Revenge v's Justice & Grace

Jennifer Oriel’s column in the Australian today titled, Federal Election 2016, electing Labor would have dire consequences. I thought it was an insightful and sensible piece. Her last paragraph had meaning. It reads; 

“In the wake of his ousting, Abbott has demonstrated the qualities of character that earned him the office of prime minister: humility and generosity of community spirit. The political power he lost has been replaced by ­something greater: the Christian gift of grace. Instead of seeking vengeance against Turnbull or his team, Abbott took the higher ground. Conservatives too must choose between vengeance and grace in the upcoming election. Don’t leave two graves behind you at the ballot box.”

From reading the comments it appears there is a groundswell of people who are seeking revenge. Their decision of course, but I wish they would reconsider. That reminds me of a recent piece I read, written by Leon F Seltzer Ph.D. He refers to the confusion between revenge and justice. This piece is particularly relevant

. 

"Revenge is about retaliation; justice about restoring balance. The motive of revenge has mostly to do with expressing rage, hatred, or spite. It’s a protest, or payback, and its foremost intent is to harm. In and of itself, it’s not primarily about justice but about victims’ affirming their inborn (but non-legal) right to retaliate against some wrong they perceive has been done to them."

Some of those commenting in response to Jennifer Oriel’s column are disillusioned with politics. I get that. It’s those who profess to be avenging Tony Abbott’s ousting as PM, or who consider the action a betrayal of their values that intrigues me. 

The only person who has a legitimate claim to being wronged is Tony Abbott. He is openly supporting the party and campaigning to help deliver the return of an LNP government.  He has continued to fight for the values LNP supporters say they hold dear. He is about restoring balance with a workable parliament; both houses. Something his government and the Turnbull government didn't have. Let's not forget it was voters who delivered that outcome. Many are a advocating a repeat of that. I find that hard to believe but it's true. 

The majority of those who seek to slap Malcolm Turnbull down are out for revenge and retaliation. Many are honest enough to admit that is the case. Others hide behind “I will not betray my principles BS.” These are people who by their very actions are willingly heaping their desires to avenge what they consider past wrongs upon "innocent generations” who will follow. They are doing it handing government to Bill Shorten and Labor. Or worse still they risk the control of the country by placing it in the hands of a gaggle to self-interest micros or Greens. Principles? 

We have others who openly declare they are “true blue” Liberals but they are voting for Bill Shorten. True Blue? Never. No true blue Liberal would ever vote for Labor and particularly not modern Labor who wrecked havoc on this country for six years. AND, who will do it again. Bill Shorten has no economic plan, just a huge spending plan. 

These people profess to be voting for Labor in the hope it will be short lived. Then hope springs eternal again with the desire for a new conservative party to rise like a Phoenix from the ashes of defeat. That’s their idea of justice. Well I suppose that's OK if you believe in mythical creatures. But I wouldn’t be relying on hope to save ‘us’. I'd add lumbering the rest of us with Labor, Greens or a mishmash in either house is anything but just. 

"Revenge can masquerade as justice, but it frequently ends up perverting it." Yes it does. 

The question for all us genuine true blue Liberals is; what is the risk and can we really afford to take it in kicking the Libs out. Or, do we stick with what we have and help change it? I’m opting for the latter. I can’t rely on hope and I’m not into revenge. I'll stick with justice and grace. 

TONY ABBOTT A QUESTION OF LOYALTY

A lot has been said about Mr Abbott and loyalty. I've referred to it myself, many times. But as I'm prone to do, I analysis things to death and as a result, a few of the claims are not working for me anymore. As a result, I'm beginning to wonder if Mr Abbott really was that loyal or was it simply a matter of stubbornness, distrust, self protection, not having your successor to close or simply politics. Or combinations of all of them. 

I'm not making a judgement because, like many, I'm still a bit confused. I'm merely trying to rationalise things in my mind and to try and make sense of all of this. In doing that, I've looked at past actions, related some current actions to personal examples and asked myself some tough questions. I find committing things to paper and seeking input from others helpful, hence this update. 

