrative of Rudd’s childhood and public life could have been redacted or edited down.
We only needed three or four paragraphs of detail on how Rudd expressed his anger (if indeed he did) for Marr to have made something of his controversial coda to his essay.
At the risk of name dropping, Georges once told me of one of the times he went to jail for the crime of protesting. As with all prisoners, he has to have a hair cut on arrival. The prison barber was a sympathiser so took just a tiny bit off each side burn.
At the risk of name dropping, Georges once told me of one of the times he went to jail for the crime of protesting. As with all prisoners, he has to have a hair cut on arrival. The prison barber was a sympathiser so took just a tiny bit off each side burn.
Or that conversation, unlike the one over lunch, was off the record and Marr could therefore not quote directly from it. He makes this clear in (I think) the 7.30 Report interview.
Marr is a biographer (among other things) and in this case he’s writing a profile in the form of an essay. Profiles are about personalities; ‘essay’ is derived from the French ‘to try’, here in the sense of ‘test’, meaning ‘forage about, sally forth into unknown ideas’ etc etc. Journalism and the essay are different genres with different conventions, and it’s pointless to apply the same criteria to them.
Or that conversation, unlike the one over lunch, was off the record and Marr could therefore not quote directly from it. He makes this clear in (I think) the 7.30 Report interview.
Marr is a biographer (among other things) and in this case he’s writing a profile in the form of an essay. Profiles are about personalities; ‘essay’ is derived from the French ‘to try’, here in the sense of ‘test’, meaning ‘forage about, sally forth into unknown ideas’ etc etc. Journalism and the essay are different genres with different conventions, and it’s pointless to apply the same criteria to them.
Who said anything about Abbott? This is a conversation about Rudd and his personality, not about “The Tories are worse”.
There’s a difference between interpretation/analysis and evaluative judgement that some people on this thread seem quite unable to see. Marr has not at any stage said ‘Rudd is an angry man, therefore he is bad.’ He’s simply making, and elaborating on, an observation about Rudd’s personality.
Since someone else brought up sour grapes, let me just say this(TM): several of the comments on this thread are themselves clearly driven by envy of a successful and respected MSM journalist, as has often been the case (and by no means only with Marr) here before. And the homophobic subtext that’s started to creep in is very bloody unattractive as well.
Who said anything about Abbott? This is a conversation about Rudd and his personality, not about “The Tories are worse”.
There’s a difference between interpretation/analysis and evaluative judgement that some people on this thread seem quite unable to see. Marr has not at any stage said ‘Rudd is an angry man, therefore he is bad.’ He’s simply making, and elaborating on, an observation about Rudd’s personality.
Since someone else brought up sour grapes, let me just say this(TM): several of the comments on this thread are themselves clearly driven by envy of a successful and respected MSM journalist, as has often been the case (and by no means only with Marr) here before. And the homophobic subtext that’s started to creep in is very bloody unattractive as well.
I prefer Fairfax (and Crikey) over News Ltd and the abc but they do their reputation no good publishing drivel like this.
I prefer Fairfax (and Crikey) over News Ltd and the abc but they do their reputation no good publishing drivel like this.
Cuppa, if you’re referring to the Marr essay then it is published by Black Inc.
Cuppa, if you’re referring to the Marr essay then it is published by Black Inc.
I think that there are multpiple issues operating in relation to Marr’s village parson like distaste for Rudd. Central to that might be Marr’s distaste for Christianity, outlined extensively in a lecture to the Australian Fabians (2005), and especially those forms of Christianity that won’t recognise gay marriage. As to my own views on the subject – I’m an agnostic about marriage for anybody regardless of sexuality.
I think that there are multpiple issues operating in relation to Marr’s village parson like distaste for Rudd. Central to that might be Marr’s distaste for Christianity, outlined extensively in a lecture to the Australian Fabians (2005), and especially those forms of Christianity that won’t recognise gay marriage. As to my own views on the subject – I’m an agnostic about marriage for anybody regardless of sexuality.
My mistake, Pavlov’s.
My mistake, Pavlov’s.
A condensed version was published in the Good Weekend (SMH and The Age)on Saturday.
A condensed version was published in the Good Weekend (SMH and The Age)on Saturday.
Adrian and Cuppa, well, that’s my bad too then!
I missed the eastern-states papers this weekend, but I did wonder after I’d posted that comment whether some such had occurred.
I do think ‘drivel’ used to mean ‘I don’t like this’ is a bit OTT though.
Adrian and Cuppa, well, that’s my bad too then!
I missed the eastern-states papers this weekend, but I did wonder after I’d posted that comment whether some such had occurred.
I do think ‘drivel’ used to mean ‘I don’t like this’ is a bit OTT though.
Tut-tut, naughty Fairfax!
I do find amateur psychologising to be in the “drivel” category. What’s the point of it, I wonder, aside from drawing attention to oneself.
Tut-tut, naughty Fairfax!
I do find amateur psychologising to be in the “drivel” category. What’s the point of it, I wonder, aside from drawing attention to oneself.
Kevin the Terrible of Australia
This man has sinned.
He is undone because found out.
Men everywhere complain.
His crimes are broadcast far and wide.
He is unfit for public office.
He was once seen in a night club.
He has berated an air hostess.
He has worked too hard.
He has expected too much of others.
He engenders fear in colleagues
Such that none will speak ill of him
And all comport themselves well.
He has publicly eaten his own ear wax.
He has raised his voice in interview
With the mighty Red Kerry.
He once privately expressed impatience
With agents of all powerful China.
His affectation of a gentle mien,
Pretence of domestic harmony
With loving wife, cat, dog and
Loyal children does not convince.
Nor does his bringing us prosperity
Amidst the chaos of a broken world.
There his greatest wrongdoing has been
To place the welfare of the common man,
The national economy and body politic
Before the powerful interests
Of international conglomerates.
Whose rights to the riches of our land
Transcend all others.
All this because of anger in his heart
Against a father now long dead.
For that he still attacks
The powerful, the great, the good,
Our mighty mining magnates,
Heroic men, more fathers to this nation,
More generous to us their media sons,
Than this would-be patricide.
Kevin the Terrible of Australia
This man has sinned.
He is undone because found out.
Men everywhere complain.
His crimes are broadcast far and wide.
He is unfit for public office.
He was once seen in a night club.
He has berated an air hostess.
He has worked too hard.
He has expected too much of others.
He engenders fear in colleagues
Such that none will speak ill of him
And all comport themselves well.
He has publicly eaten his own ear wax.
He has raised his voice in interview
With the mighty Red Kerry.
He once privately expressed impatience
With agents of all powerful China.
His affectation of a gentle mien,
Pretence of domestic harmony
With loving wife, cat, dog and
Loyal children does not convince.
Nor does his bringing us prosperity
Amidst the chaos of a broken world.
There his greatest wrongdoing has been
To place the welfare of the common man,
The national economy and body politic
Before the powerful interests
Of international conglomerates.
Whose rights to the riches of our land
Transcend all others.
All this because of anger in his heart
Against a father now long dead.
For that he still attacks
The powerful, the great, the good,
Our mighty mining magnates,
Heroic men, more fathers to this nation,
More generous to us their media sons,
Than this would-be patricide.
Well, Cuppa, my experience of people who use the expression ‘amateur psychologising’ is that they don’t know and don’t want to know anything much about psychology or psychoanalysis (which are not the same thing) and that they’re not very interested in the formation of personality or the vagaries of human character, so I find it kind of hard to take that expression seriously. A lot of what gets called ‘amateur psychologising’ seems to me a combination of reasonably intelligent observation and common sense.
