Banjo’s “Quatrain”
Image courtesy of smh.com.au
A guest post from John Kelly.
I haven’t read Cory Bernardi’s book, The Conservative Revolution but from the fallout that has developed since its release and the things I have heard him say, I think I have a pretty good idea of its contents. In many ways, I suspect it reflects a response to a growing concern festering among the conservative ranks that today’s relaxed way of life, in terms of what we think and do, is sending our nation to the dogs; it is a threat to our morality and spiritual well being. It betrays the principles of that golden era that so many sons of former conservatives, now long gone, hold dear; that time of our development when we actually did have a class structure that roughly mirrored that of mother England. I’m referring to the post war period of Sir Robert Menzies who always regarded Australia as a colony; where the guiding hand of Daniel Mannix kept Catholics in check and the manifesto of Bob Santamaria offered a blueprint for the future. As I recall, this was also a time when the conservative mindset thought it was okay to remove Indigenous children from their traditional families. As I mulled over this nostalgia for the past and its stifling moral hypocrisy, it occurred to me that a good way to explain what is happening within the conservative ranks today, i.e. this obsession with our moral compass, would be to borrow from the words of that much loved poem by A. B. (Banjo) Patterson, ‘The Man from Snowy River.’ One could even look at Banjo’s work as a kind of Nostradamus styled futuristic quatrain, except that, in the literary sense, it’s not a quatrain. But let’s not allow truth to get in the way of a good comparison; for the sake of the argument we’ll say it is a quatrain. Take the first couple of lines:
There was movement at the station, for the word had passed around
That the colt from old Regret had got away,
The colt in this case is our moral compass. Old Regret represents the good old days when our moral compass was under lock and key and tightly controlled.
And had joined the wild bush horses — he was worth a thousand pound,
Our moral compass apparently got fed up with the aforementioned stifling moral hypocrisy, sank to its lowest ebb, busted out, deserted the time honoured ideals that were, to those in power, considered so valuable and joined the world of reprobates, philanderers and rascals who, it appeared, were having such a good time in another world .
So all the cracks had gathered to the fray.
The cracks (those that would save us from ourselves, aka Cory Bernadi and others), heard the call that our moral compass was in decline and decided to do something about it.
All the tried and noted riders from the stations near and far
Had mustered at the homestead overnight,
So now what we are seeing is a call to arms by the children of the old guard to restore what was once our finest period. Cory Bernadi is just one of those ‘cracks’. Other ‘tried and noted riders’ include our PM, Tony Abbott and other less notable characters such as Kevin Andrews, Christopher Pyne and a host of others. One suspects they are gathered in various dark corners of Parliament House in select groups planning and plotting to restore the old world order.
For the Bushmen love hard riding where the wild bush horses are,
And the stock-horse snuffs the battle with delight.
Can’t you see the grins on their faces as these men and women of the right sense a new beginning? But who is doing the calling? Is it the Bushmen? Is it the stock horse? In fact neither. The Bushmen simply follow the Cracks. They are on a mission responding to the call (from whom we don’t know), and are determined to save us from whatever it is that they think we need to be saved from, whether we like it or not! And their stock-horses are the means by which they will seek out and find the objectionable elements within our society and eliminate the evils that they think have corrupted the masses. For those evils you can read same sex marriage, one parent families and a handful of other things. Who are the stock horses? My crystal ball tells me they are those special appointees called to sit down and examine the various problems and recommend appropriate solutions. Sophie Mirabella will set a naval course, Tim Wilson will sort out that annoying Human Rights situation, Peter Costello will guard the future fund, David Kemp will sort out University funding and Amanda Vanstone will set the agenda for the Commission of Audit.
Then there are the cracks like Joe Hockey, Harrison, who made his pile when Pardon won the cup. Joe’s going to transform the economy back to the way it was when Howard was in charge. Christopher Pyne, The old man with his hair as white as snow, (not a good physical comparison), is saddling up to show us how our children should be taught; but not the way people thought they would be taught or wanted to be taught. And, finally we have the all-weather bushman, Greg Hunt who will convert all those horrible climate change activists with his Direct Action plan.
