Keating’s Brilliance Outshines Media’s Bitter Insecurity

For some in Australia’s media, the tall poppy syndrome never seems to ease, driven by an underlying insecurity rooted in their own fear of failure and false sense of greatness.

It's not difficult to see why naivety and jealousy flow through their veins, as they struggle to reconcile their mediocrity with the success of others. With every fibre of their being knotted with such tension, their minds teetering on the brink of snapping - consumed by the rancor that festers within them.

It’s a  bitterness manifesting in their relentless efforts to tear down those who dare to rise above, projecting their insecurities onto the very individuals whose achievements they can only envy from afar.

And the piece written by Chris Uhlman in The Australian this weekend reflects that very belief.  Uhlman is no great journalist although, the former ABC political editor now Nine political guru thinks he is.  How sadly mistaken Uhlman is about his own talent. There’s nothing like self-aggrandisement especially when very few people rate you. Although, there are those within Australian media and political circles that do, and that says more about themselves being poor judges and talentless souls than it does about anything else.

Uhlman’s piece in The Australian former Australian Prime Minister paul Keating is reflective of Uhlman’s naivety surrounding Australian politics and the true legacy of Paul Keating.

In Australian political history, few figures loom as large as Paul Keating. Serving as Treasurer in the legendary Hawke government and later as Prime Minister, Keating's influence on Australia’s trajectory—economically, socially, and geopolitically—remains unparalleled. Uhlman’s critique of Keating not only fails to recognise the depth of his contributions but misrepresents his legacy, particularly in foreign policy. To really understand Keating's impact, you have to revisit his bold economic reforms, his visionary approach to Australia's place in the world, and his courageous stance on global issues.

Keating's tenure as Treasurer under Bob Hawke is often described as one of the most transformative periods in Australian history. The reforms he spearheaded reshaped the nation’s economy, dragging it from the protectionist doldrums into a dynamic, competitive, and open-market economy.

Keating was the driving force behind deregulating the financial sector, floating the Australian dollar, and dismantling tariffs that had long insulated Australian industries from global competition. These were not just tweaks to existing policies; they were radical overhauls that required immense political courage.

Contrary to Uhlman’s assertion, these reforms were not merely the byproduct of a supportive environment created by Bob Hawke. While Hawke's leadership was instrumental, it was Keating's intellectual rigor, determination, and sheer force of personality that made these changes possible. He understood the risks involved but had the foresight to see these reforms were essential for Australia's long-term prosperity. His belief in a free-market economy wasn't just an ideological stance; it was a move to ensure Australia could thrive in an increasingly interconnected global economy because prior to Keating’s economic reforms, Australia was an inward looking insular economy, in many ways still riding off of the “sheep’s back”.

Keating’s contributions to foreign policy were equally transformative. He understood Australia’s future lay not with Europe but with Asia—a region he believed would be the engine of global growth in the 21st century. His push for closer economic and diplomatic ties with Asia was visionary, setting the stage for Australia to become a key player in the region.

Keating's belief in an Asia-focused foreign policy was not about turning away from traditional allies but about positioning Australia to benefit from the economic boom that he foresaw in Asia.

And this meant his approach to foreign policy was characterised by a deep understanding of the geopolitical realities of the time. He recognised the importance of maintaining a strong alliance with the US while advocating for greater independence in Australia's foreign policy decisions. This balance was evident in his efforts to strengthen Australia's ties with regional powers such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and China. Keating's belief in the importance of Asia to Australia's future has been vindicated by history, as the region has indeed become the economic powerhouse he predicted.

Perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of Keating’s legacy is his recent stance on the US and its role in Asia. Keating's critique of American foreign policy, particularly his recent comments about Nancy Pelosi, should be seen in the context of his long-standing belief in Australia's need to chart its own course. When Keating criticised Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, he wasn't kowtowing to China, as some are suggesting. Instead, he was advocating for a more nuanced and independent Australian foreign policy—one that recognises the complexity of the region and avoids unnecessary provocation.

Paul Keating's position on China has been consistent with his broader foreign policy principles. He has always believed engagement, not confrontation, is the best way to secure Australia's interests in the region. His comments about Taiwan and China reflect a realistic assessment of the geopolitical situation—one that prioritises stability and peace over ideological posturing. By standing up to Pelosi, Keating was asserting Australia's right to make its own decisions based on its national interests, rather than simply following the lead of the US and UK. Keating was never of the belief Australia was anyone’s bitch.

Chris Uhlman’s portrayal of Keating as a man driven by personal vendettas and outdated ideas isn’t only pathetically stupid but misses the bigger picture. Uhlman should stick to what he knows best, which very little.

Keating's critique of past Australian leaders, while sharp, was never about diminishing their contributions but about challenging Australia to aim higher. His comments about John Curtin and Robert Menzies were part of a broader argument that Australia needs visionary leadership to navigate an increasingly complex world.

Uhlman’s focus on Keating’s rhetoric overlooks the substance of his achievements. But what else would you expect from Uhlman? Nothing much is the answer.

It was Keating who laid the groundwork for Australia's modern economy, who foresaw the importance of Asia, and who had the courage to stand up to global powers when he believed it was in Australia’s best interest. These are not the actions of a small-minded man; they are the hallmarks of a leader who was willing to take risks to secure a better future for his country.

Paul Keating's legacy as Australia’s greatest Prime Minister is not just about the reforms he implemented or the foreign policy he shaped. It is about his vision for Australia—one that was bold, independent, and forward-looking. Keating understood that Australia could not afford to be complacent, that it needed to embrace change, and that it needed to define its own path in the world. His willingness to challenge the status quo, both domestically and internationally, set him apart from his predecessors and successors alike.

Keating's belief in Australia as a vibrant, independent nation with a crucial role to play in the Asia-Pacific region remains as relevant today as it was during his time in office. His legacy is a reminder that true leadership is about more than just managing the present; it is about shaping the future. And in that regard, Paul Keating stands as one of the greatest leaders Australia has ever had.

Oh, how I miss Paul Keating. His sharp acerbic wit, his intellect and his outstanding brilliance as a leader and politician made Australians proud. The current Australian leadership since Keating, have not only been less than impressive, but embarrassingly poor.

As for Chris Uhlman well there’s not much that can be said.