This is fine: An existential guide to Australian politics
Albert Camus would have been a lousy goalkeeper. Think about it. The French-Algerian standing between the posts, his head in the clouds. Reports say the writer excelled for Algiers Racing Uni's First XI, but I have my doubts. Imagine relying on Albert as your last line of defence, the bloke spouting stuff like, 'The only real progress lies in learning to be wrong all alone'. Or: 'An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself'.
Wake up, Albie! The ball is coming! Tuberculosis intervened, sadly, the goalie trading gloves for philosophy, plus those olive-green novels – The Stranger, The Fall – that ask the big questions. Each title has been a staple of high school and Existentialism 101.
Not that Camus used the term. Indeed he rejected the e-word, preferring instead to forge fables around the incomprehensibility of existence. As that's the central plank, that irksome query about why we're here, and what we should do about it. 'Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is,' as Camus said. Which makes you wonder what we're meant to be.
Precisely the conundrum heard in Canberra this month. Is it any wonder? How can a power bloc of two parties implode into a rabble, losing seats like musical chairs, going from Coalition to Noalition? Cartoonist Cathy Wilcox depicted a bisected couch, one parent per half, both insisting 'Mummy and Daddy still love you very much'. Question being, are Mama Ley and Papa Littleproud going through a break-up, or merely a break? Either way, whether this new reunion lasts, the existentialism burns deep, fanned by those pesky Camus questions.
'I can't go on, I'll go on,' as Samuel Beckett said, a handy left-hand opener for Trinity College, and another writer besotted by existentialism. Macquarie Dictionary defines the ideology as 'a group of doctrines – some theistic, some atheistic – deriving from Kierkegaard, which stress the importance of existence, and of the freedom and responsibility of the finite mind.'
Existential first emerged about 1693 as an adjective for existence. A century on, Soren Kierkegaard co-opted the ism to refute the divine logic that Georg Hegel fancied, where the rational is actual, and vice versa. Lort, thought Soren: Danish for bullshit. In his milestone work Either/Or, the philosopher writes, 'There are two possible situations – one can either do this or do that. My honest opinion, and my friendly advice is this: do it, or do not do it. You will regret both.'
Loading
Remind you of anyone – federally, I mean? Hence the e-word's rise. Existential now applies to politics, the arts, deconstruction cuisine, eco-anxiety, and anywhere you look. Last year Flinders University revealed how doomscrolling – surfing online between Gaza and La Nina – breeds existentialism. Reza Shebahang, the study's lead, claimed the custom has 'dire consequences on our mental health, leaving us feeling stress, anxiety, despair and questioning the meaning of life'.
Smart machines and AI inroads only deepen the abyss. Pushed to existential extremes, we feel like adjuncts to this thing called life. Avatars. Daydreamers in the goalmouth. Or characters living life forwards so that we might understand what we're doing in hindsight, to paraphrase Kierkegaard. If it's any comfort to party leaders, doomscrollers and general AI alarmists, remember that 'the key to being happy isn't a search for meaning. It's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually, you'll be dead'. Camus? Beckett? Try Mr Peanutbutter, the easygoing labrador from BoJack Horseman.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
5 hours ago
- The Age
The Libs have been handed a golden opportunity. Now, watch them stuff it up
One of the great entertainments of political commentary in Australia over the past decade-and-a-bit has been speculating on what new and inventive way the Liberal Party will find to comprehensively bugger itself up. I can't help thinking this must have crossed Treasurer Jim Chalmers' mind as he fronted the National Press Club this week to announce that he will undertake a process to develop a new productivity agenda. Chalmers' speech was solid, but then so it should be after so many have said the same things so often to so little avail. His words and aspirations have been written for him many times over, sometimes with hope, other times with emotions ranging from dull rage to despair. Sometimes even by the Coalition. We need productivity reform, politicians all know we need it, the media all know they know we need it, yet no-one ever does it. There's a simple reason for that: it's hard. The treasurer dwelt in his speech on why it's hard. Reforming an economic system requires trade-offs. Some choices will cost some people. They may or may not be recompensed in the rejig. Chalmers doesn't want the media to simplify economic reform by explaining it in terms of 'winners and losers', as they do after each budget, but there will be winners and losers in the short, medium, or long term as a result of any new tax system. And, naturally, the opposition will do what the name says on the tin. It will oppose. Given the last years of Liberal shenanigans, the real question is how it chooses to do that. In one scenario, Sussan Ley leads a team which analyses and criticises the government's productivity proposals to ensure the best outcome for Australia and Australians. Should they choose this version of their own adventure, there will be plenty of material to tackle. The prime minister has already shown that he has no instinct for making business more efficient or even any understanding that a healthy economy relies on the private sector, creating new wealth instead of just shifting existing money around. In the first term of the Albanese government, the size of the public sector grew relative to the size of the private sector, so now each private employee is supporting more public sector salaries. Loading Then-employment minister Tony Burke passed through an industrial relations bill which makes it harder for businesses to scale up without locking themselves into costly arrangements. Meanwhile, the 'Future Made in Australia' slush fund has been 'picking winners' (code for government making decisions on industries it poorly understands) by investing in bringing in an overseas quantum technology firm rather than backing existing quantum technology firms – ahem – made in Australia. Labor is even trashing its own legacy by changing the rules on the superannuation system it forced people to contribute to, undermining trust that the money you lock away for retirement is really yours for later. It's hard to see how a government which made policies of this sort a priority and prefers the public to the private sector will back a productivity agenda which turns Australia around. But one of the great paradoxes of politics is that sometimes you need the party which is seen to be the touchy-feely side to deliver hard-nosed decisions. Think Labour prime minister Tony Blair in the UK, Democrat president Bill Clinton in the USA, or chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, all of whom delivered welfare reform in the face of their countries' badly designed benefits systems, which were creating disincentives to work.
