Artist Robert Bosler is Webdiary’s commentator on Latham the man. His work includes Time for Labor to play to win, not just play safe and An artist’s blueprint for a Latham win.
This country wanted political action and now we’ve got it. We’ve been given a teaser with the latest engagement between Latham and Howard, and it’s thrilling to see the lifeforce of the Australian system flushed again and pumping. After the barrenness of a seemingly endless Howard, we have our rising star, and the difference in his play was always going to alarm some of us. It’s going to get more alarming, too, so perhaps we should prepare ourselves a little.
Why is Latham alarming? We are not used to him. His style is world’s apart from his opponent. We need to get used to him and learn more about him, as he is on his way towards running the country. It’s more than a matter of style. The difference between the two men is a creative difference. One could be no more different from the other.
Creativity is not the exclusive domain of artists and writers. That we are about to talk about creativity demonstrates so wonderfully how our nation is starting to breathe again. It’s exhilarating to be talking about it again, because everything we do is a creative act. Everything. Write a shopping list, you are creative, right there.
Everything you do, every time you speak a word, or move your hand you are being creative. Creativity is our fundamental state of living. How highly you create, or what you create, are matters of your personal choice. These are also matters of self worth, of freedom and faith, and it is magnetisingly important that as a nation we begin to speak of it again.
That’s why this impending political decision – Latham or Howard – is so important to the way we will live once that decision is made. Each man is so different, creatively, that decision will affects us in much of what we will do, how we will think and how we will respond to our lot in life.
We can understand this better if we make a simple distinction between the male and female aspects of creativity.
Not gender – these are forces, the masculine force and the feminine force. Every creative act contains each of these forces. In Latham and Howard the mix could not be more different, and we need a measure of maturity in properly assessing them.
The feminine force is what comes first in the creative act. The feminine force we know as intuitive, sensitive, encompassing, receptive. This is the energy which descends upon us first in the act of creation. It is not physical in force, it is a sense.
We need then, as the second component of creativity, the masculine energy of action, of enactment, to bring the creation to be. In effect the two forces are combined intrinsically and immaculately in all we do, in varying degrees of each, and the difference in the general mix between our choice of leaders is astounding.
Latham
The man is highly creative. He is, beyond his full ability yet to control it, a man given to the creative spirit. That he cannot fully control it is not to be critical of him because the control of the creative act requires ultimately mastery, and the journey of total mastery, if anyone’s finally to obtain it, is one demanding decades.
It’s a measure of the man that he has embarked on that journey, because unlike Howard, Latham has chosen it and it is the tougher calling.
The creative spirit drives him. Because the creative spirit is driving him, empowers him, guides him, loves him – yes – for his commitment to it, this creative spirit holds him. He is so given to it he appears born unto it, and once on the journey he cannot step away.
We have here a man who feels things first, as an intuitive knowingness. This is the same intuitive knowingness once spoken of as being a woman’s knowingness or intuition, before we better understood the forces at play in each of us. It is a sensing; a sense. To the woman reading this, may this be at least another small step in our shared understanding. For the man reading this, just to be sure, know that when the footballer is about to cut through and score it is this sense he first feels.
That sense is an energy. It brings written into it the nuts and bolts of what is required to make it happen, but the nuts and bolts flow much later. First, comes the sense. Being highly creative, Latham knows only the sense, the feeling, the energy, the absolute empowerment of it, before anything else.
In humanity, this is the birthing ground of new ideas. In pure form, it is preciously rare in a political leader, and it serves us well to set aside our immediate responses, valid as they are, and look more into what this creative spirit is all about.
Given to it, Latham lives for it. To the highly creative person, the important thing above all else is to allow that sense to live, and live through them. In his capacity as a leader, Latham by his own choice, wishes to have others grow and benefit as a result of what comes to be. That is the very nature of creativity. That sense, that knowingness, that others (Australians) can grow and benefit because of what he senses is his defining characteristic.
This is the true leader. This is what eventually makes greatness. That Latham has even just begun upon this journey is electrifyingly interesting.
The element of courage in believing in the intuitive knowingness of what you can do cannot be understated. It is easier often to tie up the nuts and bolts of a new idea once it is born, but in the creative soul those nuts and bolts are in the first instance sensed only, if at all, and that they are there and that the idea can be done is a matter of absolute faith and trust.
This is the vision of leadership. To make it happen, it carries with it, also, an absolute faith in you.