Then fast the horsemen followed, where the gorges deep and black
Resounded to the thunder of their tread,
So, they are off and running, full of vigour, purpose and conviction. But guess who wins the role of Clancy of the Overflow? Yep. It’s Cory.
So Clancy rode to wheel them – he was racing on the wing
Where the best and boldest riders take their place,
But then things get difficult and this is where we look into the future. The problem is that all these bushmen and stock horses run into a bit of bother and pull up just when the going gets tough.
When they reached the mountain’s summit, even Clancy took a pull, It well might make the boldest hold their breath,
So, what will happen? Does it end well? It depends on your point of view.
I could continue through the poem but it’s a bit too long. Banjo’s quatrain continues to demonstrate how, in my humble interpretation, the moral compass of the left is brought under control by The Man from Snowy River and his death defying stunts. This would be the point where Cory and his supporters take heart. After all, The Man from Snowy River does rescue the colt from the wild herd. He is victorious.
But the problem is that the cracks, the bushmen and the stock horses don’t win the day. Someone else has to show them how to get the job done. And that someone else is not one of them.
He hails from Snowy River, up by Kosciusko’s side, Where the hills are twice as steep and twice as rough.
What can we learn from all this? Morality is subjective. Cory’s morality is not my morality.
Cory is not the first crack to carry the flag for the conservative tea party minded members or the others at the station. He won’t be the last. But he is not The Man and in a world becoming increasingly secular and rejecting the narrow-minded world view of a plethora of bible bashing nut cases, Cory is more likely Clancy, keen and dedicated, committed and unyielding, but unlikely to go the distance. He will find his niche somewhere, but I suspect it won’t be in politics.
So, to all the cracks and bushmen within the Liberal and National Party ranks who are thinking of joining this present fray and believe they’re up to the task of changing an ever more progressive Landscape Australia, I say, good luck with that, but don’t hold your breath. You’ll be a long time dead.
John Kelly
John Kelly is 68, retired and lives in Melbourne. He holds a Bachelor of Communications degree majoring in Journalism and Media Relations. He is the author of four novels and one autobiography. He writes regularly on his own blog site ‘The view from my garden‘, covering a variety of social, religious and political issues.
[twitter-follow screen_name=’aquinine’ show_count=’yes’]
22 comments
Login here Register here-
mars08 -
Matters not. -
MARK WHELAN WRITES -
mikisdad -
Kaye Lee -
Billy moir -
Phil34 -
mikisdad -
Kaye Lee -
goodrumo -
Kaye Lee -
John Kelly -
mikisdad -
mikisdad -
Kaye Lee -
silkworm -
John Kelly -
Jan Dobson -
edward eastwood -
mikisdad -
mikisdad -
John Kelly
Return to home pageDon’t remember where I read it…. but it seems that the book has gone into it’s second printing….
John Kelly, that’s a great piece. As for:
I think you’re correct, but if the political ground shifts greatly, both you and I could be totally wrong.
He may figure as Roskam does that the real power lies outside the need to get elected.
An excellent piece by your guest. We have much in common in our small world. A poor pity that John hasn’t read THE CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION as it would have been a more rewarding reading experience in gaining his observations of the book, both objective and subjective.
I write from Cape Town and would be most delighted if you could take some time over my posts. Perhaps I could even send you a note as a guest?
Looking forward to more, time permitting.
MARK
An interesting piece, John, and entertaining in its own way but I think a poorly contrived parallel for Banjo’s poem.
The poem is not “too long” but what is, perhaps, is sustaining the inventive but none-the-less contrived comparison.
Clancy was a hero, a man among men, who lived hard lives and has a sense of community, free spirit, and adventure. Cory, Abbott, Pyne, and the LNP and conservative lot, in general, do not have those qualities, in fact, almost to a one, male or female, they appear to be quite the opposite – anything but heroes.