Sydney Morning Herald
5 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The Libs have been handed a golden opportunity. Now, watch them stuff it up
One of the great entertainments of political commentary in Australia over the past decade-and-a-bit has been speculating on what new and inventive way the Liberal Party will find to comprehensively bugger itself up. I can't help thinking this must have crossed Treasurer Jim Chalmers' mind as he fronted the National Press Club this week to announce that he will undertake a process to develop a new productivity agenda. Chalmers' speech was solid, but then so it should be after so many have said the same things so often to so little avail. His words and aspirations have been written for him many times over, sometimes with hope, other times with emotions ranging from dull rage to despair. Sometimes even by the Coalition. We need productivity reform, politicians all know we need it, the media all know they know we need it, yet no-one ever does it. There's a simple reason for that: it's hard. The treasurer dwelt in his speech on why it's hard. Reforming an economic system requires trade-offs. Some choices will cost some people. They may or may not be recompensed in the rejig. Chalmers doesn't want the media to simplify economic reform by explaining it in terms of 'winners and losers', as they do after each budget, but there will be winners and losers in the short, medium, or long term as a result of any new tax system. And, naturally, the opposition will do what the name says on the tin. It will oppose. Given the last years of Liberal shenanigans, the real question is how it chooses to do that. In one scenario, Sussan Ley leads a team which analyses and criticises the government's productivity proposals to ensure the best outcome for Australia and Australians. Should they choose this version of their own adventure, there will be plenty of material to tackle. The prime minister has already shown that he has no instinct for making business more efficient or even any understanding that a healthy economy relies on the private sector, creating new wealth instead of just shifting existing money around. In the first term of the Albanese government, the size of the public sector grew relative to the size of the private sector, so now each private employee is supporting more public sector salaries. Loading Then-employment minister Tony Burke passed through an industrial relations bill which makes it harder for businesses to scale up without locking themselves into costly arrangements. Meanwhile, the 'Future Made in Australia' slush fund has been 'picking winners' (code for government making decisions on industries it poorly understands) by investing in bringing in an overseas quantum technology firm rather than backing existing quantum technology firms – ahem – made in Australia. Labor is even trashing its own legacy by changing the rules on the superannuation system it forced people to contribute to, undermining trust that the money you lock away for retirement is really yours for later. It's hard to see how a government which made policies of this sort a priority and prefers the public to the private sector will back a productivity agenda which turns Australia around. But one of the great paradoxes of politics is that sometimes you need the party which is seen to be the touchy-feely side to deliver hard-nosed decisions. Think Labour prime minister Tony Blair in the UK, Democrat president Bill Clinton in the USA, or chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, all of whom delivered welfare reform in the face of their countries' badly designed benefits systems, which were creating disincentives to work.
