From Malcolm Turnbull to Peter Fitzsimmons, why are prominent Republicans such wankers? I put it to you that it is because they are children playing at being adults.
Take, for example, card-carrying China groveller James Curran, professor of modern history at Sydney University:
Australia acquired the trappings of its post-imperial nationalism in the 1960s and 1970s – a new anthem and a new honours system for example – but stopped short of cutting the final constitutional chord to Buckingham Palace.
And it looks in no real rush to do so. If anything, the past quarter century has witnessed a huddling back into the Anglosphere, whether it be the farcical tragedy of Tony Abbott’s knights and dames, bizarre beliefs that Britain is militarily “back” in Asia, or flights of fiscal fantasy that a free trade agreement with a Brexited UK can redress the hurt of its EEC entry in 1973.
There is, too, Scott Morrison’s AUKUS, now as much Mr Albanese’s lovechild.
This is a great insight into why I used to be a Republican (and wanker) but am now reformed (though may still be a wanker for other reasons).
The confluence of views expressed by Curran is yoked only by the juvenile instinct to rebel, not any hard-won wisdom or deep thought.
For instance, the emotive conflation of post-imperialism, maturity, courage, and independence is entirely fabricated.
Maturity, especially in statecraft, is the cool (even nihilistic) assessment of the interests of the nation and its citizenry.
In this context, courage is often being able to hold the space of quiet unpopularity, not the puffed-up swagger of the demagogue.
Likewise, independence may mean dependence, if that is the path to best-case liberty.
In the case of Curran’s sentimental jibes at constitutional monarchy, the implication is he wants Australia to be a republic free to prosper with China unencumbered by an imperial past.
Yet, we need only briefly examine the public knowledge (let alone the secret stuff) of what China has been up to in the last decade regarding Australia to see what dangerous guff this is:
- Militarisation of South China Sea.
- Dastayari Affair and the bribery of parliaments.
- Relentless cyberwar.
- COVID19, siphoning PPE and zero accountability.
- Trade war and economic coercion.
- 14 conditions to end democracy.
- Militarising the South Pacific.
- Constant threats leveled at liberal Asian allies.
This list of dreadful behaviour begs the question of Curran: would the Australian Republic have better sustained its independence in the context of relentless Chinese soft power warfare?
I cannot think of a single benefit that it would bring.
Conversely, being a member of the “Anglosphere”, and existing within the soft power infrastructure that provides, delivered leg-ups into support from the US, UK, Europe, and G7. All condemned China for its behavior, entertained Australian national interest discourse at the highest levels, delivered previously unthinkable hard power deals, and, ultimately, enabled Australian leaders to rip the mask from the CCP in front of the world.
Sure, some of this would have happened anyway if we were a Republic. But not all. And not with our own sense of self bolstered by alliances of liberal culture, not just real politik convenience.
That’s the rub and the irony. Republican wankerism is spectacularly mistimed in the historical sense. Giving away any asset that can be mobilised in the life-and-death struggle of our liberal system against the CCP is reckless to the point of foolishness. We do not know where the tipping point is in our liberal arsenal so cannot afford to waste a single bullet.
What kind of lunacy would risk Australia’s incredibly fortunate position within the extant liberal imperium for a hostile occupation within an illiberal pirated version?
