The Homoerotic In Politics

AS THE YEAR gracefully folds and we look back at the year in politics, well may we say “who would have thought it?”

Who would have thought some banter, with supposed gay overtones, between Slipper and Ashby would have such a dramatic impact? Who could foresee that one side of politics would pursue the former Speaker with such monomaniacal vitriol?

The homoerotic impulse and a countering homophobic reaction are not unprecedented in politics.  They’re not even unusual.

In fact, together they have played a strange part in the evolution of the system of our government.

Who would have thought it – a homoerotic crush helped initiate the emergence of democracy in Ancient Athens.

A vase depicting the death of Hipparchus.  Phallic imagery abounds.

Hipparchus, Hippias and Thessalus were the three sons of the early Athenian tyrant Pisistratus.  All three had murky reputations for carrying on the aristocratic family trade of political intrigue and launching coups. 

In 514BCE Thessalus had a crush on a young male aristocrat.  Thessalus was rejected, and in a fit of pique, he refused to allow the aristocrat’s sister to take her place in the Panathenaic festival parade.

The shame of it was too much for the object of Thessalus’ affections, and he organised a gang of assassins to strike at Hippias, the brother of Thessalus.

Trouble is, they got the wrong brother.  They couldn’t get at Hippias, so they actually settled for Hipparchus. 

It was the furious retribution of Thessalus and Hippias to their brother’s death that had political consequences through the ages.

They organised the brutal murders of two of the assassins, Harmodius and Aristogeiton.  Finally, appalled at the cycle of violence, Athenians eventually overthrew the rule of the tyrants.

Guided by the first real democrat, Cleithsenes, Athenians in 507 BCE brought in a constitution, and rule by an assembly that represented all citizens.

All because Thessalus couldn’t get his way with a good looking young man.

Still, look at the reaction when a ruler did get his way with a young man.

Edward II, with his jewels, crown and a nice shade of lippy.

The relationship of Edward II with his “close male companions” so vexed the ruling English upper classes, they created a system of checks on the power of the monarchy that still exist today.

Edward II (who reigned from 1307 to 1327) not only flaunted his relationship with Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser, he made them powerful. 

Edward had it bad for Gaveston, his childhood friend, who in turn had a knack for outraging and mocking the English nobility.

After Edward’s wedding, where Gaveston apparently out-dressed the bride, the King presented him with the best of his new wife’s wedding gifts and jewels. 

Edward ostentatiously showered Gaveston with power and gifts from the public purse.   

The response of the English nobility was to force “The Ordinances” upon Edward, which like the Magna Carta, imposed limitations upon the power of the monarch to dispense public wealth.

Faced with another ultimatum to let him go, Edward finally chose to flee north with Gaveston, abandoning his capital and pregnant wife.

Gaveston was captured, and on Blacklow Hill, the nobles finally halted his all-too-visible career by simply chopping off his head.

The gruesome end of  Hugh Despenser.  Of course, times have changed ...

Edward’s true gift as a monarch was to keep repeating his mistakes.  Gaveston’s replacement was the young Hugh Despenser, an even more hated figure.

Once again, the favourite was gifted enormous power and money, and once again, the English reacted by executing the King’s close companion.

To get rid of Edward, the English aristocracy created the Articles of Accusation.  Under these Articles, Edward was accused of breaching his Coronation Oath to look after the country, and was formally deposed by his spurned wife Queen Isabella.

So there it is. The furore over Edward’s overt relationship with Gaveston and Despenser led to the creation of mechanisms where a king can be fiscally restrained and be legally deposed.

The furore over the spurned advance by Thessalus led to the creation of Athenian democracy.

And the furore over Slipper’s supposed request for a more communal form of showering drowned his career, and will continue to dampen the careers of others.

Who would have thought this would be a lesson from politics in 2012? That homoeroticism holds a strange place in our system of government.

Or rather, the crushing reaction against it can have political consequences that far outweigh the original transgression.

It is the death of Edward II that symbolises the retributive barrage that can be unleashed in response to the homoerotic.

Legend is that Edward II, imprisoned in the Guard Room at Berkeley Castle, was killed by the insertion of a red-hot poker into his fundament.

Homophobia has no place in the private or public realms.  And we need to remember that historically, it has had an effect on politics and government in a way that would be almost comical if it weren’t so bloody tragic.

*Read "The Life and Death of Democracy" by John Keane and "Crown and Country: The Kings and Queens of England" by David Starkey.

Follow Chris on Facebook, Twitter or Google+  

Blog Promotion Top Blogs


Blogs Blog Tools Allie Marie

Conversations With My Son (Aged 2)

I WISH I was a Mummy Blogger.  Mummy Bloggers are some of the coolest and most renowned bloggerati in the online community.

They get recognition – they’ve been invited to The Lodge to meet with Julia Gillard.  They get awesome sponsorship – have a look at the ads on their websites.

And what really gets me sighing is that they produce erudite, witty and informative articles about being a parent.

No one hears about Daddy Bloggers.  Perhaps because our articles would be full of genial confusion and would simply recount our disasters.