Well, Cuppa, my experience of people who use the expression ‘amateur psychologising’ is that they don’t know and don’t want to know anything much about psychology or psychoanalysis (which are not the same thing) and that they’re not very interested in the formation of personality or the vagaries of human character, so I find it kind of hard to take that expression seriously. A lot of what gets called ‘amateur psychologising’ seems to me a combination of reasonably intelligent observation and common sense.
I couldn’t comment on this, not having seen the 7.30 interview.
However, more generally, if that coda is all that Marr was permitted to reveal, the coda does not belong in a polished piece of work, which raises another possible explanation: deficiency of professional standards of journalism.
I couldn’t comment on this, not having seen the 7.30 interview.
However, more generally, if that coda is all that Marr was permitted to reveal, the coda does not belong in a polished piece of work, which raises another possible explanation: deficiency of professional standards of journalism.
“deficiency of professional standards of journalism.”
The QR is not a journal of record. It was an essay, which by definition is supposed to include the writer’s opinions on the subject matter. Anyone who doesn’t like the opinions or the way they were apparently formulated is free to write a counter-opinion and submit it for publication in the next QR.
“deficiency of professional standards of journalism.”
The QR is not a journal of record. It was an essay, which by definition is supposed to include the writer’s opinions on the subject matter. Anyone who doesn’t like the opinions or the way they were apparently formulated is free to write a counter-opinion and submit it for publication in the next QR.
Professional journalist standards should not have allowed Marr to even mention that the P.M. became angry in that part of the meeting. He has breached confidentiality. It was supposed to be ‘off the record’ and that should not have been confined to just the words.
Professional journalist standards should not have allowed Marr to even mention that the P.M. became angry in that part of the meeting. He has breached confidentiality. It was supposed to be ‘off the record’ and that should not have been confined to just the words.
Katz, the link to the 7.30 Report transcript is there as an update at the bottom of the original post. Here’s the relevant bit:
I’m quoting this in the spirit of providing actual facts and information, since so many people here seem so all-fired het-up about the evils of interpretation and speculation, but I’m sure it’ll make the Marr-trashers here do the thing that happens when knee-jerk meets boots-and-all. It strikes me that the animus against Marr could be a good thing, if only because it’s making people defend Rudd and look at him a little more positively again; it may even be that the Marr piece turns out to be a lightning rod.
Katz, the link to the 7.30 Report transcript is there as an update at the bottom of the original post. Here’s the relevant bit:
I’m quoting this in the spirit of providing actual facts and information, since so many people here seem so all-fired het-up about the evils of interpretation and speculation, but I’m sure it’ll make the Marr-trashers here do the thing that happens when knee-jerk meets boots-and-all. It strikes me that the animus against Marr could be a good thing, if only because it’s making people defend Rudd and look at him a little more positively again; it may even be that the Marr piece turns out to be a lightning rod.
Marr purports to offer far more than opinion.
Were Marr to opine, I think that Rudd is an angry man,” I would not object. That is Marr’s opinion and he is entitled to it. I’m not sure that the QR would be interested in Marr’s naked opinion, however, despite the fact it is not a “journal of record”.
On the contrary, Marr neither offers an opinion nor does he offer a justification based on evidence.
Rather, he offers a justification based on pseudo evidence.
Marr purports to offer far more than opinion.
Were Marr to opine, I think that Rudd is an angry man,” I would not object. That is Marr’s opinion and he is entitled to it. I’m not sure that the QR would be interested in Marr’s naked opinion, however, despite the fact it is not a “journal of record”.
On the contrary, Marr neither offers an opinion nor does he offer a justification based on evidence.
Rather, he offers a justification based on pseudo evidence.
PatriciaWA(165) – Good to see you have your mojo back and in such good form.
Pavlov’s Cat@170 – The section you cite is factual, but how David Marr could use that example (which on the face of it was purely a consequence of him revealing a hidden intention in his interviewing process) to state, as he has done, that Rudd’s anger informs every corner of the Essay, really escapes me. I am far from a “Marr-trasher” and join you in hoping that in leaping to the defence of Kevin Rudd, as so many of us have, may be a lightening rod in public perception. I’d like to see you provide an extended version of your above posts in the Correspondence section of the next Quarterly Essay.
PatriciaWA(165) – Good to see you have your mojo back and in such good form.
Pavlov’s Cat@170 – The section you cite is factual, but how David Marr could use that example (which on the face of it was purely a consequence of him revealing a hidden intention in his interviewing process) to state, as he has done, that Rudd’s anger informs every corner of the Essay, really escapes me. I am far from a “Marr-trasher” and join you in hoping that in leaping to the defence of Kevin Rudd, as so many of us have, may be a lightening rod in public perception. I’d like to see you provide an extended version of your above posts in the Correspondence section of the next Quarterly Essay.
Anthony Nolan – what an interesting link.
Kevin Rudd – father issues.
David Marr – Father issues (capital intentional).
Anthony Nolan – what an interesting link.
Kevin Rudd – father issues.
David Marr – Father issues (capital intentional).
Marr remains a rare, these days in Australia, serious journalist and biographer with opinions (shock horror), and he is not an opinionist who pretends to be a journalist. Some people here seem to be missing that subtle but important distinction.
He writes about people and power, that’s his job, he’s one of the few, in Australia, that tackle the relationships between people and power head on in anything like a consistent and intelligent way. “Barwick” for example remains a triumph of monumental proportions and digs deep into Australia’s despicable heritage of fragile colonial self esteem.
This piece, IMHO, is the first time we’ve seen the Ruddster examined so closely by an intelligent Australian journalist of the broad left. It’s a cracker of a piece of writing, and for me at least, rings true throughout.
It is not a call to vote for Rudd opponents, nor is it a superficial hack job.
Marr remains a rare, these days in Australia, serious journalist and biographer with opinions (shock horror), and he is not an opinionist who pretends to be a journalist. Some people here seem to be missing that subtle but important distinction.
He writes about people and power, that’s his job, he’s one of the few, in Australia, that tackle the relationships between people and power head on in anything like a consistent and intelligent way. “Barwick” for example remains a triumph of monumental proportions and digs deep into Australia’s despicable heritage of fragile colonial self esteem.
This piece, IMHO, is the first time we’ve seen the Ruddster examined so closely by an intelligent Australian journalist of the broad left. It’s a cracker of a piece of writing, and for me at least, rings true throughout.
It is not a call to vote for Rudd opponents, nor is it a superficial hack job.
Update: Crikey has picked up this piece and republished it today.
Update: Crikey has picked up this piece and republished it today.
” Some people on this thread ” are sure copping it today.
” Some people on this thread ” are sure copping it today.
Mark, such a pity they changed ‘tortuously’ to ‘torturously’.
Mark, such a pity they changed ‘tortuously’ to ‘torturously’.
Dr Primal Scream said
Well yes, “Multpiple” is the operative word here I should think.
Still, one might ask what that Fabian Society speech actually proves in relation to Marr’s proposed woundedness regarding Rudd? Or Dr Inkblot’s views on marriage for that matter? How do they decisively tear apart Marr’s thesis once and for all?
I propose Anthony Nolan ceases with his cognitive behavioural tripperies and starts providing the substantive link that Marr’s article is about sour grapes in relation to Rudd’s stance on gay marriage. You know, the place in words, in writing, something where there is compelling evidence for it. As it stands, all that Sigmund presents here is far flung innuendo and amateur psychologising. And perhaps he might tell me anyway, how does this purported affliction of Marr’s which has spilled out into the quarterly essay, dismantle the central thesis of Marr’s claim?
Dr Primal Scream said
Well yes, “Multpiple” is the operative word here I should think.
Still, one might ask what that Fabian Society speech actually proves in relation to Marr’s proposed woundedness regarding Rudd? Or Dr Inkblot’s views on marriage for that matter? How do they decisively tear apart Marr’s thesis once and for all?
