The Writing Process: Part D

 

"Ivy Mike" hydrogen bomb test by the US, Enewetak Atoll, 1 November 1952 [Public Domain].

Part A is still coming, Part B is here, and Part C is here. Part D is the finished product below that didn't get published and then went into Part A, only to be taken out by my co-author except for a few bits and pieces that seem to work in Part A. WTF?

My point is that writing is not a process where you sit down and write a first draft and it gets published. If you do, then God bless you. But for the rest of us, "The first draft of anything is shit" (Hemingway, apparently).

Anyway, my point is to record my process. The entire exercise has revealed to me the following:

• Twitter is indeed a place for venting frustrations, even if the people venting are part of the fourth estate and they create an echo chamber of nonsense that somehow gets picked up by the politically correct brigade.
• I am more centre-right than I thought I was. "Woke" culture is a thing and it annoys me tremendously.
• While "woke" culture annoys me, so does conservatism. In some things I am conservative, but in most others, I am more likely to remain a liberal in the sense of John Locke and John Stuart Mill.
• Putting my work out there and getting helpful feedback is enlightening. A student said to me at the end of semester that my marking feedback (I put in a good deal of effort and I was 'nice') was like a conversation and the student wanted to keep that conversation going. I have had the same experience with Part A, even though with other works I have had to contend with fragile narcissists wielding what little power they have. Knowing the difference is rather powerful.
• Writing conforms to the maxim of Antoine de Saint-Exupery: “Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away”.
• Marcus Aurelius (Meditations, 4.31) was right: "Love the humble art you have learned, and take rest in it".
• I am dedicated to my craft. I write because that is what I do. When I do not write, I feel empty.

Here's Part D. 

Morrison’s stewardship amid COVID-19 outrage culture

Political leadership is challenging at the best of times, but PM Scott Morrison’s ability to end the leadership merry-go-round has had a lasting impact on Australian politics, much to the outrage of some.

Morrison’s legacy will be the National Cabinet, a form of executive federalism that has seen greater federal-state cooperation than ever before. It replaced COAG with little ceremony and barely a hint of outrage.

Meanwhile, the ABC appears to be focused on undermining the government, with alleged activism by senior journalists taking centre stage and creating an opinion fog that impacts the ABC's pandemic information, confusing many citizens.

And if Twitter's #auspol was the barometer for political leadership in Australia, you would think that things were going to the dogs. Even The Conversation’s ‘academic’ articles on Morrison are largely negative in tone.

For those who agree with market liberalism but shun conservatism, there is a gaping hole in Australian politics. But that doesn't change the fact that during one of the worst periods in recent history, Morrison is presiding over a period of extraordinary good fortune in Australia.

Despite the bushfire debacle and tenuous Trumpism of the early stages of the pandemic, Morrison is still holding firm. His remarkable resilience and ability to reset are not lost on voters.

If we had good political intelligence systems, we could analyse cause and effect and determine how good policies might be predicted. Instead, ideology gets in the way and policies are judged by people (on both sides of the political spectrum) who express their opinions while hogging the microphone.

While the focus on the performance of political leaders has dominated the media, there has been little talk about the structure of Australia's blood market or the vaccine manufacturing capabilities of CSL, or whether such an important capability should be nationalised or have more competition introduced for future responses to pandemics.

Instead, the PM and state premiers are good/bad, competent/not competent, doing the right thing/doing the wrong thing, and a host of other things that have impacted confidence of the AstraZeneca vaccine and Australia's ability to deliver vaccinations within existing production and logistics capabilities.

Misinformation supporting ideological positions is rife. Take for example the infographics being used by the Twitterati to criticise the PM and Australia’s pandemic response. Many Australians have had their first shot, and the poorly framed infographic will see Australia leap ahead of other countries in the region once the second shot is delivered. 

But the polls show that Morrison is still leading the pack. Under the conventions of our Westminster system, Morrison has been chosen to lead and the polls continue to show his government is in a strong position to win the next election. 

But with all the outrage against the current PM on Twitter, one could be forgiven for thinking this wasn't the case.

Janet Albrechtsen recently called Twitter “a putrid trough of polarisation where angry people sup for repeated hits of unplugged outrage”. But who are the Twitterati talking to?

When the life of the average Australian is pretty good given the global COVID-19 social, health, and economic crises, you'd think that the position of PM would be given its due respect. Not so the Twitterati.