The Advertiser
a day ago
- The Advertiser
EU-Aust free trade deal: a "middle finger to Trump"
There is appetite for the European Union and Australia to signal a "middle finger to Trump" by uniting on a long-awaited free trade deal but some in Brussels are tempering expectations of a quick turnaround. Trade talks kicked off in 2018 but Canberra walked away about 18 months ago over unsatisfactory market access for beef and lamb producers, and a reluctance to give up naming rights on products for geographical origin reasons, including feta, parmesan and prosecco. Fast forward to 2025 and US President Donald Trump's tariff antics have brought both parties back to the negotiating table. There was speculation of a quick conclusion with the Australian Financial Review reporting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had flagged a trip to Australia for late July or early August in anticipation of signing a deal. This echoed the fact she had also been quick to flag an agreement while offering Anthony Albanese her congratulations on becoming prime minister via Twitter in 2022. But multiple EU spokespeople have declined to confirm the travel, telling AAP a Down Under trip is "not on the radar". Despite acknowledging renewed political will, various sources in Brussels are cautioning patience. "There is no rush," according to one inside the EU Commission. "I wouldn't even say the end of the year, I would say more next year." Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow with Brussels think-tank Bruegel, estimates it could take at least another six months to resolve outstanding issues on agricultural tariffs and quotas. "The broad contour of the deal is already negotiated," he told AAP. "They know where the skeletons are buried. It takes a political grand bargain to do it." He noted that if the EU makes concessions, it would likely encounter an angry backlash from French and Polish farmers, who also opposed the EU's deal last year with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. However tractor and manure street protests wouldn't be enough to block a deal with Canberra, he said. Amid Washington's shift to extreme trade protectionism, an EU-Australian free trade deal would send a strong message to the Trump administration, Kirkegaard said. "As two of America's traditional allies, if both the EU and Australia find themselves subject to US tariffs, what better way than to do a deal with each other," he said. "So perhaps both countries feel this political signal is kind of a middle finger to Trump as well." Back in Melbourne, Sicilian-born cheesemaker Giorgio Linguanti from That's Amore Cheese faces an anxious wait to find out whether he can continue to market his wares using generic terms like parmesan or mozzarella. Yet he is open to compromise. "We should call it Australian parmesan and Australian feta because Australian milk is the best in the world," he said. Canberra and Brussels announced on Wednesday separate negotiations on a defence pact to boost defence industry, cyber-security and counter-terrorism co-operation. But it would not have military deployment obligations. There is appetite for the European Union and Australia to signal a "middle finger to Trump" by uniting on a long-awaited free trade deal but some in Brussels are tempering expectations of a quick turnaround. Trade talks kicked off in 2018 but Canberra walked away about 18 months ago over unsatisfactory market access for beef and lamb producers, and a reluctance to give up naming rights on products for geographical origin reasons, including feta, parmesan and prosecco. Fast forward to 2025 and US President Donald Trump's tariff antics have brought both parties back to the negotiating table. There was speculation of a quick conclusion with the Australian Financial Review reporting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had flagged a trip to Australia for late July or early August in anticipation of signing a deal. This echoed the fact she had also been quick to flag an agreement while offering Anthony Albanese her congratulations on becoming prime minister via Twitter in 2022. But multiple EU spokespeople have declined to confirm the travel, telling AAP a Down Under trip is "not on the radar". Despite acknowledging renewed political will, various sources in Brussels are cautioning patience. "There is no rush," according to one inside the EU Commission. "I wouldn't even say the end of the year, I would say more next year." Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow with Brussels think-tank Bruegel, estimates it could take at least another six months to resolve outstanding issues on agricultural tariffs and quotas. "The broad contour of the deal is already negotiated," he told AAP. "They know where the skeletons are buried. It takes a political grand bargain to do it." He noted that if the EU makes concessions, it would likely encounter an angry backlash from French and Polish farmers, who also opposed the EU's deal last year with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. However tractor and manure street protests wouldn't be enough to block a deal with Canberra, he said. Amid Washington's shift to extreme trade protectionism, an EU-Australian free trade deal would send a strong message to the Trump administration, Kirkegaard said. "As two of America's traditional allies, if both the EU and Australia find themselves subject to US tariffs, what better way than to do a deal with each other," he said. "So perhaps both countries feel this political signal is kind of a middle finger to Trump as well." Back in Melbourne, Sicilian-born cheesemaker Giorgio Linguanti from That's Amore Cheese faces an anxious wait to find out whether he can continue to market his wares using generic terms like parmesan or mozzarella. Yet he is open to compromise. "We should call it Australian parmesan and Australian feta because Australian milk is the best in the world," he said. Canberra and Brussels announced on Wednesday separate negotiations on a defence pact to boost defence industry, cyber-security and counter-terrorism co-operation. But it