I propose Anthony Nolan ceases with his cognitive behavioural tripperies and starts providing the substantive link that Marr’s article is about sour grapes in relation to Rudd’s stance on gay marriage. You know, the place in words, in writing, something where there is compelling evidence for it. As it stands, all that Sigmund presents here is far flung innuendo and amateur psychologising. And perhaps he might tell me anyway, how does this purported affliction of Marr’s which has spilled out into the quarterly essay, dismantle the central thesis of Marr’s claim?
I don’t see evidence of my psychologising Marr. In other words, no evidence of attributing to him motives of which he is unaware because they are locked away in inaccessible recesses of his subconscious. His essay reads to me like a prolonged class sneer from his callow handling of the Rudd family’s misfortunes to his characterisation of Senator George Georges as “that old fossil” although quite what other type of fossil there might be other than old I cannot say. There is so much material to choose from that at random I also offer Marr’s description of the manager of the hotel in Mackay as having “put on a few jewels” for the Rudd retinue. If you cannot see the class sneer in this then maybe that is because you are from the right side of the tracks. It sticks out like dog’s balls for me.
I have suggested that Marr is getting square over Rudd’s comments about Henson’s photographs of minors. This is because of the sneering tone and the constant suggestions that Rudd and the Queensland labour consituuency are naff, uncultured, you know, NPLU. It is also because I attended Marr’s launch of his book on Henson and noted that he commented on three occasions that not a single parliamentarian had spoken out in supportof either Henson or the arts community in general on the issue. It was clear that he was shaken by this political isolation and that he feels no affinity for the sorts of people, like Rudd, who won’t kiss the arse of the arts community for having the cultural capital to appreciate art; it was clear on the night of Marr’s booklaunch that he was shaken by those who challenged his imperial presence by having the effrontery to simply describe Henson’s art as exercising an unwarranted liberty with children.
So I think the essay is a big time get square with Rudd and the sort of middle Australia that Rudd represents in Marr’s imaginarium.
As to Marr’s sour grapes: do you honestly feel, when Marr is on record as being an advocate of changing Federal legislation to allow for the recognition of gay marriage, that he might not be pretty pissed off at Rudd’s conservative position that marriage is an institution between men and women?
Marr’s address to the Fabian Society contains the following:
He makes his point quite passionately about the Christian Churhes and anti-gay bigotry. In the light of that I think it reasonable to suggest that his essay on Rudd is an axe grind of the first order.
Finally, the anger issue. I’m delighted to hear that our PM is angry. Better that than a pallid careerist of whom there is no shortage in parliament. But Marr’s depiction of Rudd’s anger is censorious. There’s the problem. Marr writes as if Rudd’s anger is a matter of shame and derives from the shame of his childhood poverty, dependency and hardship. It is as if Marr finds something unseemly about Rudd’s just anger. Marr, however, is no stranger to just anger as his comments about anti-gay bigotry show. It is just that Marr wants Rudd to be angry about the same issues and Rudd isn’t, I daresay, because he doesn’t see them as being of the same order. There’s the rub.
I don’t see evidence of my psychologising Marr. In other words, no evidence of attributing to him motives of which he is unaware because they are locked away in inaccessible recesses of his subconscious. His essay reads to me like a prolonged class sneer from his callow handling of the Rudd family’s misfortunes to his characterisation of Senator George Georges as “that old fossil” although quite what other type of fossil there might be other than old I cannot say. There is so much material to choose from that at random I also offer Marr’s description of the manager of the hotel in Mackay as having “put on a few jewels” for the Rudd retinue. If you cannot see the class sneer in this then maybe that is because you are from the right side of the tracks. It sticks out like dog’s balls for me.
I have suggested that Marr is getting square over Rudd’s comments about Henson’s photographs of minors. This is because of the sneering tone and the constant suggestions that Rudd and the Queensland labour consituuency are naff, uncultured, you know, NPLU. It is also because I attended Marr’s launch of his book on Henson and noted that he commented on three occasions that not a single parliamentarian had spoken out in supportof either Henson or the arts community in general on the issue. It was clear that he was shaken by this political isolation and that he feels no affinity for the sorts of people, like Rudd, who won’t kiss the arse of the arts community for having the cultural capital to appreciate art; it was clear on the night of Marr’s booklaunch that he was shaken by those who challenged his imperial presence by having the effrontery to simply describe Henson’s art as exercising an unwarranted liberty with children.
So I think the essay is a big time get square with Rudd and the sort of middle Australia that Rudd represents in Marr’s imaginarium.
As to Marr’s sour grapes: do you honestly feel, when Marr is on record as being an advocate of changing Federal legislation to allow for the recognition of gay marriage, that he might not be pretty pissed off at Rudd’s conservative position that marriage is an institution between men and women?
Marr’s address to the Fabian Society contains the following:
He makes his point quite passionately about the Christian Churhes and anti-gay bigotry. In the light of that I think it reasonable to suggest that his essay on Rudd is an axe grind of the first order.
Finally, the anger issue. I’m delighted to hear that our PM is angry. Better that than a pallid careerist of whom there is no shortage in parliament. But Marr’s depiction of Rudd’s anger is censorious. There’s the problem. Marr writes as if Rudd’s anger is a matter of shame and derives from the shame of his childhood poverty, dependency and hardship. It is as if Marr finds something unseemly about Rudd’s just anger. Marr, however, is no stranger to just anger as his comments about anti-gay bigotry show. It is just that Marr wants Rudd to be angry about the same issues and Rudd isn’t, I daresay, because he doesn’t see them as being of the same order. There’s the rub.
So. I’m gathering, I’m feeling – you didn’t much like Henson’s stuff then right?
See how that works Anthony?
See how that is working now?
Your motives, his motives, Rudd’s motives.
How silly that all is. Why don’t you stick with the substance of the essay? It’s much better than making vague claims based on nothing substantial. That’s my only point.
I am reading the Essay now. I do not find the same stuff you find. I am particularly looking at Marr’s treatment of his christianity. I don’t see it. Your claim up there. It’s not in the essay. Unless you can give me the page? Nor do I find anything in the Essay (yet) about ill will because of Henson.
I believe if Marr is up to anything, he is structuring the facts of Rudd’s life into a narrative which works within a specific genre. It is a bildungsroman if you ask me. It’s a comforting narrative, the buldungsroman. Where a boy overcomes many obstacles to succeed. In australian terms we might say this a narrative belongs to the battler genre. By placing him in the battler genre of narratives, which is a feel good genre for the australian people- it speaks of our beginnings and how we overcame our own parental abandonments on these fatal shores far from home – he is actually doing something good for Rudd. He is making Rudd one of us, who overcame more than us. The battler genre has quite an authority in our culture which confers all sorts of approval for the underdog. He speaks of hardship forging emotional resilience, a childhood which leaves him a loner, the schoolyard nerd who overcomes the jungle of the schoolyard, but how he overcomes that – how he continuously remakes himself – the incredible way in which he aspired to and got the leadership without caucus or factional support, by sheer persistence and force of will, – this delivers quite an extraordinary picture of Rudd. He is certainly cast as a very clever man, a very clever man with a fatal flaw – not anger – “It’s like he’s got a grand flaw…he has all these tremendous attributes..but the flaw is his inability to read how people are reacting to him.” as a source in the book says.
In his interviews Marr speaks of the moment of anger as being almost exhilirating, if I am correct, he says something about never having seen him so alive. To me it seems he almost admires him in that moment.
I have not finished it yet but I do not read it as negative, or damning or emanating from a bitter personal place.
So far, it gives a rather compelling picture of a complex human. If I change my mind, I will let you know but I don’t think Marr is doing anything negative here, or if he is, it is in pursuit of his craft and one might question the discursive privileges these genres and narratives confer.
And, see, if you can infer that I’m on the right cause I don’t read things with your – what is the word you use? yes, manichean tendencies, then you aren’t much good at making those links I am requesting of you and which you still have not delivered on.