Let's look at the Treasurers role. 

Mr Abbott was strongly advised to make Malcolm Turnbull treasurer. Scott Morrison as treasurer came much later. Whether you like him or not Mr Turnbull does have a sound economic brain. He sits much further to the right on economy than Mr Abbott. He comes from the business side of the divide. He isn't a career politician and he is certainly not a union plant. He is popular with the broader community (albeit he is extremely unpopular with the right side of the Liberal ledger). Mr Turnbull is a masterful orator (watch question time) and he can sell a vision. But it would be fair to say he has always posed a threat to Mr Abbott. So why give him the portfolio that would allow him to shine. So you keep your likely successor at arm's length? This happens a lot in business. So could this happen in the biggest business of the lot; government. It wouldn't be the first time it did. 

After the February challenge Mr Turnbull was branded 'turncoat' Turnbull. History will show that he wasn't, not then, but that is for another day. Turnbull was damaged. But Mr Morrison's star was rising. Brilliant job on border control. Although some are suggesting now that he really just reintroduced Howard's plan (I shake my head). But as usual, I've digressed. Despite pleas from inside and outside the party, Mr Abbott persisted with Mr Hockey and whilst the second budget was reasonably well received, we soon lost momentum and never really capitalised on the uplift. Remember, Mr Morrison was openly being spoken of the future PM. So once again, perhaps there was a reluctance to place Mr Morrison in the Treasurers role. The closest role to that of Prime Minister. 

Mr Morrison was left in the Social Services Portfolio. Nothing gets much profile, there anymore. However, the night of the spill, Mr Abbott offered Scott Morrison the treasurer  role. He turned it down. I would have as well given the circumstances. So was that offer merely an act of self-protection by Mr Abbott? He had defended Joe Hockey to the hilt for months but he was prepared to throw Joe Hockey under the bus at the last minute. So the question is. Protection v's Loyalty? Up to you to decide what you think. 

Poor Bronwyn Bishop. Now we have a new speaker who is doing a brilliant job we realize that Bronwyn wasn't the best speaker we've ever had. But did she deserve to be 'thrown under the bus' for doing what it seems nearly every other politician does. By the way I'm not condoning ripping off the tax payer, merely stating fact. Bronwyn's executioner Burke did far, far worse and unlike Mrs Bishop he never paid they money back. Mrs Bishop was Mr Abbott's friend. He executed her in the most brutal way and he lost a lot of respect from the middle of the road conservatives in the process. That could have been handled so much better but because in the end Mr Abbott was forced to act more as a result of Labor attacks, Bronwyn was just chopped; razored. So the question is. Self preservation v's Loyalty? 

Then we come to the Father of the House, Philip Ruddock. Another good friend who was dumped in the most humiliating fashion for supposedly not warning Mr Abbott of the level unrest. I think I can safely say, it wasn't for the want of trying on Mr Ruddock's part. So the question is. Retribution v's Loyalty? 

People had spoken at length about the dysfunction and leaking from the PMO. Ms Credlin was openly and behind closed doors discussed as being a problem and that she needed to go. Now some chat may be just that, chat and stirring. But when the chat reaches the level of an avalanche you have to start to think it's more than just chat. Mr Abbott refused to act. In fact he threatened others. He shut the door so to speak. The question is. Protection vs Stubbornness v's Loyalty? 

I don't profess to have the answers. I'm just looking a various scenarios and trying to make some sense of all this. To help me understand why certain actions were taken and when they were taken. And more importantly, why. I'm not sure if I am any clearer, but it helps to write it down. 

The question is loyalty, stubbornness, self-protection, retribution or simply politics. And why was loyalty afforded to some but not others. Loyalty does imply you don't act. You can be loyal and still deal with problems. The key is why, how, when and for what purpose. And most of all respect.