Abstract

Like most political scientists, if I were capable of doing something more interesting I would be doing it. In my case, the alternative career would probably involve music. As it happens, I can’t carry a tune in a bucket. However, that shortcoming has left me with a great fondness for musical theatre – and a profound admiration for people who are capable of creating and performing it.

Imagine my delight, then, when I discovered that a surprise hit in Australian theatre a few years ago was Keating! The Musical. A quick trip to the video shop, and I was up to my ears in bossa nova and blues, rap and reggae, soul and swing – all with a political backbeat. Truth to tell, I was prepared from the start to like Keating. Had I come of age politically in Australia of the 1990’s, Paul Keating would probably have been a hero of mine. Besides, a musical about a Labor prime minister with the biting wit more typical of conservatives (who can also sing and tap dance) – what’s not to love?

For me, however, Keating was made all the more appealing by its contrast with the most recent foray of American musical theatre into politics – Nixon in China. When he finally made it to the Big Apple, America’s thirty-seventh president came off as dark and brooding, consumed by self-doubt, and insecure in the extreme. In short, Broadway’s Nixon was a reasonable facsimile of the original (who lost the first televised presidential debate to John F. Kennedy because his upper lip was too sweaty). And Nixon’s soundtrack is similarly discomforting. It’s a minimalist collection of sounds that emphasizes stasis and repetition rather than the melodic development that characterizes, well, actual music.

Now, before you decide that I am not even trying to make a serious point, let add that I am well aware that recent Australian politics offers no worthy successor to Keating!  The current prime minister seems to have elevated being tiresome to an art form. And, her opponent makes many peoples’ skin crawl whenever he appears on TV. So the fact that Australian politics is more intrinsically entertaining than the American brand does not come down to personalities (at least with the current crop, not to personalities alone). So what makes Australian politics so much better, at least as an art form?

Some of the difference is institutional. Like many other countries, Australia has adopted a system of elections that allows for the existence of more than two parties. So, here, the Greens and the National Party play a meaningful role in political life. In the United States, on the other hand, environmentalism has fallen so far short of constituting an agenda that some individual environmentalist have to embrace it as an element of their personal identity to keep it alive – a sort of ethnicity for white folks. And, America’s social conservatives (at least since Goldwater) can’t seem to get the Wall Street Republicans to let them choose a nominee to their liking. So they are reduced to stewing in their own juices, staging “tea parties”, and screaming at the television whenever the President (“the” President, not “their” President, they are quick to remind you) appears on the screen. At a certain point, it all becomes so depressingly predictable.

Another part of the difference is situational. The United States regards itself as the indispensible actor on the global stage. When an American president pursues a strategy of watchful waiting, or leads from behind by allowing others to take deal directly with international crises, he can count on being pilloried for his lack of manly vigour. On the other hand, when Australia takes the lead internationally the decision to do so is more often a genuinely free choice. The leadership Australia is currently providing in the international debate regarding trade in military weapons and technology is a case in point. And, when Australia wishes to be an innocent bystander that option is often available. As long as the continued growth of the Chinese economy is not involved, Australia seems able to pretty much pick its targets on the global stage. In fact, it really is something of a wonder that Australians have answered the call to arms as often and as enthusiastically as they have. One can only conclude that playing the role of Wordsworth’s “happy warrior” comes more easily to people who think of themselves as real volunteers.

Finally, an unavoidable part of the difference between Australian and American politics is cultural. “Whoa boy,” you may be thinking, “here we go with the broad brush generalizations from a guy who’s only been here for two months.”  But trust me for just a bit longer, while I try to make my point without engaging in uncontrolled essentialism. Throughout their shared history, Australians seem to have treated politics like a lab experiment. Australia has been experimenting with a variety of voting systems for over 150 years. On the other hand, the United States has been using single-member district plurality voting since the Founding, making the survival of third parties virtually impossible. As a consequence of its lack of imagination, the United States suffers from genuinely deplorable voter turnout and weak levels of voter identification with the two major parties. Turn out in presidential elections has not reached 60% since 1968 and it is generally much lower in elections when the Presidency is not being contested. In Australia, of course, voter turnout is quite high because Australians take elections so seriously that they have made voting mandatory.

And yet, Australian politics, serious commitment though it is, makes good musical comedy. On the other hand, American political humour has a regrettable tendency toward the hateful rather than the lyrical. Perhaps it comes down to this. Political humour in the United States is constrained by the fact that Democrats cannot afford to poke fun at other Democrats (with the same being true for Republicans) and for that reason it seems that one can never share a laugh with the folks on the other side of the aisle. But with four parties in the field, Australians always have at least the opportunity to share a joke with one of their political opponents at the expense of a literal third party. Admittedly, it’s a bit hard to imagine Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott sharing a guffaw after hours – neither of them having any apparent sense of humour. Perhaps, however, it’s an opportunity they should consider pursuing. After all, it’s pretty hard to demonize a person once he or she has made you laugh.

So, there you have it my Aussie friends. Australian politics is more flexible, more nuanced, and more inherently interesting than American politics. And, most importantly, politics in Australia has an intrinsically higher entertainment potential than the American equivalent – for specific reasons.

Frank Baber
Visiting Fellow, School of Politics and International Relations, ANU
Graduate Center for Public Policy and Administration
California State University, Long Beach, USA