So. I’m gathering, I’m feeling – you didn’t much like Henson’s stuff then right?
See how that works Anthony?
See how that is working now?
Your motives, his motives, Rudd’s motives.
How silly that all is. Why don’t you stick with the substance of the essay? It’s much better than making vague claims based on nothing substantial. That’s my only point.
I am reading the Essay now. I do not find the same stuff you find. I am particularly looking at Marr’s treatment of his christianity. I don’t see it. Your claim up there. It’s not in the essay. Unless you can give me the page? Nor do I find anything in the Essay (yet) about ill will because of Henson.
I believe if Marr is up to anything, he is structuring the facts of Rudd’s life into a narrative which works within a specific genre. It is a bildungsroman if you ask me. It’s a comforting narrative, the buldungsroman. Where a boy overcomes many obstacles to succeed. In australian terms we might say this a narrative belongs to the battler genre. By placing him in the battler genre of narratives, which is a feel good genre for the australian people- it speaks of our beginnings and how we overcame our own parental abandonments on these fatal shores far from home – he is actually doing something good for Rudd. He is making Rudd one of us, who overcame more than us. The battler genre has quite an authority in our culture which confers all sorts of approval for the underdog. He speaks of hardship forging emotional resilience, a childhood which leaves him a loner, the schoolyard nerd who overcomes the jungle of the schoolyard, but how he overcomes that – how he continuously remakes himself – the incredible way in which he aspired to and got the leadership without caucus or factional support, by sheer persistence and force of will, – this delivers quite an extraordinary picture of Rudd. He is certainly cast as a very clever man, a very clever man with a fatal flaw – not anger – “It’s like he’s got a grand flaw…he has all these tremendous attributes..but the flaw is his inability to read how people are reacting to him.” as a source in the book says.
In his interviews Marr speaks of the moment of anger as being almost exhilirating, if I am correct, he says something about never having seen him so alive. To me it seems he almost admires him in that moment.
I have not finished it yet but I do not read it as negative, or damning or emanating from a bitter personal place.
So far, it gives a rather compelling picture of a complex human. If I change my mind, I will let you know but I don’t think Marr is doing anything negative here, or if he is, it is in pursuit of his craft and one might question the discursive privileges these genres and narratives confer.
And, see, if you can infer that I’m on the right cause I don’t read things with your – what is the word you use? yes, manichean tendencies, then you aren’t much good at making those links I am requesting of you and which you still have not delivered on.
Does he?
Is it?
Chapters and verses plz.
Does he?
Is it?
Chapters and verses plz.
“As to Marr’s sour grapes: do you honestly feel, when Marr is on record as being an advocate of changing Federal legislation to allow for the recognition of gay marriage, that he might not be pretty pissed off at Rudd’s conservative position that marriage is an institution between men and women?”
See there you go again. You just make assumptions and half baked assertions with no compelling evidence at all. And don’t go quoting me the link you provided in the first place which proved nothing anyway. Why are you quoting it again? You want me to call you Dr Phil one more time?
So, again you say without foundation that because Rudd didn’t support him on Henson, Rudd doesn’t support gay marriage therefore Marr is slamming Rudd in the essay and it’s sour grapes. Where’s your evidence please? Don’t tell me your views on marriage and don’t quote that thing again.
Actually, I know someone high up in the Anglican church who had quite a discussion with Marr on this issue. Determined, passionate, the always vociferous Marr continues to dialogue with people Anthony and you do him a disservice if you think is is not capable of nuance and complexity and rational appraisal when dealing with people who are on the opposite side of the fence to him on issues which are close to his heart.
“As to Marr’s sour grapes: do you honestly feel, when Marr is on record as being an advocate of changing Federal legislation to allow for the recognition of gay marriage, that he might not be pretty pissed off at Rudd’s conservative position that marriage is an institution between men and women?”
See there you go again. You just make assumptions and half baked assertions with no compelling evidence at all. And don’t go quoting me the link you provided in the first place which proved nothing anyway. Why are you quoting it again? You want me to call you Dr Phil one more time?
So, again you say without foundation that because Rudd didn’t support him on Henson, Rudd doesn’t support gay marriage therefore Marr is slamming Rudd in the essay and it’s sour grapes. Where’s your evidence please? Don’t tell me your views on marriage and don’t quote that thing again.
Actually, I know someone high up in the Anglican church who had quite a discussion with Marr on this issue. Determined, passionate, the always vociferous Marr continues to dialogue with people Anthony and you do him a disservice if you think is is not capable of nuance and complexity and rational appraisal when dealing with people who are on the opposite side of the fence to him on issues which are close to his heart.
Please, please let’s not go down the Henson road again.
Please, please let’s not go down the Henson road again.
Oh gimme a break. Marr can’t hold a candle to Jean Devanney or Judah Waten for “battler genre” writing. The working class has its own writerly tradition and it looks like you’re not acquainted with it. Marr’s writing is so patronising by comparison. He’s got no idea and would be better of sticking to High Tea with Anglican whatisits.
Oh gimme a break. Marr can’t hold a candle to Jean Devanney or Judah Waten for “battler genre” writing. The working class has its own writerly tradition and it looks like you’re not acquainted with it. Marr’s writing is so patronising by comparison. He’s got no idea and would be better of sticking to High Tea with Anglican whatisits.
I read the essay this afternoon. I think it’s very good, and it’s certainly not the one-note cod psychologising of the Prime Minister ‘some people on this thread’ seem to think it is. Most of it, as I think Katz has already observed, is actually scrupulously documented account of Rudd’s career, focusing on a recurring bundle of themes that have emerged in the public record (‘decency’, for instance, is a much more significant idea in the essay than anger or rage, along with ambition, power, modesty, resilience, nerdiness and a heap of other traits which taken together add up to Kevin Rudd) and which Marr has collected and presented in a manner that doesn’t judge or make conclusions, but which invites the reader to join up the dots.
The one part of the essay which does offer something like an explanation is the brief coda, and this is the only part of the essay which is explicitly and obviously a representation of Marr’s personal opinion, indeed, his private opinion. I didn’t find it that satisfying a conclusion, myself, but I do want to point out that Mark has misread what Marr actually says in the last part of his essay.
Mark wrote in the post: “Marr contends that Rudd revealed himself as “most human” when he was angry at the conclusion of a dinner he’d had with the writer, and after Marr had told him that his argument in the essay was that Rudd’s “contradictions” were borne of rage. This seems to me to be absurd. I can’t imagine anyone under the same circumstances not being angry at such an insulting, wounding and trivialising line of argument.”
But actually, this is not what Marr says at all. Marr says he told Rudd he would be writing about a number of themes which in the essay all emerge out of Rudd’s own statements and matters of common knowledge. Marr writes that when Rudd asked what the argument of Marr’s essay was to be, ‘It’s a man-to-man question, so I tell him. I’m pursuing the contradictions of his life: the farmer’s kid who runs away to China, the politician unloved by his own caucus who turns out to be such a potent electoral asset; a decent man with decent politicla ambitiouns who leaves so much wreckage in his wake; an orator of skill who can be a bore; a man with modest policy ambitions but a strong drive for power. And I’m wondering if his government will go the way of Goss.’
As you can see there is nothing at all in here about Marr telling Rudd that he would be writing about anger as the engine of his career. It is on hearing this I think quite fair description of his career that Rudd reportedly became angry, and Marr goes on to say that he found the Prime Minister’s anger ‘eloquent’ and ‘vivid’ and ‘from the heart’.
This is followed by a short paragraph where Marr (again, speaking ostentatiously for himself here) does say that Rudd is ‘a politician with rage at his core.’ He doesn’t call it anger at the boyhood experiences, or at any subsequent struggles for that matter. So to say the entire argument of the essay is that Rudd is an angry person is just not very convincing I’m afraid.
