Malcolm Turnbull Goes To White Castle?
September 25th 2008 22:54
Have you ever heard of a question that has so many possible answers that it is almost not worth asking at all? Because that is the type of situation you find yourself in when you ask yourself what the difference is between Bill Clinton and Malcolm Turnbull? Ah, let me count the ways. But there is one answer that is the first thing that comes to mind. Bill Clinton admitted to smoking marijuana, but said that he did not inhale. Whatever that means. Turnbull, on the other hand, is quite prepared to admit that when he did it he inhaled too. On the Q&A program on ABC last night, Malcolm cut off host Tony Jones before he could even finish asking the question saying, “Yes, yes I did”.
It is a strange phenomenon these days that politicians feel the need to bare their souls about drug use in their pasts, no matter how much or how long ago. More to the point, how come it makes so much news? Malcolm Turnbull using marijuana twenty years ago is one of the top stories of the day today, inexplicably pipping school shootings, economic trauma and government legislation at the post. There are two questions involved here: why is it so important and why is there such a big trend of politicians coming clean on their drug use history? Gone are the days of the politicians feigning righteous indignation when confronted with the question of whether or not they have ever used drugs. These days they clamour to say yes, maybe because they want to appear to be “cool”. Barack Obama admitted to heavy use of cocaine in his youth, and he is the biggest celebrity politician the world has seen in quite some time. Hell, the whole ALP front bench have admitted to being mad for marijuana in their own university days. Why does it play so well with the general public? If you look at the polls most people in Australia would agree that drug use is not something they would like to see in their leaders. Why, then, does it benefit leaders to admit that they used drugs in their youth?
It is something that appeals to basic human nature, I think. People certainly do not want their leaders to be using drugs but they want to be able to identify with them as human beings. And in the Australian situation there is something even more intrinsic: Aussies hate nerds. The whole foundation of the mythology of Australia is of the masculine frontiersman, rough around the edges and diving into life head first. We don’t take kindly to intellectuals or people who look like they haven’t ever let their hair down and partied. We don’t want them to be doing lines on their ministerial desk, but we want to know that they could have in their past. It humanises them and shows that someone as thoroughly geeky as Wayne Swan might have been a party animal in his day. Some politicians like Tony Blair do it by releasing the footage of themselves playing in a university rock band. Some hold world records for beer drinking, like Bob Hawke. These days, the sure-fire way to make yourself look ‘cool’ is to admit to drug use. But only if it was 15 or 20 years ago. Any more recent and people might start getting suspect.
Now, why is it important? The reality is that it isn’t. At least not as important as it is made out to be by the news media. The reason that it is covered so heavily by the media is that it is a ‘sexy issue’. It is not designed to be of major public importance. It is written and publicised because they knew that politicians and drug use is a combination that is definite to get people’s attention and make them want to read. After all, this story was not even discovered by some nefarious background digging by a journalist or given by an anonymous source. This is information freely given by Turnbull himself on national television last night. There isn’t more to it than that. But it involves politicians in the seedier side of life and all people love a scandal, no matter how much the intellectual snobbery try to tell you otherwise. The news media knows what the people want and they have delivered in fine fashion.
Did Malcolm make this revelation to ‘be cool’? Not in this case. I was watching the program when it aired and he was responding to a direct line of questioning from the host and did not expand on the answer beyond saying that it had happened and he regretted it. What his intent was, however, is secondary to the repercussions. Will it work in his favour? Perhaps it will. The Liberal Party are seen as out of date and not relevant to young people. This may do a little to humanise them again and take back some of the youth vote that has been firmly locked up in the Labor camp.
Who knows? Maybe if John Howard bared his soul about his wild younger days before the election, he might have won after all.
It is a strange phenomenon these days that politicians feel the need to bare their souls about drug use in their pasts, no matter how much or how long ago. More to the point, how come it makes so much news? Malcolm Turnbull using marijuana twenty years ago is one of the top stories of the day today, inexplicably pipping school shootings, economic trauma and government legislation at the post. There are two questions involved here: why is it so important and why is there such a big trend of politicians coming clean on their drug use history? Gone are the days of the politicians feigning righteous indignation when confronted with the question of whether or not they have ever used drugs. These days they clamour to say yes, maybe because they want to appear to be “cool”. Barack Obama admitted to heavy use of cocaine in his youth, and he is the biggest celebrity politician the world has seen in quite some time. Hell, the whole ALP front bench have admitted to being mad for marijuana in their own university days. Why does it play so well with the general public? If you look at the polls most people in Australia would agree that drug use is not something they would like to see in their leaders. Why, then, does it benefit leaders to admit that they used drugs in their youth?
It is something that appeals to basic human nature, I think. People certainly do not want their leaders to be using drugs but they want to be able to identify with them as human beings. And in the Australian situation there is something even more intrinsic: Aussies hate nerds. The whole foundation of the mythology of Australia is of the masculine frontiersman, rough around the edges and diving into life head first. We don’t take kindly to intellectuals or people who look like they haven’t ever let their hair down and partied. We don’t want them to be doing lines on their ministerial desk, but we want to know that they could have in their past. It humanises them and shows that someone as thoroughly geeky as Wayne Swan might have been a party animal in his day. Some politicians like Tony Blair do it by releasing the footage of themselves playing in a university rock band. Some hold world records for beer drinking, like Bob Hawke. These days, the sure-fire way to make yourself look ‘cool’ is to admit to drug use. But only if it was 15 or 20 years ago. Any more recent and people might start getting suspect.
Now, why is it important? The reality is that it isn’t. At least not as important as it is made out to be by the news media. The reason that it is covered so heavily by the media is that it is a ‘sexy issue’. It is not designed to be of major public importance. It is written and publicised because they knew that politicians and drug use is a combination that is definite to get people’s attention and make them want to read. After all, this story was not even discovered by some nefarious background digging by a journalist or given by an anonymous source. This is information freely given by Turnbull himself on national television last night. There isn’t more to it than that. But it involves politicians in the seedier side of life and all people love a scandal, no matter how much the intellectual snobbery try to tell you otherwise. The news media knows what the people want and they have delivered in fine fashion.
Did Malcolm make this revelation to ‘be cool’? Not in this case. I was watching the program when it aired and he was responding to a direct line of questioning from the host and did not expand on the answer beyond saying that it had happened and he regretted it. What his intent was, however, is secondary to the repercussions. Will it work in his favour? Perhaps it will. The Liberal Party are seen as out of date and not relevant to young people. This may do a little to humanise them again and take back some of the youth vote that has been firmly locked up in the Labor camp.
Who knows? Maybe if John Howard bared his soul about his wild younger days before the election, he might have won after all.
| 174 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