A “moral compass” is, as you say, subjective. However, the left side of politics can hardly claim particular ascendancy in this regard over the LNP. It was a Labor government that used troops against the workers; a Labor government that continued and even extended abhorrent refugee policies and a Labor government that disadvantaged single parents. That Liberal governments are, perhaps, more likely to enact these sorts of controls does not mitigate the Left’s willingness to use them when it suits.
I’m not sure that the world is “becoming increasingly secular” and, although having no religious affiliation or belief, myself; I feel that the polemic, “bible bashing nutcases” suggests a particular prejudice on your part and is unbecoming of someone who clearly has a bent for the written word. It also reflects what is a reality of modern society, and a sad one – the adversarial nature of culture in the modern, so-called, developed world. Instead of attempting to understand one another and work together to improve humanity’s lot, we seem to almost automatically demean, abuse, and attack any opinion other than our own – and this, too, applies to those on both the Left and the Right side of the political spectrum.
I’m not sure on what you base your assertion of “…an ever more progressive landscape Australia” but as someone who has lived here for over 40 years, I find it hard to see how you can justify that statement.
Having said all that – I accept that it is easier to be critically evaluative than to create. I did find the piece interesting and I hope that you do continue to contribute though perhaps in a slightly more measured fashion of which, I am sure, you are certainly capable. 🙂
I have heard and read enough of Senator Bernardi’s views that I would not give them implied credence by purchasing or reading his book. I find his views offensive, divisive and intolerant. It is patently obvious he has never studied any social sciences, nor consulted the experts in the field, preferring to back his opinion by his interpretation of the bible. He is a dangerous person who has dangerous associations. He invited Geert Wilders to Australia. He has connections with the Tea Party in America. These extreme views should not be part of Australian politics.
I am confused by your story where Corey is a star
Cos pierce Akers finger dipped in tar
Wrote bernadi? Middle of the road he are
And you left the rabbott out
Whose thinking the book’s about
So if us brumbies are nicely tamed
And billy picture nicely framed
If all the girls take bed and tea
Then Corey’s like is all there’ll be
Cory aspires to be the leader of our own taliban and chrissey and donnoly can set up our own madrassas to educate our children
One of the best ways to test one’s own arguments is to play, “Devil’s advocate” and attempt to argue the other side or other views.
All views, even extremist ones, must be allowed within a truly democratic and free society, no matter how reprehensible, inaccurate or repulsive they may be to some.
Criticising a work without first having read it amounts to worthless opinion and, usually, downright prejudice. It is the very stuff of censorship and those who call for it, most of whom have no actual experience of whatever it is that they attempt to censor. It is also an irony that some are officially appointed to experience material and censor on our behalf and yet, it sees, they will not suffer from the experience.
I have no truck with Bernadi’s opinions but those who condemn without examination let down both themselves and the arguments against his views.
The excerpts I have read from the book indicate that it is a rehash of things that I have heard before from Mr Bernardi. I have read a great deal of his written work. I have listened to or read his speeches in Parliament. I have visited his various websites. How much of the same stuff do I need to read before you consider me able to express an opinion (something I noticed you also did mikisdad). I am not condemning without examination. Does this book contain anything new? Not from what I have heard so far.
Reblogged this on iheariseeilearn.
I wonder if the book details Mr Bernardi’s fierce defence of lingerie football where he stated in a Senate hearing that
“people like to go and admire the athletes not only for their sporting performances but, in many instances, for the way they look or their physiques. That is not unusual and it is a very reasonable thing. I found it an unusual thing for you to wade into as sports minister, when many people out there would regard it as entertainment more akin to the WWF—and that is not the World Wildlife Fund….. I did not know they wear suspenders. If they do, it is entertainment.”