It may have other failings which I am in no position to notice, the remarks some of you have made about George Georges might point to one type of problem with it. But speaking as a person who is very deeply disenchanted with Rudd, I found reading the essay did substantially increase my respect for him. Better stop now.
I read the essay this afternoon. I think it’s very good, and it’s certainly not the one-note cod psychologising of the Prime Minister ‘some people on this thread’ seem to think it is. Most of it, as I think Katz has already observed, is actually scrupulously documented account of Rudd’s career, focusing on a recurring bundle of themes that have emerged in the public record (‘decency’, for instance, is a much more significant idea in the essay than anger or rage, along with ambition, power, modesty, resilience, nerdiness and a heap of other traits which taken together add up to Kevin Rudd) and which Marr has collected and presented in a manner that doesn’t judge or make conclusions, but which invites the reader to join up the dots.
The one part of the essay which does offer something like an explanation is the brief coda, and this is the only part of the essay which is explicitly and obviously a representation of Marr’s personal opinion, indeed, his private opinion. I didn’t find it that satisfying a conclusion, myself, but I do want to point out that Mark has misread what Marr actually says in the last part of his essay.
Mark wrote in the post: “Marr contends that Rudd revealed himself as “most human” when he was angry at the conclusion of a dinner he’d had with the writer, and after Marr had told him that his argument in the essay was that Rudd’s “contradictions” were borne of rage. This seems to me to be absurd. I can’t imagine anyone under the same circumstances not being angry at such an insulting, wounding and trivialising line of argument.”
But actually, this is not what Marr says at all. Marr says he told Rudd he would be writing about a number of themes which in the essay all emerge out of Rudd’s own statements and matters of common knowledge. Marr writes that when Rudd asked what the argument of Marr’s essay was to be, ‘It’s a man-to-man question, so I tell him. I’m pursuing the contradictions of his life: the farmer’s kid who runs away to China, the politician unloved by his own caucus who turns out to be such a potent electoral asset; a decent man with decent politicla ambitiouns who leaves so much wreckage in his wake; an orator of skill who can be a bore; a man with modest policy ambitions but a strong drive for power. And I’m wondering if his government will go the way of Goss.’
As you can see there is nothing at all in here about Marr telling Rudd that he would be writing about anger as the engine of his career. It is on hearing this I think quite fair description of his career that Rudd reportedly became angry, and Marr goes on to say that he found the Prime Minister’s anger ‘eloquent’ and ‘vivid’ and ‘from the heart’.
This is followed by a short paragraph where Marr (again, speaking ostentatiously for himself here) does say that Rudd is ‘a politician with rage at his core.’ He doesn’t call it anger at the boyhood experiences, or at any subsequent struggles for that matter. So to say the entire argument of the essay is that Rudd is an angry person is just not very convincing I’m afraid.
It may have other failings which I am in no position to notice, the remarks some of you have made about George Georges might point to one type of problem with it. But speaking as a person who is very deeply disenchanted with Rudd, I found reading the essay did substantially increase my respect for him. Better stop now.
@177 – Indeed, Fine! I emailed back to say that I didn’t think ‘torturously’ was a word, so I might go and check to see if it’s reverted back to ‘tortuously’ on the website!
@177 – Indeed, Fine! I emailed back to say that I didn’t think ‘torturously’ was a word, so I might go and check to see if it’s reverted back to ‘tortuously’ on the website!
I am speaking of how it might function discursively Anthony.
Now where is your proof that it’s all sour grapes?
I am speaking of how it might function discursively Anthony.
Now where is your proof that it’s all sour grapes?
He did not have ‘high tea’ with anglican whatever. My goodness, you do carry quite a few stereotypes around with you don’t you?
He did not have ‘high tea’ with anglican whatever. My goodness, you do carry quite a few stereotypes around with you don’t you?
“I found reading the essay did substantially increase my respect for him.”
Me too.
“I found reading the essay did substantially increase my respect for him.”
Me too.
Segueing a little from the debate with anthony, Casey and Laura, I’m interested to hear about your readings. I must admit mine was coloured by the pre-publicity, and I think Marr’s statements in the 7.30 Report interview about the thesis of Rudd being a man driven by anger are perhaps stronger than those in the essay itself, though I think it does frame the rest of the material.
If we’re going to talk about discursive form, and it’s a useful discussion to have, it seems to me that the work this text mainly does is to set off a ‘takeaway message’ which is very much imbricated in both pre-existing media narratives and which moves them forward (in pretty much the same direction, no matter what the complexities and nuances of the essay are).
I have no doubt David Marr is aware of this, and the fact that very few people will read the text itself. So I think its reception must be viewed intertextually.
It may well be that Marr is contemplating a biography of Rudd (although it may also be that he is not), but that’s a quite different form from this sort of thing – and the way that Quarterly Essays have tended to work has been as very fleeting interventions in political debate (ie Crabb on Turnbull, Hartcher on Howard, etc.) – the ones that have stimulated less discussion (and I suspect, have sold less copies, though I don’t know that) are the more thoughtful ones by the likes of Malouf and Rundle.
So I think that any reading has to take into account that con-text and the inter-textual nature of the essay, as a discursive intervention.
Following on from that, I know nothing about Rudd’s childhood, beyond what I have read, but I do know a fair bit from personal experience about his time in the Queensland ALP and in Goss’ office. As I commented up thread, it’s pretty clear to me, as no fan of Goss, that the picture that Marr has painted is extremely partial, perhaps because he is dependent on his sources, and lacking knowledge of the by-ways and folkways of the tortuous paths of Queensland politics, he is too dependent on them.
No doubt if he were writing a biography over a period of five years or whatever, that would not be the case, but it can easily be the case for this sort of piece, and in fact, I am sure that it is.
Also, now, while I would unreservedly condemn the homophobia that inheres in comments about ‘bitchy Gay Sydney man’ alleged motives (and note the irony of making reductive comments about Marr’s own persona or identity or trajectory), it does seem to me that his speaking position is highly relevant, and it is relevant here to look both at class, and at geographical background.
I also note that I said nothing about Marr’s motives, and in fact, I don’t particularly care what they are, nor do I pretend to know.
I would assert that Rudd’s background is deeply marked by his growing up and working in a particular locality at a particular time and in a particular place and I would actually like to see a Queenslander address it. And one who’s aware of all the nuances of ALP culture, and able to sift the wheat from the chaff.
I also think it’s pretty clear that a lot of Marr’s sources are second hand reports, and again, where it’s almost possible for me to identify who he’s talked to in the Queensland ALP and public service, are people who are not attempting to provide objective information for history or some sort of enlightened understanding of Rudd’s character, but who are embittered and looking for pay back… which in the rather narrow circles in which Rudd worked in Queensland, is absolutely legion.
This needs to be addressed.
Segueing a little from the debate with anthony, Casey and Laura, I’m interested to hear about your readings. I must admit mine was coloured by the pre-publicity, and I think Marr’s statements in the 7.30 Report interview about the thesis of Rudd being a man driven by anger are perhaps stronger than those in the essay itself, though I think it does frame the rest of the material.
If we’re going to talk about discursive form, and it’s a useful discussion to have, it seems to me that the work this text mainly does is to set off a ‘takeaway message’ which is very much imbricated in both pre-existing media narratives and which moves them forward (in pretty much the same direction, no matter what the complexities and nuances of the essay are).
I have no doubt David Marr is aware of this, and the fact that very few people will read the text itself. So I think its reception must be viewed intertextually.