You’ve seen how Dads are portrayed on TV.  They are goofy, inept and are often comic objects.

Well, who am I to disagree?  I look at the way my wife parents.  Sian is quiet, incisive, and makes the perfect judgement.

I tend to make it up as I go along, hoping my wife doesn't find out what we've been doing. 

But hey, at least I make them laugh.

For those who follow me on Facebook, over the last six months I've posted the stories of the Daddy Day incidents where Guy gets the better of me.

Those posts recount the conversations with my son (aged 2), and what happens on the days I am entrusted with his welfare.

I've  put them together to be the post of a Daddy Blogger.  I now await the invitation to the Lodge.

Thank you for the guffaws, sympathy and ultimately, the encouragement.

Daddy Day Craft Attempt. 

Here I've managed to have got the taste of play-dough out of Guy's mouth (right). It's OK, it's decaf.

Daddy Day Attempted Discipline.

Daddy: AARGH! Don't bite me! If you bite me again I may smack you!  Erm, do you know what a smack is?

Guy: Ooh, a lollypop?

Daddy Day Disaster.

There I was watching Guy at a busy playground, smiling, whilst a Mummy on the seat opposite was frowning at Guy and me. Puzzled, I smiled back and shrugged.  Then I realised my son had A Brown Monster peeking out the top of his nappy for all the world to see.

Daddy Day With Nana.

Daddy (pointing to picture of Santa): Look Guy, who's that?

Guy (pause): Pirate?

Nana (just been Christmas shopping): Actually, he's not far wrong.

The Daddy Day Attenborough.

This morning I half-heartedly explained the concept of camouflage to Guy. His theory: Snow Tigers are white so as to hide in cereal.

Halloween As Explained By Guy.

Daddy: What happened last night, Guy?

Guy: People come, an' give them lollies.

Daddy Day Bed-Time Reading.

Guy suddenly lost patience after the 5th reading of "Green Eggs and Ham".  He turned to the last page and bellowed "He EAT it!"  Just in case I didn't know.

Daddy Day Lesson.

Dads, don't leave home without a "Play School" CD in the car. I calmed Guy's demands for Play School songs (always available in Mummy's car) by putting on a Johnny Cash CD. It worked: he fell asleep during "Folsom Prison Blues". Today's lesson was brought to you by the Man In Black.

Guy Gets Political.

Here Guy (right) lobbies for more Bob The Builder and Thomas The Tank Engine on the ABC.

Attempted Toilet Training on Daddy Day.

Daddy: Guy poo in potty now, not nappy.

Guy: I don' think so

Daddy: What did you say?

Guy (repeats): I don' think so.

Daddy Day Gardening Advice.
Guy: (pointing to thriving parsley bush) "Happy, Daddy!"
Daddy: (puzzled) "Ah, yeah ..."
Guy: (pointing to dying basil bush and shaking head) "That not happy, Daddy".

Follow Chris on Facebook, Twitter or Google+  

Blog Promotion Top Blogs


Blogs Blog Tools Allie Marie

Lessons on Rebellion Part II

RAY HOPPER must be reading my stuff.

He seems to be using the lessons on rebellion I covered in last week’s article.  Go to the top of the class, Ray.

Last Friday I started a discourse on the lessons from the American War of Independence for rebellious LNP members.  One of the two lessons was that rebels will often blame the King’s deputies.

King George III, looking either serious or  unhappy. 

Ray Hopper on ABC Radio this week said Jeff Seeney and Tim Nicholls were the villains of the piece.  They had a cunning plan to encourage Campbell Newman to run for Ashgrove, whereas he would lose and they would end up as leaders.

Hopper gave credit to Newman for actually winning the seat and frustrating their plans.

But the third of the three lessons from the American War of Independence is that blaming the leader’s lieutenants for vindictive treatment of rebels can be fallacious and self-delusional.

Take heed Carl Judge, Alex Douglas and Ray Hopper – the stiff-necked and inflexible reaction against dissidents comes from the top.

Far be it that the leader is a dupe of his underlings.  He is the true author of the rebel’s miseries.

It is no use for Clive Palmer or Ray Hopper to appeal to Campbell Newman.  His style of leadership has set a pattern for intolerance of dissent throughout the organisation.

It was no good appealing to King George III in the 1770’s.  He was leading the charge against the rebellious colonists himself.

At the time it was not recognised fully, but after the Americans got their independence, it was clear that “at every turn of the way, it was the King who insisted on fighting on” (p.357, “The Long Fuse”, Don Cook).

One-time Minister and Opposition Leader Charles James Fox actually said later in Parliament that “it was the influence of the Crown … that enabled His Majesty’s Ministers to persevere against the voice of reason, the voice of truth, the voice of the people.”

And George III himself said to John Adams, the first American ambassador in Great Britain, “I was the last to consent to separation.”

Up to the English surrender at Yorktown in 1783 and even beyond, George III never wavered over the American Question.  He broke his own governments that did not accede to his views and persecution of the war.

