Even if they appear to be driven by personal motives, they can have a very political effect.
THE ART OF (POLITICAL) BIOGRAPHY
Close up, I found Kevin Rudd to
be not a particularly attractive person. Others disagree. Perhaps we shouldn’t
really be surprised if the demands of public life don’t always bring out the
best in people. Individuals are complex and their actions and motivations,
their stories, change over time. It would be terrible to have your image suddenly
frozen in stone; permanently set and riveted to an unchanging position.
Yet that’s what biographies (and
autobiographies) seek to do: fix shifting characters in a permanent snapshot.
My unauthorised biography of Rudd was never intended to be hostile and, by-and-large,
it wasn’t. Nor was it hagiography – the story of a saint. That didn’t suit his
purposes and he refused co-operation; fair enough. Back then he needed to
control the narrative so he could ensure nothing (certainly not a pesky
journalist) stood in the way of his forthcoming election. But today our needs
are different.
Anyone wanting to make sense of
the six years of Labor government has a plethora of rival interpretations from
which to pick and choose. Patrick Weller’s Kevin Rudd duels with Julia
Gillard’s My Story. Both represent the visions of their protagonists,
which is perfectly fine. Everybody can manufacture their own reality. The issue
comes when the various interpretations meet. Unfortunately, this is the point
at which individual biographies become flawed attempts to define our joint history.
Recently the ABC showed Brilliant
Creatures; a particularly selective portrayal of the lives of a couple
of Aussie expatriates. Germaine Greer was one. The narrative line of the
“documentary” is pretty well encapsulated in the title, and anything that
didn’t fit into the smooth pastiche of the pre-defined legend, a story of the
cleverest abandoning the cultural desert that Australia had been was jettisoned.
All quite accurate, of course: yet it forms simply one picture of our joint reality
and a pretty banal one at that. Not a narrative of society – just a selective
portrait of a few individuals. The degree to which people are prepared to allow
others to pick over the scabs of their lives provides a pretty good indication
of their capacity for self-delusion.
Years ago Greer refused to be
interviewed by Christine Wallace, although this didn’t stop the Canberra author
from providing us with a far more definitive account of a real human being than
the sloppy yarn appearing on TV. Wallace later scrapped her own book on
Gillard. Perhaps it was too accurate for us to handle. More recently, at least
one of our former leaders has refused to co-operate with ABC journalist Chris
Ulhmann. He wanted to explain what really happened during Labor’s six-year
period in office; perhaps they don’t care for the truth. One interview with Ray
Martin, no matter how good, doesn’t allow the history of that time to be pulled
into perspective.
Whatever you may think of them
individually, at least both Bob Hawke and Paul Keating were keen to tell their
side of the story. They submitted themselves to rigorous examination. They
believed their tales would hold up. Personality wasn’t allowed to overawe
policy. Perhaps this is the only real issue a political biography must address
– that central question of ambition. What drives someone who so desperately
desires the top job? Is it the squalid urge of personal ambition, or a genuine
desire to create a better world? And then, what happened on the way to that
end? Did our hero act nobly, or did they simply pull others down to join them
in the gutter?
The individual narratives of Rudd
and Gillard intersect in another story: the tale of Labor and, more specifically,
that of Bill Shorten. It’s quite understandable that both former leaders want
to proffer their own, self-justifying yarns explaining why their colleagues
successively and unceremoniously dumped first one, then the other. But these
biographies are the whispered stories of the playground. “He was hateful and
nasty. I never had a chance in the face of his manoeuvring to destroy me.”
“She’s a plotter and incompetent to boot. I was God’s gift.” Rival interpretations
of reality will never intersect. So who cares?
Shorten should. There’s that
famous photo of him on the phone the night Rudd’s dreams crashed to earth. When
it was snapped he was, apparently, talking to his wife about a parent-teacher
night. That’s his story, anyway. He was, nevertheless, intimately involved in
the hi-jinks that transformed the Lodge into a short-stay doss-house until Tony
Abbott’s eventual election. But his problem is rather that these biographies
reveal the depths to which Labor sank barely a year ago and they’re not
narratives on which anyone can build a case to return to government. Quite the
reverse. You can imagine the Liberals’ next campaign adds already. Abbott would
be well advised to send copies of these books to swinging voters around the
country.
That’s because they don’t
intersect. The work of building a nation involves giving up on your own interpretation
of reality in order to share the perspectives of others. There’s got to be room
for everyone to flourish. Neither of the former PM’s can bear to do this, even
for a moment. There’s no room for anyone else in their stories, not even the
Labor faithful. They are asked to choose. It’s not a solid foundation for a
party marching to government.
Shorten’s attempting to construct
a new narrative for the party by ignoring the past. He will need, at some
point, to explain how the last government came to fail so abysmally. Until
Labor gets its story straight; until the party explains how government was
allowed to become the plaything of such flawed, squabbling, and self-obsessed
rivals, returning to government will be fraught with difficulty.
Shorten trashed both leaders.
What’s his story?
What about the Nic Stuart book about Rudd the Dud ?
ReplyDeleteIndeed! It was tempting to revisit the entire period when he was re-elected by the Caucus . . . but good sense prevailed, There just wasn't enough for a book and Patrick Weller's biography (or should that read 'hagiography') of Rudd proves it. It's very tempting now, as I read Kelly, to attempt to go back and write a 'definitive' book of the time. I can see bits in Kelly's book where he hasn't given credit where it was due (Lenore Taylor, Chris Ulhmann, etc); other bits where I think he's made the wrong call; some places where I think there's more information that should be disclosed to the read . . . but then again, so what?
ReplyDeletePerhaps a bit more time may help to put it in perspective. But perhaps by then it won't seem so important.
More to the point, I suspect, is that I just don't want to rake over the petty-minded squabbling by sad people I don't respect.