It may well be that Marr is contemplating a biography of Rudd (although it may also be that he is not), but that’s a quite different form from this sort of thing – and the way that Quarterly Essays have tended to work has been as very fleeting interventions in political debate (ie Crabb on Turnbull, Hartcher on Howard, etc.) – the ones that have stimulated less discussion (and I suspect, have sold less copies, though I don’t know that) are the more thoughtful ones by the likes of Malouf and Rundle.
So I think that any reading has to take into account that con-text and the inter-textual nature of the essay, as a discursive intervention.
Following on from that, I know nothing about Rudd’s childhood, beyond what I have read, but I do know a fair bit from personal experience about his time in the Queensland ALP and in Goss’ office. As I commented up thread, it’s pretty clear to me, as no fan of Goss, that the picture that Marr has painted is extremely partial, perhaps because he is dependent on his sources, and lacking knowledge of the by-ways and folkways of the tortuous paths of Queensland politics, he is too dependent on them.
No doubt if he were writing a biography over a period of five years or whatever, that would not be the case, but it can easily be the case for this sort of piece, and in fact, I am sure that it is.
Also, now, while I would unreservedly condemn the homophobia that inheres in comments about ‘bitchy Gay Sydney man’ alleged motives (and note the irony of making reductive comments about Marr’s own persona or identity or trajectory), it does seem to me that his speaking position is highly relevant, and it is relevant here to look both at class, and at geographical background.
I also note that I said nothing about Marr’s motives, and in fact, I don’t particularly care what they are, nor do I pretend to know.
I would assert that Rudd’s background is deeply marked by his growing up and working in a particular locality at a particular time and in a particular place and I would actually like to see a Queenslander address it. And one who’s aware of all the nuances of ALP culture, and able to sift the wheat from the chaff.
I also think it’s pretty clear that a lot of Marr’s sources are second hand reports, and again, where it’s almost possible for me to identify who he’s talked to in the Queensland ALP and public service, are people who are not attempting to provide objective information for history or some sort of enlightened understanding of Rudd’s character, but who are embittered and looking for pay back… which in the rather narrow circles in which Rudd worked in Queensland, is absolutely legion.
This needs to be addressed.
I haven’t read it yet – but I’m a fan of Marr, and will. However, at the risk of v verbatim repetition, there’s simply no excuse for calling Senator Georges an ‘old fossil’.
The man was a hero of the embattled QLD Left. I met him several times as a child in 70s, and every adult I knew was in total awe of the Senator who’d lock arms, and get arrested with everyone else. Which he was still around doing when I was a young adult in the late ’80s.
Seriously: do some research, and recant of this cheap (and rather unnecessary and shitty) slur, David.
I haven’t read it yet – but I’m a fan of Marr, and will. However, at the risk of v verbatim repetition, there’s simply no excuse for calling Senator Georges an ‘old fossil’.
The man was a hero of the embattled QLD Left. I met him several times as a child in 70s, and every adult I knew was in total awe of the Senator who’d lock arms, and get arrested with everyone else. Which he was still around doing when I was a young adult in the late ’80s.
Seriously: do some research, and recant of this cheap (and rather unnecessary and shitty) slur, David.
At random from Marr, to prosecute my argument further:
“He never rescues the situation by being blokey (and then he quotes Rudd saying ‘I don’t know about you but I’m pining for a drink’). My italics.
Being blokey? Rescue the situation? What does Marr want? Sir Les Patterson? Barry bloody Mackenzie?
So, according to Marr poor Rudd isn’t even able to pull off a working class drag act. The matter of Rudd’s masculinity is derisively threaded through this essay.
Marr’s class consciousness is the most outstanding element in this essay.
P 77, Casey.
At random from Marr, to prosecute my argument further:
“He never rescues the situation by being blokey (and then he quotes Rudd saying ‘I don’t know about you but I’m pining for a drink’). My italics.
Being blokey? Rescue the situation? What does Marr want? Sir Les Patterson? Barry bloody Mackenzie?
So, according to Marr poor Rudd isn’t even able to pull off a working class drag act. The matter of Rudd’s masculinity is derisively threaded through this essay.
Marr’s class consciousness is the most outstanding element in this essay.
P 77, Casey.
Yes, Anthony, I was asking about where in the essay you got the idea that Marr was all about sour grapes in relation to gay marriage and Henson. That’s all I was asking. Is this it?
I was thinking you got that idea from something in the essay?
Yes, Anthony, I was asking about where in the essay you got the idea that Marr was all about sour grapes in relation to gay marriage and Henson. That’s all I was asking. Is this it?
I was thinking you got that idea from something in the essay?
The essay was coloured for me because I read it after Red Kerry’s 7.30 interview, and although the words say one thing the body language seemed IMO to say another.
Oh and I really didn’t think you meant Marr had inflicted bodily pain either Mark.
The essay was coloured for me because I read it after Red Kerry’s 7.30 interview, and although the words say one thing the body language seemed IMO to say another.
Oh and I really didn’t think you meant Marr had inflicted bodily pain either Mark.
One thing that bothers me about the “anger” thesis, aside from the scanty evidence, is that it’s not particularly useful information, even if accurate. Does it tell me anything more about how he might react to future challenges, or explain his successes and failures as prime minister?
One thing that bothers me about the “anger” thesis, aside from the scanty evidence, is that it’s not particularly useful information, even if accurate. Does it tell me anything more about how he might react to future challenges, or explain his successes and failures as prime minister?
Having worked my memory a bit, I was at the 2005 Fabian Society forum the transcript to which Anthony linked. I do recall Marr being quite angry at that event; Brian Houston of Hillsong (whose speech is untranscribed) had just retold the parable of the Good Samaritan to make the point that wealth enabled the rich Samaritan to undertake more charitable works than he could have as a poor Samaritan.
I was pretty angry too, at that point, as I recall, perversely enough, in defence of a moral, egalitarian Protestantism I’ve only ever experienced through reading.
And I don’t think it’s accurate either in reference to the essay or to Marr’s arguments more broadly to say that he regards anger and rage as negatives. Quite the opposite.
Having worked my memory a bit, I was at the 2005 Fabian Society forum the transcript to which Anthony linked. I do recall Marr being quite angry at that event; Brian Houston of Hillsong (whose speech is untranscribed) had just retold the parable of the Good Samaritan to make the point that wealth enabled the rich Samaritan to undertake more charitable works than he could have as a poor Samaritan.
I was pretty angry too, at that point, as I recall, perversely enough, in defence of a moral, egalitarian Protestantism I’ve only ever experienced through reading.
And I don’t think it’s accurate either in reference to the essay or to Marr’s arguments more broadly to say that he regards anger and rage as negatives. Quite the opposite.
I was just thinking that Liam. The implication of the last paragraph or two seems to be that Rudd is better when he’s stirred up, kinda like the Hulk. Whether or not you’d agree is moot but I certainly don’t think Marr means this brief an local reference to Ruddian anger as a criticism.
I was just thinking that Liam. The implication of the last paragraph or two seems to be that Rudd is better when he’s stirred up, kinda like the Hulk. Whether or not you’d agree is moot but I certainly don’t think Marr means this brief an local reference to Ruddian anger as a criticism.
Look I’m willing to cede on anything else, but I do not buy the sour grapes thing at all. It’s all to knowing for that. I’m more inclined to bet, along the lines of Mark’s comment, there may well be a biography in the works.
Look I’m willing to cede on anything else, but I do not buy the sour grapes thing at all. It’s all to knowing for that. I’m more inclined to bet, along the lines of Mark’s comment, there may well be a biography in the works.
Your are being too literal minded Casey. Understanding of text draws as much one your knowledge of the world as it does on the words on the page. See Mark’s point about the intertextuality of the issue. You’re reading Marr like a lwayer looking for the key clause but it is the sense that you want.
Here are other Australian writers who leave Marr for dead when it comes to writing what you so quaintly call “battler narrative”: Ray Lawler, D’Arcy Niland, Dorothy Hewett and even Katherine Susannah Pritchard. And Frank Hardy of course.
