Among the many things written about Gough Whitlam last week, two facts stuck prominently in my mind. Firstly, he was the last Prime Minister to have been alive at the same time as all of Australia’s Prime Ministers – as he was born in 1916 two years before George Reid died in 1918. Secondly, he was the last Prime Minister to serve in World War II.
It struck me because this week the last surviving relative of my grandparent’s generation also passed away. At 88, she was not as old as Gough but like him she was one of that generation who is fast fading away.
The people who can recall the Great Depression as something more than a thing their parents told them about, and for whom WWII was more than just a good night out at the movies, will soon be gone. Even those who turned 18 in 1945 and who would thus have been unlikely to have seen any action would this year turn 87.
It's a time so foreign to us who were born well after it, that we are scarcely able to imagine it, let alone grasp how we would have reacted at the time.
“But it’s odd that a man who appointed Rex Connor as Minister for Minerals and Energy and who has long been criticised by the left for his actions (or lack thereof) over Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor, should now be signing up for The Greens.”
It's a very sad thought that such a time has been reached, but the reaction to his passing however was also quite wonderful and truly befitting of the great man. For one who never produced an indifferent reaction, he has in death, as in life, divided people.
Members of the right-wing think tanks too young to have experienced either a recession or inflation above 6% have freely given their opinion on his ability as an economic manager based on little more than pretending that hindsight is foresight.
Others in the conservative media have also been at great pains to show that they are more respectful towards him than the “the left” was towards Margaret Thatcher, but they just want it known that everything Gough did in government was terrible and he was essentially responsible for every single thing they believe is wrong with Australia.
Generally, a bit of cherry picking and exaggeration is required. The talk becomes that inflation went over 20% or at best “near to it” (it did get to 17.7%, but let’s round it up a couple percentage points, eh?). The Australian’s editorial had spending rising 45.9% on one year under his watch, when a quick look at the budget papers sees that in 1974-75 government spending rose 39.6% in nominal terms and 19.9% in real terms – massive yes, but do they really need to over-egg it to make their point?
And really what is their point? The 1970s were the decade where the world economy went to hell in a hand basket. No nation who had surged in the 1950s and 1960s did particularly well.
The USA’s GDP growth went from 5.6% in 1973 to -0.5% in 1974 and then -0.2% in 1975; the UK was worse: it went from 7.2% in 1973 to -1.6% in 1974 followed by -0.6% in 1975. The entire OECD as a whole had growth in 1973 of 6.3% then fell to 1.2% followed by 0.4% in 1975. Australia by comparison grew by 4.1% in 1973 before dropping to just 1.3% in 1974 and recovering in 1975 to 2.6%.
But yeah, Gough left the economy in ruins.
About the best statement on Gough’s economic performance was by Malcolm Turnbull who took the odd position of acknowledging that times have changed since 1975. He noted that not only would the ALP not run the economy like Gough did, neither would the Liberal Party run it like the Liberal Party thought at the time it should be run.
There was some equally silly cherry picking going on from the other side of politics with rather idiotic statements from the Green supporters that were Gough around now he would join that Party.
None of it was based on anything more that good vibes and feels about what Gough stood for. But it’s odd that a man who appointed Rex Connor as Minister for Minerals and Energy and who has long been criticised by the left for his actions (or lack thereof) over Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor, should now be signing up for The Greens.
The main cherry pick here is that because the Greens support free university education – a key Whitlam policy – he was clearly now within the Greens camp. But given free university education has been gone for over 20 years you might have thought Gough at some point would have voiced his displeasure of the ALP policy. I guess staying a member of the party and becoming a life member in 2006 was just elderly indifference on the part of a man whom never in his life was indifferent about anything to do with his legacy ...
As Kimberley Ramplin noted on Twitter the talk of whether Gough would be a member of the Greens is as stupid as those who think Malcolm Turnbull should lead the ALP purely because he is more in favour of same sex marriage than most of the Abbott cabinet.
It’s apt that Gough’s legacy is fought over. His brilliance or lack thereof has been contested since before he even became Prime Minister. The legacy of his own generation – that one which fought WWII, spawned the baby boomers, was dull in the 1950s, sent us to war in the 1960s – has been contested ever since their children left home.
But it’s hard not to feel a great loss with Gough’s passing. His like will never be seen again, because much like there will never be another band like The Beatles, no politicians will ever be able to have such an impact again because he got there first and did it at a time that no longer exists.
And most commentary on his legacy would be much improved were they to remember that.
Share