would not have military deployment obligations. There is appetite for the European Union and Australia to signal a "middle finger to Trump" by uniting on a long-awaited free trade deal but some in Brussels are tempering expectations of a quick turnaround. Trade talks kicked off in 2018 but Canberra walked away about 18 months ago over unsatisfactory market access for beef and lamb producers, and a reluctance to give up naming rights on products for geographical origin reasons, including feta, parmesan and prosecco. Fast forward to 2025 and US President Donald Trump's tariff antics have brought both parties back to the negotiating table. There was speculation of a quick conclusion with the Australian Financial Review reporting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had flagged a trip to Australia for late July or early August in anticipation of signing a deal. This echoed the fact she had also been quick to flag an agreement while offering Anthony Albanese her congratulations on becoming prime minister via Twitter in 2022. But multiple EU spokespeople have declined to confirm the travel, telling AAP a Down Under trip is "not on the radar". Despite acknowledging renewed political will, various sources in Brussels are cautioning patience. "There is no rush," according to one inside the EU Commission. "I wouldn't even say the end of the year, I would say more next year." Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow with Brussels think-tank Bruegel, estimates it could take at least another six months to resolve outstanding issues on agricultural tariffs and quotas. "The broad contour of the deal is already negotiated," he told AAP. "They know where the skeletons are buried. It takes a political grand bargain to do it." He noted that if the EU makes concessions, it would likely encounter an angry backlash from French and Polish farmers, who also opposed the EU's deal last year with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. However tractor and manure street protests wouldn't be enough to block a deal with Canberra, he said. Amid Washington's shift to extreme trade protectionism, an EU-Australian free trade deal would send a strong message to the Trump administration, Kirkegaard said. "As two of America's traditional allies, if both the EU and Australia find themselves subject to US tariffs, what better way than to do a deal with each other," he said. "So perhaps both countries feel this political signal is kind of a middle finger to Trump as well." Back in Melbourne, Sicilian-born cheesemaker Giorgio Linguanti from That's Amore Cheese faces an anxious wait to find out whether he can continue to market his wares using generic terms like parmesan or mozzarella. Yet he is open to compromise. "We should call it Australian parmesan and Australian feta because Australian milk is the best in the world," he said. Canberra and Brussels announced on Wednesday separate negotiations on a defence pact to boost defence industry, cyber-security and counter-terrorism co-operation. But it would not have military deployment obligations. There is appetite for the European Union and Australia to signal a "middle finger to Trump" by uniting on a long-awaited free trade deal but some in Brussels are tempering expectations of a quick turnaround. Trade talks kicked off in 2018 but Canberra walked away about 18 months ago over unsatisfactory market access for beef and lamb producers, and a reluctance to give up naming rights on products for geographical origin reasons, including feta, parmesan and prosecco. Fast forward to 2025 and US President Donald Trump's tariff antics have brought both parties back to the negotiating table. There was speculation of a quick conclusion with the Australian Financial Review reporting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had flagged a trip to Australia for late July or early August in anticipation of signing a deal. This echoed the fact she had also been quick to flag an agreement while offering Anthony Albanese her congratulations on becoming prime minister via Twitter in 2022. But multiple EU spokespeople have declined to confirm the travel, telling AAP a Down Under trip is "not on the radar". Despite acknowledging renewed political will, various sources in Brussels are cautioning patience. "There is no rush," according to one inside the EU Commission. "I wouldn't even say the end of the year, I would say more next year." Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow with Brussels think-tank Bruegel, estimates it could take at least another six months to resolve outstanding issues on agricultural tariffs and quotas. "The broad contour of the deal is already negotiated," he told AAP. "They know where the skeletons are buried. It takes a political grand bargain to do it." He noted that if the EU makes concessions, it would likely encounter an angry backlash from French and Polish farmers, who also opposed the EU's deal last year with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. However tractor and manure street protests wouldn't be enough to block a deal with Canberra, he said. Amid Washington's shift to extreme trade protectionism, an EU-Australian free trade deal would send a strong message to the Trump administration, Kirkegaard said. "As two of America's traditional allies, if both the EU and Australia find themselves subject to US tariffs, what better way than to do a deal with each other," he said. "So perhaps both countries feel this political signal is kind of a middle finger to Trump as well." Back in Melbourne, Sicilian-born cheesemaker Giorgio Linguanti from That's Amore Cheese faces an anxious wait to find out whether he can continue to market his wares using generic terms like parmesan or mozzarella. Yet he is open to compromise. "We should call it Australian parmesan and Australian feta because Australian milk is the best in the world," he said. Canberra and Brussels announced on Wednesday separate negotiations on a defence pact to boost defence industry, cyber-security and counter-terrorism co-operation. But it would not have military deployment obligations.