Sooner or later, rebels have to recognise that the problems and judgement come from the top: ask any MBA graduate who has studied leadership.

Here’s another point.  Whether we are in colonial Boston or post-colonial Brisbane, we cannot assume that the rebels are erroneously focusing their discontent on the King’s lieutenants.

Ray Hooper, looking serious but not unhappy. theaustralian.com.au

 

It may be a deliberate tactic.  They may be fully aware of the leader’s culpability, but feel they cannot take him on.

They may be just shielding themselves from his power, and are focusing on easier and less risky targets.

So there are the three lessons of rebellion for the LNP members walking off the plank, and for those of us watching the shipside splashes with interest.

But the Hopper-Judge-Palmer-Douglas rebellion may not end with a split of the LNP empire.

Never underestimate the ability of politicians to recross those burnt bridges.  And never underestimate their desire to lavish compliments and praise upon powerful men.  Just in case.

John Adams, the leading American revolutionary and second American President, said to King George III he would be the “happiest of men if I can be instrumental in recommending my country … to your Majesty’s royal benevolence.”

The disaffected LNP members may not be revolutionaries.  Just disgruntled.  The choice of the leader is whether to make them rebels.

Follow Chris on Facebook, Twitter or Google+  

Blog Promotion Top Blogs


Blogs Blog Tools Allie Marie

American Lessons In Rebellion for Newman

QUEENSLANDERS, we have the seeds of rebellion.  History has some pertinent lessons for those casting themselves out of the ship, and for those of us watching the whole thing from onshore.

If my fellow Queenslanders are curious about what the recent defections from the ruling Liberal National Party may mean, here are three lessons of rebellion we can take from the American War of Independence in the 1770’s.

One lesson is that in the first stage of rebellion, those who have been moved “outside the pale” do not blame their leaders for their disaffection, but the leader’s deputies.

Here in Queensland, Clive Palmer firstly censured Seeney and Nicholls for causing dissent within the LNP.  Initially he appealed to Campbell Newman to control his deputies. 

King George III, a not-so-benevolent monarch

In the early stages of the American War of Independence, the colonists blamed the ministers of King George III for the conflict.  They appealed to the King to reign in his ministers.

The First Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1774 hoped that “royal indignation” would “fall upon those designing and dangerous men, who daringly interpose themselves” between the King and his subjects, driving them towards rebellion (p.198, “The Long Fuse”, Don Cook).

After the Boston Tea Party, Benjamin Franklin in January 1774 presented a petition from the Massachusetts Assembly to the British Privy Council.

The petition appealed to the King’s “wisdom and goodness”, urging him to remove the Massachusetts governors, who were blamed by the colonists for initiating the current strife (p.183, Cook).

After the first battles of the war at Lexington and Concord, the Continental Congress presented the “Olive Branch Petition” to the King George III, calling upon his kingly qualities to prevent further hostilities.

And what was the reaction of the British government and King George III to these appeals?

In response to the Massachusetts petition, members of the Privy Council abused Benjamin Franklin in terms that shocked some British parliamentarians.

In response to the Olive Branch Petition, the King and the British government purposely ignored the appeal and declared Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion – they virtually labelled them all outlaws.

"The Long Fuse" by Don Cook

And here we arrive at the second lesson of rebellion relevant to Queensland politics.

The vitriolic reaction to the “rebels” actually increases the chances of success of their rebellion.  A better tactic would be accommodation of the rebels.

The British escalated the rejection of the pleas of the American colonists into punishment and retribution.  That in turn led to resilience and resistance. 

If the British and their King had responded with accommodation, they would have very likely retained the American colonies, for right until the end the Americans professed their loyalty to the King.

But the vindictive British reaction only pushed the rebels into stiffer and more determined resistance.

Once cast out of “the family”, there is no need for rebels to temper their dissidence.  They’re never going back, so they don’t need to hold back.

We can see in the 21^st century that accommodation should have been reached by the King, but that lesson has been overlooked since the second half of the 20^th century.

Instead of remembering the lessons of the American War of Independence in 1774, we almost always recall the lesson of Munich in 1938.  And that lesson is that accommodation must be called appeasement.

After Joseph Chamberlain foolishly decreed that his deal with Hitler over Czechoslovakia meant “peace in our time”, reaching "arrangements" has been seen as dangerous and foolhardy.

In explaining why he persisted in Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson constantly referred to the “dangers of appeasement”, believing that allowing the Viet Cong to get their way would lead to, well, the collapse of democratic freedom.

Ironically, he should have heeded instead the lesson laid out by his rebellious forefathers.

So as we see a steady trickle of Queensland LNP members walking themselves off the plank, we should not forget that the earliest rebels blame the deputies, not the leaders.

And secondly, vindictive retribution by the leader and government actually increases the chances of success of the rebellion.

And what of the all-important third and final lesson from the American War of Independence?  That will have to wait for next week’s article …

Follow Chris on Facebook, Twitter or Google+  

Blog Promotion Top Blogs


Blogs Blog Tools Allie Marie