First Gen X leader falls prey to ‘male and stale’ rhetoric

Sign of the times: Walking billboards urge Kooyong residents to stick with Josh Frydenberg desite Monique Farmer’s challenge. Picture: Aaron Francis

When the Morrison ministry was sworn in, the new leadership represented generational change. Gen Xers were the conclusion to a dismal period of factional infighting and contested leadership in the Coalition. Yet the party is facing electoral defeat after failing to blunt the attack from populists who depict it as male and stale.

The unheroic narrative, the alienated voter, the boom-bust cycle and the disbelief in great powers to deliver meaningful change – this has the hallmarks of a Gen X election; a trip back to the ’90s after the boomer binge went bust, ideology fell out of fashion and grunge was made art.

As Gen X was coming of age, seismic events were shaping a new world order. The leading lights of the New Right went out as Ronald Reagan lost office in the US and the Tory wets knifed Margaret Thatcher. They witnessed the fall of communism, realised as the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union dissolved. The left-wing parties that rose in the wake of all this were influenced less by Marxism than the Third Way politics inspired by sociologist Anthony Giddens, combining economic liberalisation with social inclusion.

The message of the early 1990s was not revolution, but reform. The last of the big ideologies may have fallen but it took the last of the big spenders with it as the West went into recession. In Australia, many Gen Xers came of age with a record high interest rate of 17.5 per cent in 1990. We learned that the major ideologies had been tested and failed, world religions were established and corrupt social movements were spent and we were witnessing the end of an era – perhaps even our own civilisation. Little wonder that Gen X was notoriously nihilistic and self-consciously cynical.

In an ode to the times, the supermodel trend, where glamazons strutted the stage, was replaced by heroin chic. Waifs wafted down the catwalk with the ubiquitous vacant gaze that reflected a lost generation. Apathy was chic, joie de vivre was not. The misery was contagious as goth rivalled grunge for street appeal. Some began to escape reality by going to raves where techno music and self-medication induced a trancelike state.

It was against the backdrop of Gen X cultural nihilism and economic upheaval that Australians started expressing significant support for minor-party candidates. Writing on the Australian Democrats in 2009, Cathy Madden noted their highest percentage of the vote in a federal election was in 1990. She recalled the importance of environmental politics at the time. As now, “it was argued that concern for the environment might be linked to a weakening of ties to the major parties”.

The teal independents’ election pitch on integrity, climate and women in politics is an echo of the past, but the Democrats’ platform has found new life in a wide range of minor-party candidates who claim honesty, not political ambition, is their driving force. And voters are warming to the idea. Newspoll shows the total vote for minor parties and independents at 27 per cent.

The trend to minor candidates has been happening in the West for some time. They are successful, in part, because their narrower scope provides a greater sense of control over politics. They can deliver clearer, more populist pitches than big parties because they run issue-based campaigns that are often uncosted and invariably unencumbered by the burden of the broader national interest.

On climate change, it is increasingly important to have clear lines of communication with the public because the area is so technically complex. Clear targets help and the Coalition’s 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 cannot compete with the 60 per cent by 2030 target of some independents. Josh Frydenberg concedes the government should have communicated its climate policy more clearly. Speaking to Neil Mitchell on 3AW radio last week, he wanted Australians to understand the Coalition has “a practical, costed program to deliver a lower carbon footprint, but also, at the same time, cheaper electricity and a stable grid”.

The election campaign has been notable for leaving many voters confused about what the major parties represent. The Prime Minister and Opposition Leader have been sluggish on policy, shrill in debate and sometimes loose with the truth. We are yet to see a clear, fully costed plan for government by Labor. Neither party is addressing inflation and rising interest rates by scaling back election promises. And there is too little discussion about the importance of fossil fuels to national economic recovery, despite prices having risen on the back of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The Coalition faces challenges on several fronts. Its best bet was to ride high on superior economic management but this was hit hard by the Reserve Bank rate rise. But it could have responded more effectively to Labor’s claim that it is economically reckless. It could have listed the times Labor frustrated its attempts to reduce government spending and reminded voters that before Covid struck, Australia was nearing its first balanced budget in a decade. In September 2019, Frydenberg confirmed we would return to surplus in 2020. At the time, the ABC characterised the achievement as the Coalition being possessed of a “surplus obsession”.

Even for voters who do not want grand narratives or visions from politicians, there is a certain expectation that competent candidates can tell you what their party stands for in a few clear sentences. The major parties are struggling to do so. Morrison’s mojo might be running low, but Albanese knows he cannot afford to be complacent after Labor lost the last election at the 11th hour. Whichever party emerges victorious, it will face tremendous economic and national security challenges. May it reward public trust with good government.