At one time, just 400 or so years ago, the bubbles in champagne were considered a blemish. The story that the Benedictine monk, Dom Perignon, called out excitedly from his cellar (“come quickly, I am tasting the stars”) was a marketing invention of the early 1800s. The famous cleric actually spent most of his time attempting to eliminate the secondary fermentation that is, today, so highly sought after. It was when the French court suddenly decided fizz was fashionable that the drink exploded in its popularity.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
So why did we indulge so excitedly on New Year’s Eve? And why is it that we link the popping of a cork on one particular night so inextricably with the idea of a new beginning and resolutions for personal change and a determination to view the world afresh?
The idea we can draw a line under the past and start again is a vital part of what makes us human. It allows us to tackle big problems by offering the hope that things just might turn out differently next time, and that’s great. And we do, indeed, possess a real ability to change the particular circumstances around us and alter our immediate future.
It’s this ability to negotiate our environment that will be critical in the coming year. At least this is something that we, as individuals, can control. The real challenge lies, however, in the way our politicians will attempt to frame the critical questions that will determine if our society is to succeed.
These are not the issues we’re likely to hear about in the coming election campaign, and perhaps that goes some way towards explaining our current disillusion with politics. When Kevin Rudd came to power he excited the nation by canvassing the big issues – reconciliation, climate change, and finding meaning in the world. As it turned out he was to prove singularly ill-equipped to address these.
Rudd convinced us, for example, of the need to do something about the reality of our changing environment. The problem was he thought he could walk away from negotiating a politically acceptable outcome with the Greens, instead revelling as he watched the coalition rip itself apart. Tactical triumph. He unleashed forces within the conservatives that are still tearing at the increasingly thin fabric that’s holding the government together – but that hasn’t converted itself into strategic success.
Rudd’s rhetoric during the election campaign had promised more; he’d presented himself as genuinely committed to principles that over-rode electoral success. When opinion polls showed Rudd was wobbling it offered the ambitious Bill Shorten the chance he needed to strike.
The question this year will answer is whether Shorten is capable of articulating a strategy of governing that goes beyond the tactics of promised tax cuts for all.
(I should note, here, that it seems pointless to bother pausing and considering what Scott Morrison might do between now and the election. At this stage even a brilliant campaign would not be enough to save the government – and the new PM’s given no hint he’s capable of staying on message for longer than it takes to grill a couple of sausages on a barby.)
The tragedy is that huge issues confront the country. The next couple of years will be critical in determining if we manage to succeed or fail. The critical requirement is to accept the world as it is and wean ourselves from knee-jerk, ideological, or formulaic responses to what seems to be happening around us.
Take Trump’s sudden announcement that he’s pulling troops out from the Middle East. This has shocked and horrified the military establishment and provoked the resignation of former Defence Secretary General Jim Mattis. It’s worth recognising, however, that despite decades of conflict the military apparatus of Washington (and little ally Canberra) have absolutely failed to demonstrate any capacity to craft a solution to the conflict. The reality is the war in Afghanistan is not winnable. By staying the course we are simply supporting corruption and postponing the political accommodation that is necessary for a resolution. All Trump has done (in this particular case) is expose the failure of the policies of the past.
This is not to suggest for a moment that Trump is wise and his policies are good – but the point is he’s the US President and we need to accept him the way he is.
Similarly with Xi Jinping, who in March somehow came to be endorsed as President-for-life. Can a country with such a huge population really not produce another leader as capable as Xi? Eventually China will find a way of transitioning; the key for us is not to be caught up in transient, ephemeral conflicts in the meantime. This means we need to be secure. We won’t achieve this by retreating to the certainties of the past. We need to engage positively with the future.
It’s a shibboleth to say the pace of change is speeding up. What’s more relevant is the need to recognise the anchor points that have held us fast and kept us secure before are now changing. We need to work out our principles, use these to decide how we want to live, and actually begin putting these into operation rather than mouthing them emptily as platitudes.
The cost of our continuing failure to articulate these properly will become greater every year.
Nicholas Stuart is a Canberra writer