Your are being too literal minded Casey. Understanding of text draws as much one your knowledge of the world as it does on the words on the page. See Mark’s point about the intertextuality of the issue. You’re reading Marr like a lwayer looking for the key clause but it is the sense that you want.
Here are other Australian writers who leave Marr for dead when it comes to writing what you so quaintly call “battler narrative”: Ray Lawler, D’Arcy Niland, Dorothy Hewett and even Katherine Susannah Pritchard. And Frank Hardy of course.
“I think Marr’s statements in the 7.30 Report interview about the thesis of Rudd being a man driven by anger are perhaps stronger than those in the essay itself, though I think it does frame the rest of the material.”
I haven’t read the essay, but the I felt that Marr came across very negatively about Rudd in the 7.30 Report. There’s an interesting moment in the discussion about ‘anger’ when Marr says t O’Brien something like: “You saw it here”. O’Brien mutters a brief demurral and the interview moves on. It did feel that Marr was having a ‘gotcha’ moment and enjoying himself immensely. Hopefully, the essay is better.
“I think Marr’s statements in the 7.30 Report interview about the thesis of Rudd being a man driven by anger are perhaps stronger than those in the essay itself, though I think it does frame the rest of the material.”
I haven’t read the essay, but the I felt that Marr came across very negatively about Rudd in the 7.30 Report. There’s an interesting moment in the discussion about ‘anger’ when Marr says t O’Brien something like: “You saw it here”. O’Brien mutters a brief demurral and the interview moves on. It did feel that Marr was having a ‘gotcha’ moment and enjoying himself immensely. Hopefully, the essay is better.
And of course Marr wrote a similar piece about Howard and how his whole perspective on indigenous affairs was based in the particular form of Methodism he was bought up in (In the The High Price of Heaven.) Like Paul Burns I don’t like psycho-history but like Laura and PC I appreciate what biography/profile is.
And of course Marr wrote a similar piece about Howard and how his whole perspective on indigenous affairs was based in the particular form of Methodism he was bought up in (In the The High Price of Heaven.) Like Paul Burns I don’t like psycho-history but like Laura and PC I appreciate what biography/profile is.
Anthony, my point is you have no frackin proof of anything regarding your sour grapes theory. And consider the word “discursive” will you? I was speaking of how that falls into a certain genre, which harnesses the authority of that genre, not that he is a writer in the genre. I’m sorry I brought that up given you don’t do nuance.
Just give me some link which proves your argument about sour grapes? Nothing? well get over it.
Anthony, my point is you have no frackin proof of anything regarding your sour grapes theory. And consider the word “discursive” will you? I was speaking of how that falls into a certain genre, which harnesses the authority of that genre, not that he is a writer in the genre. I’m sorry I brought that up given you don’t do nuance.
Just give me some link which proves your argument about sour grapes? Nothing? well get over it.
Now here is what Mark said:
“If we’re going to talk about discursive form, and it’s a useful discussion to have, it seems to me that the work this text mainly does is to set off a ‘takeaway message’ which is very much imbricated in both pre-existing media narratives and which moves them forward (in pretty much the same direction, no matter what the complexities and nuances of the essay are).”
Which has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with your Marr is bitter and twisted thesis.
See this bit:
“I also note that I said nothing about Marr’s motives, and in fact, I don’t particularly care what they are, nor do I pretend to know.”
See that?
Now here is what Mark said:
“If we’re going to talk about discursive form, and it’s a useful discussion to have, it seems to me that the work this text mainly does is to set off a ‘takeaway message’ which is very much imbricated in both pre-existing media narratives and which moves them forward (in pretty much the same direction, no matter what the complexities and nuances of the essay are).”
Which has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with your Marr is bitter and twisted thesis.
See this bit:
“I also note that I said nothing about Marr’s motives, and in fact, I don’t particularly care what they are, nor do I pretend to know.”
See that?
David Marr: ” What I despise are those who would wish to impose blunt moral rules which have no truth to them, and it’s not just about sexuality, it’s also about sensuality, and it is also about the tremendous fear of sensuality which is still a potent part of politics in Australia.”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:V_UZO58H_m4J:www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s66662.htm+david+marr+christianity&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a
I didn’t realise until now just how much Marr’s own backstory (of being a thinking gay kid in a fundamentalist context) framed his own rage against the machine. The comment above comes from the Howard years, but perhaps ran even truer for him during the Henson saga with respect to christian identified Rudd and Garrett.
Vendetta possibly, but perhaps more likely Marr seeks to contextualize Rudd as a way of making sense of both Rudd and himself? Its interesting that Marr finds Rudds rage and anger ‘eloquent’ and ‘vivid’. I imagine Marr respects the passion and humanity of raw emotion, while simultaneously seeing it as evidence of ‘repression/control’ narrative in Rudds INTJ life.
Then again, what do i know about any of this – i’ve not read the essay. For all i know DM was just provoking conflict as way of building intimacy with KR.
David Marr: ” What I despise are those who would wish to impose blunt moral rules which have no truth to them, and it’s not just about sexuality, it’s also about sensuality, and it is also about the tremendous fear of sensuality which is still a potent part of politics in Australia.”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:V_UZO58H_m4J:www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s66662.htm+david+marr+christianity&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a
I didn’t realise until now just how much Marr’s own backstory (of being a thinking gay kid in a fundamentalist context) framed his own rage against the machine. The comment above comes from the Howard years, but perhaps ran even truer for him during the Henson saga with respect to christian identified Rudd and Garrett.
Vendetta possibly, but perhaps more likely Marr seeks to contextualize Rudd as a way of making sense of both Rudd and himself? Its interesting that Marr finds Rudds rage and anger ‘eloquent’ and ‘vivid’. I imagine Marr respects the passion and humanity of raw emotion, while simultaneously seeing it as evidence of ‘repression/control’ narrative in Rudds INTJ life.
Then again, what do i know about any of this – i’ve not read the essay. For all i know DM was just provoking conflict as way of building intimacy with KR.
Having only read the final section of Marr’s essay (but a lot of the secondary comment on it) I’m not really in a position to judge the essay, but anyway . . . It seems to me that by the end of the essay Marr is faced with either redeeming a unified character portrait of Rudd or Rudd himself. Befitting the literary pressures on the essay form Marr has an each way bet: Rudd’s damaged heart drives a rage that isolates him, but at the same time it is this anger that speaks with eloquence. The subtext here is: if only he would let this into his public speech more. As ‘authenticity’ is such an important frame for judging Rudd and Abbott, Marr’s redemption of Rudd as possessing an authentic, angry eloquence is a literary intervention into this characteristic.
Having only read the final section of Marr’s essay (but a lot of the secondary comment on it) I’m not really in a position to judge the essay, but anyway . . . It seems to me that by the end of the essay Marr is faced with either redeeming a unified character portrait of Rudd or Rudd himself. Befitting the literary pressures on the essay form Marr has an each way bet: Rudd’s damaged heart drives a rage that isolates him, but at the same time it is this anger that speaks with eloquence. The subtext here is: if only he would let this into his public speech more. As ‘authenticity’ is such an important frame for judging Rudd and Abbott, Marr’s redemption of Rudd as possessing an authentic, angry eloquence is a literary intervention into this characteristic.
Paul Burns @ 91, my son reckons this was written for John Howard – his theme, if you like.
I agree.
Paul Burns @ 91, my son reckons this was written for John Howard – his theme, if you like.
I agree.
Casey:
“your Marr is bitter and twisted thesis”
Oh really? You’d give me lessons in bitter and twisted hon.