Lately, in Mark Latham, we have as a nation seen these qualities begin to arrive. Right now, he is beginning his coming of age in the grander realm of our nation’s leadership and it is still very early for him in understanding the muscle of his own ability, through this creative process, on the national scale. Where it will go remains to be seen.
For now, in these early days in the journey, it could be suggested that the most important thing for him is to represent that force and to give it life, to begin to breathe it into existence. That it must live, to him, is what drives him. If so, then the nuts and bolts of it all is of lesser importance than the need to bring it to first life. If so, the nuts and bolts of what he represents he would know are written into it, and he would trust that absolutely.
Remember, we are speaking of creative forces here, not political forces, which may require of themselves that the nuts and bolts are there at the start. But not always, and no national growth will happen unless it we begin with trust. Nor are we talking here the manner of choice in the way Latham introduces policy in the electioneering process, which is a tactical issue as much as anything else, and relevant only to this political time.
Having only started his serious journey of creativity on a national scale we see a man not yet developed nor perhaps even focused on the issues – the manner – of his ideas’ introduction. That what he wishes to bring to life will result in debate or uproar would of course be well known to him. Early in the journey, he has learned that this debate and uproar will exist, as a natural response to the process, but to him right now it is more probably something to be endured, not something that he has or is wanting to have control of. That what he senses must be given life to him just now is all; that it must live, is what drives him.
Later, as the corrective forces of pragmatic government, of media, of legislation, of failure, of success bear upon him, he will learn to better represent the early stages of the force so as to limit any uproar of its introduction. These will be the steps towards mastery; mastery of the demanding creative forces driving him. That he is such a young man and is this far along that demanding journey already is remarkable in our national history, and for now he must be given this credit.
That Latham represents this high creativity stands him on his own on the political stage. And this brings him to where he can come undone. Alone the creative power is without value; it needs others to make it happen. As Latham’s power grows, so too must his ability to acknowledge the role others play in bringing what he senses to bear. It is a learning curve for all involved, and can only be done by doing.
Comparisons are being already being made with Keating. Keating, too, lived and breathed his vision. But the Keating creative force came undone, and it did so for the same reasons Latham is just beginning to face. Keating failed because he failed to bring the punter with him. So enrapturing was the vision he lost sight of the punter. Latham must learn from this, and bring the punters with him. Inspiringly, distinctly, Latham appears to have the punters foremost in his mind as the very element of his vision.
The punters will come, but there must be a reason for them coming, and they must feel it. It must be about the collective effect of the creative act. It must be about how everyone plays their part. These are high powers Latham represents, but it is the meekest in the community who must guide him and teach hims to ensure his powerful vision comes to be.
If Latham cuts off his connection with those he wishes to serve, if he cuts off his connection to grass-roots criticism, his time will be over. Look for him in his community gatherings with you, and know that what he is doing, with you, is vital to the process.
Yet it is not all about this creative, feminine, energy, for Latham. Let’s be prepared for the consequences of it now, because Latham is colder, tougher, harder, than Howard has ever been. Let’s not be so taken with Latham’s ideas as to miss what also we are in for. The spirit of creativity, of what is pressing on Latham to be done, carries with it the demand that it must be done, and if challenged, will rise in force to achieve it. The corrective forces of his colleagues’ nature, of media, of opposition, of electorate calling, of pragmatic legislation, will all bear upon that demanding spirit and therein is it checked. But be prepared, because vision carries steel and the creative force, not the destructive force, is the stronger.
What a job the Labor Party has ahead of it. This is the fun time now. Once elected, they will have the task of somehow allowing Latham’s creative spirit its freedom to prosper and bring benefit while carefully shaping and guiding that spirit through the grinding process of political enactment.
What we have seen lately of Latham versus Howard is nothing more than a man coming into being. Engagement with Howard these last days would have been, more than anything for Latham, a test of that creative process. Latham’s true passion is the spirit of growth, of change, of creative benefit. Of what he senses must be done. This last engagement with Howard would more than anything have provided a valuable test of response to his own creative process, from which he can learn and mould the process for representing it more masterfully in the future.
Howard
A solicitor. Here we have an entirely different mix of energies. A solicitor is comfortable not for a new creative force, but to want to pigeon-hole something already presented. Howard’s creativity is not in newness or freshness, but in rearranging the existing. Moving things from here, to there. Re-organising things. Making a new order of things, or what he thinks is the rightful order of things, but of things already in existence.
He does possess intuitive and receptive qualities, but they are entirely geared for receiving how he is perceived by the public. It’s an entirely different mix of energy. Howard’s sensitivity is not wired towards new creative solutions or gifts for the public, it’s wired to what exists in the public mind about how he and his party appears politically.
