The conga line of criticism

Post politics, Mark Latham has been painted as a grumpy, erratic and manic character. But what normal person wouldn't appear like that, to some degree, in the same situation? Whereas once politics was about the cult of personality, it has now been further reduced to the cult of regularity. Who looks the most secure. Which leader will keep interest rates low. Latham, with his lack of experience and ounces of creativity, found it difficult to avoid looking like a liability in the end.

We make decisions based on vague appreciations of people and the issues we confront because most of us are spectators to the process. That countless forums exist on the internet is a reflection of that. Some people (especially conservatives, but not just them) use this fact to criticise those who are critical of the status quo. Now Latham has joined our ranks. Not as a peer, but like any one of us raving, grumpy types dissatisfied with the way things are. That he has been punished for his honesty is quite telling. It shows the depth of deceit in our political life. That problem goes far beyond personality politics. It goes far deeper, into the very fabric of our social structures.

We live in the age of professionalism, when we do not live to work, but work to live. When we do what we are told, because otherwise we may endanger our career prospects. Through that, we have created a political process that rewards puppets and punishes flesh and blood people. Both Howard and Beazley are puppets. In fact most of our most influential politicians, although there are a few exceptions. Puppets for big business, or influential voting blocks, or grab back political causes. Latham was no radical, but he certainly was flesh and blood.