Casey:
“your Marr is bitter and twisted thesis”
Oh really? You’d give me lessons in bitter and twisted hon.
check out the headline at the Guardian:
Abbott seeks place on Labour leadership ballot
For a moment, looking at that, I was completely discombobulated. Might fit better with Marr’s analysis though…
check out the headline at the Guardian:
Abbott seeks place on Labour leadership ballot
For a moment, looking at that, I was completely discombobulated. Might fit better with Marr’s analysis though…
Fine @ 200, that moment when Marr said to Kerry “You saw it here” was significant, I thought. Much was made of Rudd losing it in that interview. I saw the interview and didn’t know what they were talking about. Kerry obviously thought too much was made of it. But obviously Marr didn’t.
This relates to what Mark has identified as the intertextuality of the reception of Marr’s essay.
I haven’t read the essay and probably won’t (I’d have to make a phone call, get them to hold it and allocate an hour and a half to retrieve it for starters) but I’d like to ask a question of those who did. Please bear with me for a bit.
In the 7.30 Report interview there was a pivotal piece:
It seems to me that Laura @ 185 is right in saying that when Marr told Rudd what approach he was taking he didn’t mention anger. It was Rudd’s response that made Marr realise the importance of anger in understanding Rudd’s life trajectory.
(But I do think that what Marr said he told Rudd as per Laura’s quote would have understandably made Rudd “very, very angry”.)
My question is, how much of the essay do you think Marr had already written before that incident? From what people have said, and Laura’s account, it seems possible that he’d written the main body of the work. After that it’s possible he put the Copenhagen thing up front, wrote a final coda, but didn’t substantially revise the rest.
Just wondering.
Fine @ 200, that moment when Marr said to Kerry “You saw it here” was significant, I thought. Much was made of Rudd losing it in that interview. I saw the interview and didn’t know what they were talking about. Kerry obviously thought too much was made of it. But obviously Marr didn’t.
This relates to what Mark has identified as the intertextuality of the reception of Marr’s essay.
I haven’t read the essay and probably won’t (I’d have to make a phone call, get them to hold it and allocate an hour and a half to retrieve it for starters) but I’d like to ask a question of those who did. Please bear with me for a bit.
In the 7.30 Report interview there was a pivotal piece:
It seems to me that Laura @ 185 is right in saying that when Marr told Rudd what approach he was taking he didn’t mention anger. It was Rudd’s response that made Marr realise the importance of anger in understanding Rudd’s life trajectory.
(But I do think that what Marr said he told Rudd as per Laura’s quote would have understandably made Rudd “very, very angry”.)
My question is, how much of the essay do you think Marr had already written before that incident? From what people have said, and Laura’s account, it seems possible that he’d written the main body of the work. After that it’s possible he put the Copenhagen thing up front, wrote a final coda, but didn’t substantially revise the rest.
Just wondering.
Bit OT but I’ve always thought highly of David Marr from his appearances on Insiders, Q&A etc and just want to say he was by far the most impressive on the topic of ‘border protection/asylum seekers’ on The Nation last week joined on the show by a Labor MP, some braindead Liberal Party drone and that odious Oldfield charcter from One Nation.
Knowing the QE thing was coming out I smirked when at one point he stopped mid-sentence looking at Oldfield took off his glasses and said “why are you so full of hate?”.
Bit OT but I’ve always thought highly of David Marr from his appearances on Insiders, Q&A etc and just want to say he was by far the most impressive on the topic of ‘border protection/asylum seekers’ on The Nation last week joined on the show by a Labor MP, some braindead Liberal Party drone and that odious Oldfield charcter from One Nation.
Knowing the QE thing was coming out I smirked when at one point he stopped mid-sentence looking at Oldfield took off his glasses and said “why are you so full of hate?”.
Marr might have said “understand” but he should have said “intuit”. There is a significant difference between understanding and intuition.
There is nothing wrong with intuition per se. Indeed it is a vital step towards understanding.
What might Marr have done with his insight so gained? He might have gone back to his biographical sketch of Rudd with a new question: “Where has anger been a powerful driving force in Rudd’s life so far? In other words, Marr might have redrafted and recrafted his essay.
So far as I can see, he didn’t.
This neglect strengthens my laziness thesis.
Marr might have said “understand” but he should have said “intuit”. There is a significant difference between understanding and intuition.
There is nothing wrong with intuition per se. Indeed it is a vital step towards understanding.
What might Marr have done with his insight so gained? He might have gone back to his biographical sketch of Rudd with a new question: “Where has anger been a powerful driving force in Rudd’s life so far? In other words, Marr might have redrafted and recrafted his essay.
So far as I can see, he didn’t.
This neglect strengthens my laziness thesis.
Judith Brett reviews QE.
Judith Brett reviews QE.
Thanks, Katz.
A couple more comments. The relationship between Rudd and Marr seems quite complex from Marr’s side. Rudd was “very, very angry” but Marr enjoyed being “ticked off” by Rudd and Rudd’s anger was only “about 3.8 on the Richter scale”.
Secondly, the portrait of Rudd coming from the 7.30 Report was overwhelmingly negative. That may have been balanced if the interview had continued but they were out of time. Marr does say Rudd is a decent man who “wants really decent outcomes for the country” though that seems to be rather faint praise.
Thanks, Katz.
A couple more comments. The relationship between Rudd and Marr seems quite complex from Marr’s side. Rudd was “very, very angry” but Marr enjoyed being “ticked off” by Rudd and Rudd’s anger was only “about 3.8 on the Richter scale”.
Secondly, the portrait of Rudd coming from the 7.30 Report was overwhelmingly negative. That may have been balanced if the interview had continued but they were out of time. Marr does say Rudd is a decent man who “wants really decent outcomes for the country” though that seems to be rather faint praise.
I agree Brian.
And another point: 3.8 on the Richter Scale is a small tremor.
Metaphorically, is this as angry as Rudd can get? I might be impressed by anger at anything above 7.0 on the Richter Scale. 3.8 would hardly register as worthy of note.
I agree Brian.
And another point: 3.8 on the Richter Scale is a small tremor.
Metaphorically, is this as angry as Rudd can get? I might be impressed by anger at anything above 7.0 on the Richter Scale. 3.8 would hardly register as worthy of note.
Interesting take from Brett, Liam. That is my one major concern: voter switch-off. Its hard to come back once that happens – as Howard discovered in 2007.
I would note, however, that its probably a bit early for that top have happened, even though Rudd is a bit dull: more likely its the stadard oppo in front until people focus we’ve seen every election 1998-2004.
This does tie in one minor objection I have – both Marr and Brett use this “going the way of the Goss govt” meme. Everyone seems to have forgotten Goss won two terms – in fact, he actually one a 3rd in 1995 by one seat, until a disputed result in Mundingburra flipped him out of office – 7 months later.
Interesting take from Brett, Liam. That is my one major concern: voter switch-off. Its hard to come back once that happens – as Howard discovered in 2007.
I would note, however, that its probably a bit early for that top have happened, even though Rudd is a bit dull: more likely its the stadard oppo in front until people focus we’ve seen every election 1998-2004.
This does tie in one minor objection I have – both Marr and Brett use this “going the way of the Goss govt” meme. Everyone seems to have forgotten Goss won two terms – in fact, he actually one a 3rd in 1995 by one seat, until a disputed result in Mundingburra flipped him out of office – 7 months later.
Voter Turn off? To where, realistically? Not to Abbott. If Malcolm was Opposition leader I’d be really worried.
Voter Turn off? To where, realistically? Not to Abbott. If Malcolm was Opposition leader I’d be really worried.
I’m only half way through, but am making a list of number of slurs Marr manages to pack into the essay. I agree with others on the list that, so far, it tells us more about Marr than Rudd. Will post again when my research is complete
I’m only half way through, but am making a list of number of slurs Marr manages to pack into the essay. I agree with others on the list that, so far, it tells us more about Marr than Rudd. Will post again when my research is complete