tip off

Razer’s Class Warfare: a prick he may be, but Hockey’s dancing is irrelevant

Joe Hockey likes dancing to pop songs and smoking cigars while he formulates a budget to screw over the poor and the sick. But it’s only the budget that matters — the personal is not always political.

Joe Hockey is a prick.” This was the dominant sentiment in my Facebook feed yesterday, and its expression fairly eclipsed pictures of children eating cardamom-flavoured cake. This is no surprise, of course, as the default setting for social media use sits somewhere between righteous and cardamom-flavoured smug. If it were just a timeline that had permitted personal insult to stand in the way of something we might legitimately call an opinion, there would be no urgent cause for worry. But ad hominem is no longer endemic to the yowling children of Facebook. It has found its way into the press gallery.

Joe Hockey is a prick.” This may be true. Its utterance, however, is embarrassing — destructive, even, when it begins to inform a line of professional questioning.

Veteran reporter Laurie Oakes took his cue from the political-is-personal crowd when he “revealed” this week in an interview that the Treasurer had been dancing to an uplifting pop song in his office before handing down the 2014 budget. “Symbolism matters,” said Oakes, echoing not only the era’s mania for representation over reality but the sound of his own failure to recognise that the private dancer wasn’t a “symbol” until made so by the press …

Oakes on Hockey

Traditional and social media have made much of Hockey’s accompanists. Apparently a group called American Authors have a tune called Best Day of My Life, and it was with this “symbolism” Oakes took issue. “The unemployed, the sick, welfare recipients, they’re not going to be dancing, are they?” he asked. “It won’t be the best day of their life.”

Really, Laurie? We’re decoding pop songs and not discredited Chicago School economic theory now? If you don’t yet wish to retire from electronic media, perhaps you can get a gig researching for Spicks and Specks.

In the marketplace of like-and-share, Oakes became hot stock. And it wasn’t just your Facebook friends inflating the smug bubble but Labor politicians …

Recourse to personal insult is not uncommon among politicians, but it is new among reporters whose work it once was to examine ideology and outcomes, not people and “symbolism”. Oakes should be ashamed of an interview that told us less about the ideas and implications of a federal budget than it did about the new press habit of impersonating social media’s foremost idiots.

Thank goodness, then, for Sarah Ferguson, whose 7.30 interview with Hockey shot straight to the broken heart of abandoned promises and faith-based economics …

sarah ferguson

Joe Hockey doesn’t NEED to be a prick. His impossible premise — wealth concentrated in the hands of the few gives us all more money — is bad enough all on its own. But this doesn’t stop an emerging interest in personal, rather than political, detail.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but this didn’t stop wide reporting on Hockey’s date with a cohiba. Political reporters have joined sub-pundits of social media in the belief that “symbolism matters”. Even the sort of symbolism that Dr Freud, the cigar-smoking father of symbolic order, dismissed.

It has never been easier to familiarise ourselves with the ideology that buoys ruling class interests. Yet on our social networks, we prefer obscene slogans that do not evince any trustworthy understanding but simply serve to make afternoon heroes of us to those with whom we already agree. But fighting to maintain the rules of informal logic on the user-created internet is like fighting for reason in cupcake flavourings. Cardamom has no place in common desserts.

And personal slights have no role in professional political reporting. Symbolism, personal character and musical choices are as irrelevant to an understanding of Hockey’s foul neoliberal techniques as your Facebook rant is to my genuine interest.

There are those who would insist that any damage done to a Tory is a justification for poor argument, that the ailing horse of reason has long since bolted to a pasture grown from lush symbolism. Why not apply the crop of personal attack if it produces a good consequence?

Because the only ends produced by these means is an intensification of the belief that good people make good policies and bad people make bad ones. And frankly, I don’t give a tenth of a shit if good policies — now in various stages of abandonment — like Gonski, the NDIS and the NBN, had cigar-smoking architects who listened to awful pop and flavoured their pastry with cardamom.

Nor should you care about the individual purity of policy makers. Nor should Laurie Oakes. “Symbolism” and personal acts of pleasure matter only if we say they do. And we say they do at every level so vehemently and so often that soon the political will be emptied of everything but the personal.

Joe Hockey is a prick. But it doesn’t matter.

11
  • 1
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    So what’s the difference between social and main stream media - besides language parameters?

  • 2
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    How did Ferguson climax her interview with Bowen?

  • 3
    Deipnosoph
    Posted Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Great article, Helen. I might just add that Hockey has cultivated an avuncular nice guy personality, and Oakes’ “news” goes towards redressing that spin.

    But I’d much prefer that the average voter had the time and inclination to judge him by his policies rather than his persona.

  • 4
    Stuart Coyle
    Posted Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    It will be a cold day in hell when the average voter learns to judge a person on
    what they actually do rather than on what they appear like or say.

  • 5
    Paul Bugeja
    Posted Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    love your guts HR and appreciate your stance but #smokinJoe and #dancinonthegravesofthepoorJoe just entrench the #borntorule mentality of Hockey and CO…

  • 6
    Paddy Forsayeth
    Posted Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    Well said Helen Razer.Laurie Oaks interview was typical of much media today, encourage controversy and verbal pugilism over and above debate.

  • 7
    Slomo
    Posted Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    Agree completely HR. The cigar and dancing stories are disapointing distractions. The cigar story even warranted 5 minutes discussion on Insiders that could have been used for something relevant…like maybe the budget?

  • 8
    drsmithy
    Posted Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

    Joe Hockey is a prick. But it doesn’t matter.

    Yes, it does.

    Also, someone who proposes to change the lives of millions of already disadvantaged people for the worse, for no reason other than adherence to a broken and morally bankrupt ideology, and doesn’t feel sufficient sobriety in the hours before doing so isn’t a “prick”, they’re a psychopath.

    Any of those in doubt of this should have that doubt removed by listening to this morning’s Hockey interview on AM. Even Chris Uhlman was taken aback by some of the responses, FFS.

    I don’t want psychopaths making the decisions that run this country.

  • 9
    Brendan
    Posted Friday, 16 May 2014 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    You’re correct, but I see the purpose in fighting fire with fire - or rather, voting mindsets all-too-easily distracted by photo ops and talking points with exposés on a politician’s character. Not that I really like it.

  • 10
    Bento
    Posted Saturday, 17 May 2014 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    Completely agree. Cardamom has no place in common desserts….what was the other thing?

  • 11
    Lisa Purves
    Posted Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    I think you’ve missed the point, Laurie was drawing attention to the fact that the Treasurer was about to deliver a budget of broken promises, which would devastate the majority of hard working Australians and that before doing so he thought it was appropriate to dance with his wife in some jovial, egotistical way. I think the point Laurie was trying to make is the man is an idiot and cares not one iota for the distress and financial ruin of ordinary Australians.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...