
Australia doesn't need to be 'great', and that's good
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


West Australian
9 minutes ago
- West Australian
Trump trampled sovereignty on Guard: California AG
California Attorney General Rob Bonta says the state's sovereignty has been "trampled" by US President Donald Trump when he ordered National Guard troops to the immigration protests in Los Angeles. Bonta spoke on Monday as he announced plans to sue Trump's administration. He said the state will seek a court order declaring that Trump's use of the Guard was unlawful and ask for a restraining order to halt the deployment. Bonta said the suit will be filed later on Monday. Earlier, California Governor Gavin Newsom said he planned to file a lawsuit against Trump. "Commandeering a state's National Guard without consulting the governor of that state is illegal and immoral," Newsom, a Democrat, told MSNBC on Sunday. The streets of the sprawling city of four million people were quiet on Monday morning but the smell of smoke hung in the air downtown, one day after crowds blocked off a major freeway and set self-driving cars on fire as police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades. The law enforcement presence was heavy, with police cars blocking the street in front of the federal detention facility that was a focus of the protests. While much of the city was spared from any violence, clashes swept through several downtown blocks and a handful of other places. It could take days to clear the debris from burned cars and to clean off or paint over graffiti sprayed on City Hall and other buildings near the detention facility. Sunday was the third and most intense day of demonstrations against Trump's immigration crackdown in the region, as the arrival of about 300 Guard troops spurred anger and fear among many residents. US officials said about 1000 National Guard members were in the city under federal orders by midday on Monday. The full 2000 members authorised by the president were expected to be on the ground by the end of the day. Many protesters dispersed as evening fell and police declared an unlawful assembly, a precursor to officers moving in and arresting those who refuse to leave. Some of those who stayed threw objects at police from behind a makeshift barrier. Others hurled chunks of concrete, rocks, electric scooters and fireworks at California Highway Patrol officers and their vehicles parked on the closed southbound 101 Freeway. Officers ran under an overpass to take cover at one point. Trump said on Monday that the city would have been "completely obliterated" if he had not deployed the Guard. Writing on his social media platform Truth Social, the president accused Newsom and the city's mayor, Karen Bass, of lying by saying Guard troops were not necessary. The Guard was deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the downtown detention centre where protesters concentrated. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said officers were "overwhelmed" by the remaining protesters. He said they included regular agitators who show up at demonstrations to cause trouble. Several dozen people were arrested throughout the weekend. One was detained on Sunday for throwing a Molotov cocktail at police and another for ramming a motorcycle into a line of officers.


Perth Now
11 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Trump trampled sovereignty on Guard: California AG
California Attorney General Rob Bonta says the state's sovereignty has been "trampled" by US President Donald Trump when he ordered National Guard troops to the immigration protests in Los Angeles. Bonta spoke on Monday as he announced plans to sue Trump's administration. He said the state will seek a court order declaring that Trump's use of the Guard was unlawful and ask for a restraining order to halt the deployment. Bonta said the suit will be filed later on Monday. Earlier, California Governor Gavin Newsom said he planned to file a lawsuit against Trump. "Commandeering a state's National Guard without consulting the governor of that state is illegal and immoral," Newsom, a Democrat, told MSNBC on Sunday. The streets of the sprawling city of four million people were quiet on Monday morning but the smell of smoke hung in the air downtown, one day after crowds blocked off a major freeway and set self-driving cars on fire as police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades. The law enforcement presence was heavy, with police cars blocking the street in front of the federal detention facility that was a focus of the protests. While much of the city was spared from any violence, clashes swept through several downtown blocks and a handful of other places. It could take days to clear the debris from burned cars and to clean off or paint over graffiti sprayed on City Hall and other buildings near the detention facility. Sunday was the third and most intense day of demonstrations against Trump's immigration crackdown in the region, as the arrival of about 300 Guard troops spurred anger and fear among many residents. US officials said about 1000 National Guard members were in the city under federal orders by midday on Monday. The full 2000 members authorised by the president were expected to be on the ground by the end of the day. Many protesters dispersed as evening fell and police declared an unlawful assembly, a precursor to officers moving in and arresting those who refuse to leave. Some of those who stayed threw objects at police from behind a makeshift barrier. Others hurled chunks of concrete, rocks, electric scooters and fireworks at California Highway Patrol officers and their vehicles parked on the closed southbound 101 Freeway. Officers ran under an overpass to take cover at one point. Trump said on Monday that the city would have been "completely obliterated" if he had not deployed the Guard. Writing on his social media platform Truth Social, the president accused Newsom and the city's mayor, Karen Bass, of lying by saying Guard troops were not necessary. The Guard was deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the downtown detention centre where protesters concentrated. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said officers were "overwhelmed" by the remaining protesters. He said they included regular agitators who show up at demonstrations to cause trouble. Several dozen people were arrested throughout the weekend. One was detained on Sunday for throwing a Molotov cocktail at police and another for ramming a motorcycle into a line of officers.

AU Financial Review
14 minutes ago
- AU Financial Review
These indicators suggest the market has hit the bottom
I know what you're thinking: you'd have to be crazy to believe we've seen the last of potentially market-crunching pronouncements from the Trump administration. The sharemarkets aren't so much gripped by complacency as blind hope. And yet, from its recent bottom on April 8, the S&P 500 rose by 19.7 per cent over the following 28 trading days and is currently only 3 per cent from its all-time high.