This ‘light hearted’ article was not meant to be an isolated critique of Cory Bernadi or his book, but of the socially conservative ‘obsession with our moral compass’, demonstrated by people like Cory and seemingly inherent within LNP ranks. I’m sure there are politicians on the Labor side who probably share Cory’s views but don’t make themselves a target for criticism. I suspect Cory thinks he’s on a mission, that’s okay, but when you stick your head out, or open the front door, you need to recognise that this can bring some pretty harsh responses. I’m sure Cory realised this at the time. As I said in the article, he’s not the first and won’t be the last.
You don’t “have” to do anything, Kaye, for me to consider you able to express an opinion. My comments apply generally and were not addressed specifically to your own. However, there is a difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed or predetermined one. I simply made the point that expressing a view about something of which one has no direct knowledge is a mistake.
Since you raise the point – you *are* condemning without examination for you stated that you had not read the book. Hearsay and prior observation of other material do not constitute examination of this book.
I am not the enemy, Kaye. The opinion I expressed was not about the books worth or, indeed, that of Mr Bernadi, it was a caution about voicing judgments without a solid base from which to make them. It does, as I have said before, weaken rather than strengthen your argument and therefore serves neither yourself nor your cause very well.
John, I’m sorry you took offense at my comments. I didn’t think that I’d said anything disparaging about your work but simply pointed to some flaws in your argument. My apologies.
“it was a caution about voicing judgments without a solid base from which to make them”
And I was pointing out to you that I consider that I DO have a solid base from which to make them. As John pointed out, neither he nor I are attempting to critiquing a book we haven’t read. I have expressed an opinion about what I have read and heard of Bernardi’s views. My refusing to read something written by someone for whom I have no respect hardly amounts to censorship, and I stand by my opinion that the extreme views of people like Geert Wilders and his inciting of hatred have no place in Australian politics.
Mikisdad, you have made the assumption that Labor is a left-wing party and that everything they do is representative of the Left. You give examples of bad things that Labor has done, and condemn the Left for that. You need to reexamine your definitions of what constitutes Left and Right.
Reblogged this on THE VIEW FROM MY GARDEN and commented:
A lighthearted, modern interpretation of an old favourite.
I’ll leave the critique of your referencing Paterson’s work with Bernardi’s thought processes to others. But would like to say that although hindsight is purported to be 20/20, it appears there are a lot of people, Bernardi amongst them, with a very idealized memory of the Menzies era and who also appear to be confusing morality with ideology.
My mother was bought up in that era, taught and passed on the “do as you would be done by” ethic which allows others the rights to their own choices. Given the choice, I stay with my family’s principles, thank you.
Mr Kelly must have very long arms from drawing very long bows.
Had he at least perused Bernardi’s diatribe with even the most cursory of examinations he would have discovered that ‘The Conservative Revolution’ is far closer to the sociopath rantings of Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand coupled with the religious fervor that one normally associates with the Christian fundamentalism of the American Deep South than it ever does to works of Patterson.
While I’m not bereft of humor and certainly enjoy a good joke and clever satire, Mr. Kelly’s piece would cause even the dullest of freshman to blush, and one wonders whether the object of the article is aimed more toward his own self aggrandisement rather than ‘a lighthearted modern interpretation of an old favourite.’
Drivel!
O.k., Kaye – have it your own way. You are so convinced that you are right about everything that you can no longer see when you are not. You fail even to recognise the difference between friend and enemy. That’s both sad and unproductive.
Silkworm, thank you for your advice but your assertions are in error.
I don’t and haven’t condemned the Left for the “bad things Labor has done”, neither have I expressed the belief that everything that Labor does “is representative of the Left”.
I don’t assume anything about the Australian Labor Party. The fact is that the Australian Labor Party is generally regarded as being on the “Left” of the political spectrum and the LNP as on the “Right”. My point was simply that both sides of the political spectrum and, indeed, all those involved in the political spectrum do both bad and good things. My argument was, in fact, quite the opposite of what your comments suggest. 🙂
Thank you, Edward for bringing me back to Earth.