I have heard commentators from all kinds of political positions commenting that the retiring Premier of Victoria was a person of political genius. Rubbish.

To make this claim is to denigrate what ‘genius’ means for humans. It validates means regardless of ends. For example, someone might be clever, but a ratbag. Someone might obtain their stated goals, but be destructive in the process. Someone may achieve a unique control over conditions, but do so as a dictator.

Someone in this vein of leadership can also be masterful in having their agenda heard, but be utterly intolerant towards differences of opinion. Such a person may even be able to win over the general populace, but keep them like comfortable fun lovers unaware of the cliff towards which they heading.

How then is any of this ‘genius’? Surely it is a blatant ruthlessness that enables them to be bold. Such confidence comes when such a leader is deaf to a morality that transcends any of their whims. One of Merriam-Webster’s definitions of genius is: ‘Extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity.’ Notice the last phrase which notes creative activity. My premise is that all the cleverness outlined above has led to being destructive rather than to being creative. Some might suggest this is ‘harmful genius’ – but I contend this is an oxymoron, because to be good in human endeavour means that we must move towards good for humanity.

Thus, the departing Premier, who moved his state towards destructive ends under the pretence of maintaining safety and development, should not be called a ‘genius’, nor be given any congratulations. For example, he learned that enough money kept voters happy, so he drove his state into dangerous levels of debt. He also saw that promises of safety enabled him to keep people locked up like ‘rats in a cage’ (to quote the Smashing Pumpkins). Citizens protesting at such action, and the lack of any transparency of the so-called science, found themselves shot with rubber bullets or arrested in their PJs in front of children while pregnant.

Is it any surprise that one commentator said the day he resigned, ‘Perhaps we might now see more Westminster Parliament…’ Hear that? This is a confession that under Premier Andrews, the Westminster system of governance, through which our democratic freedoms are expressed, has been diminished. Our system is not perfect (because good and bad runs through all of us), but it is better than the rest, and the strengths of our nation are testament to its veracity. And yet here we have a retiring premier who has restricted freedom of movement, freedom of expression and speech – and not yet mentioned, freedom of faith.

The Andrews government was a champion of euthanasia, sex-selective abortion, and restricting parents’ involvement in the lives of their children while increasing the state’s authority (without any responsibility).

Rising energy prices as a consequence of bad policy risked the poor dying from the cold, such is the kindness of progressive politics.

As a child, I learned an important lesson in year 6 over 50 years ago. Our (wonderful) teacher had us practise being in a courtroom to help understand our system of law. One of my friends was being tried for doing something wrong during a lesson. He was quite brilliant and argued his case (representing himself) on the grounds that he was such a ‘good fella’ and that he had achieved so much in our class in good humour. That I still remember this is a complement to our teacher. And yes, the ‘jury’ found my mate innocent. Talking in the corridor later, my mate laughed when I checked in with him about his ‘trial’. Why did he laugh? Because he knew he was guilty, but found a narrative to work a different angle.

More recently, it also brings to mind a conference I attended. One of the papers was along the lines of the ‘family goodness of Genghis Khan’ (yes, the papers, about education, were very diverse). After listening to the historical case study, I could not resist at the end asking whether the presenter should also note that he was a bloodthirsty tyrant – killing and fear were the means of his success. The shocked look on her face let me know that I had interrupted the nice vibe she had created about this historical figure.

What will happen to the Dan Andrews vibe in the months and years following his departure from office? Will his ‘nice fella’ and ‘genius’ reputation survive the scrutiny of time? We’ll soon see…

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in