It is interesting that Howard followed Keating in our history. Keating led that journey with the vision, lost touch with those he wished to serve, and Howard was there to mop it up. Howard, originally, gave some in the community comfort for the very fact that he had no vision, that he was a plodder, a re-arranger. Box this up here, restructure this over there, pull this out of here.
Because Howard’s intuition, his sensitivity, his receptivity, is wired to his political standing as viewed by the community, the community in effect doesn’t receive anything newly created. This is not a criticism of Howard, it is a statement of fact. But it does mean the nation will not move forward into new ground. It moves sideways or gets separated and is in danger of going backwards with each policy development. It will be interesting to see whether people want this to continue.
Howard did bring changes, and while they seemed to give us something new, in fact he has only given us things that were already created, elsewhere if not here. He has restructured, rearranged, reorganised, but he has not really created. He has not brought into the community something newly dreamed. Nor is he wired to ever want to. Howard’s creative mix means that the great words of history that said “I have a dream” mean only that he can restructure, not create anew, nor ever see anew or want to see it.
This has meant our nation hasn’t felt the nourishment of creative energy. The opposite has happened, because we have been held in an attempt of fear or division: again, not a criticism, a statement of fact. When the creative mind is given the choice of fear and division, or hope and opportunity, there is no choice for that mind: the grandness and value of hope and opportunity totally discount the temptation of temporary personal gain in its opposite.
Without this nourishment, for eight years now, we are as a nation drying up. There is a quiet cry in our nation now which has been there for some time. This dryness or spiritual sparseness, this sense of communal vacancy, is reflected in the way human issues of national community growth are shelved or swept away, and there is a silent edict that no one dare introduce something new or progressive. Our Aboriginal community, as one instance, have long since gone quiet in total disillusionment and neglect.
Issues of the economy in this vacant dry environment take on a highly unusual level of importance, despite the fact that any economist will tell you that there is much more to a successful economy than merely pulling economic levers. If the nation continues to suffer this lack of creative nourishment, the long term effect is that our youth turn from the sunshine and lower their gaze to the ground, seeing no future or receptive model for what they might dream as being.
The razzle dazzle of wars and terrorism issues wipe away any immediate public view of how ingrown this spiritual vacancy and growing depression is in the country now, and those who are sensitive to what is happening to the fabric of our national heart and mind are desperately concerned, knowing there is no government interest in the state of it, let alone its nurturing.
In fact, there is a blatant disregard and on occasions outright contempt shown for it. The ruination of trust in so many areas for so many years has done unseen damage, and filters through into every decision people make. This is a legacy which takes years to uncover, long after the fanfare of the government is gone.
Latham’s arrival has breathed new life into our national debate, but will it live after the election?
To understand how the nation feels without creative nourishment, perhaps we could use an analogy, of rearranging the house for a month, knocking out bricks here, sweeping that over there, day after day. How do you feel?
You feel like you need to have a shower, freshen up, and find some replenishment and some nourishment.
Our nation has been rearranged and rearranged and the question now is do we want to be rearranged any more?
Yes, we are frightened of change. For the first twelve months after Latham becomes our Prime Minister many could feel more frightened than they ever were with Howard. But that’s what happens when you move into another house; for a little while you feel unsettled, especially if it’s a much bigger house with more rooms and more to be discovered about where we live. In the end though, it is fun.
It could take those initial twelve months for those powerful corrective forces to guide Latham on his journey, and for us to get used to breathing the energy of new national ideas. Without the monotone drone of Howard’s rearranging we will hear the rich effect of the freer voice of the creative spirit, and we’ll hear words of encouragement and hope instead of fear.
And then, in your own creative acts, in everything you do, you have the sense of freedom that feels like blue skies open, and with it perhaps the dawning of your own idea.
How secure we will feel as a nation breathing that new energy will depend largely on the corrective forces bearing upon it. Among many other forces we have Peter Costello, a man without real creativity, but with his highly developed corrective force a man shaping up as exactly what our nation needs, as the Leader of the Opposition, to check the inspired Latham and help our treasured nation go forward.
It is a fascinating choice we are facing. Do we invite into our lives the sureness of new ideas, new directions, and the excitement and concern that those new developments bring from a man whose senses are geared towards the unseen future? Or do we continue with a man whose senses are geared towards how he is perceived electorally, whose actions are about restructure and rearrangement.
How much reform can we take? How brave are we to take the future? And how fortunate we are that we have a choice.