The reality is that there is no alternative leadership proposition from Labor, and repeated calls by Greens leader Adam Bandt to form a coalition with Labor would only destroy Labor in the long run. And when the time comes, the Greens’ aspirational policy platform is unlikely to survive the political realities of a federal budget if they ever get into power.

At the Sydney Institute a few weeks ago, I asked Kevin Donnelly about “middle Australians” caught in the midst of the ongoing "culture war".

Donnelly said it was important for political leaders to "speak" to their "base". John Howard did this, as did Bob Hawke before him; and of course Menzies spoke to "the forgotten people”. Malcolm Turnbull paid the price when he was unable to speak to the party faithful.

Despite what the Twitterati says, word on the street largely supports Morrison and the Coalition (for now).

Morrison’s stewardship of the National Cabinet demonstrates a complex set of skills needed to ameliorate formal weaknesses in the Constitution, particularly for health-related responsibilities. In the meantime, the outraged minority’s screams for instant gratification would see Australia return to the leadership follies of the immediate past.

But that would require realistic leadership alternatives. In the meantime, outrage culture has a lot to answer for hampering collective responses to the pandemic.

With ideologically-driven critics ignoring support for the Morrison government in the polls, it brings to mind some words from the poet Criss Jami: “the devil's happy when the critics run you off”. How outrageous!

Better the devil we know.

The Writing Process: Part C

The so-called 'controversial' photo of PM Scott Morrison arriving at RAAF Williamtown.

Where's Parts A and B? You will have to wait for Part A - it will be published later this year. But students in my Political Leadership class in semester 2, 2021 will be using my latest chapter as their main open source text. Here I want to outline my frustrating personal writing process (for posterity and just because).

Part B of this writing process is actually an earlier blog post entitled "PM Scott Morrison's leadership: The devil's happy when the critics run you off".

Whenever I write about something, I find myself (re)discovering my earlier education and, most importantly, recollecting my reading over the years. I was writing the chapter on Political Leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic and I was getting sick and tired of the negative nonsense on Twitter.

Back in the day, I participated in former Senator Kate Lundy's Public Sphere events. The report from the event back in 2009 is available here. Now I know that Twitter is annoying. I was one of the many who thought social media was going to revolutionise democracy. Of course it didn't but some things,  like the Creative Commons licensing for Australian Government documents, were a direct result of Lundy's Public Sphere process. 

After deleting my Twitter account back in 2012, it wasn't until 2015 that I came back to the fold but as a broadcaster rather than an active participant. Many of my friends, colleagues, and acquaintances use Twitter and it often proves a useful resource but at other times it is just annoying.

Back to my point. I penned my Part B article on Morrison. Now, don't get me wrong, I do not identify as a conservative, but I get really pissed off when people on Twitter are all so anti-everything. Get a new PM (who?), this was done poorly (and you would have done what exactly?), and so on. So, in my role as the Political Flâneur, I penned the Part C article (below) supporting Morrison.

After I had vented my frustration, I decided to write an 800 word article and send it to my new favourite news media publisher. It was not published on the Friday, but they liked it and would try for the following Monday. My next article, "The Writing Process: Part D", was an amendment to Part C, and followed the National Cabinet meeting on Friday 2nd July 2021.

Here is the original article, stemming from my "Part A":

Political leadership and outrage culture during COVID-19

Political leadership is challenging at the best of times, but PM Scott Morrison’s ability to end the leadership merry-go-round has had a lasting impact on Australian politics, much to the outrage of some.

Morrison’s legacy will be the National Cabinet, a form of executive federalism that has seen greater federal-state cooperation than ever before. It replaced COAG with little ceremony and barely a hint of outrage.

Meanwhile, the ABC appears to be focused on undermining the government, with alleged activism by senior journalists taking centre stage and creating an opinion fog that impacts the ABC's pandemic information, confusing many citizens.

And if Twitter's #auspol was the barometer for political leadership in Australia, you would think that things were going to the dogs. Even The Conversation’s ‘academic’ articles on Morrison are largely negative in tone.

For those who agree with market liberalism but shun conservatism, there is a gaping hole in Australian politics. But that doesn't change the fact that during one of the worst periods in recent history, Morrison is presiding over a period of extraordinary good fortune in Australia.

Despite the bushfire debacle and tenuous Trumpism of the early stages of the pandemic, Morrison is still holding firm. His remarkable resilience and ability to reset are not lost on voters.

If we had good political intelligence systems, we could analyse cause and effect and determine how good policies might be predicted. Instead, ideology gets in the way and policies are judged by people (on both sides of the political spectrum) who express their opinions while hogging the microphone.

While the focus on the performance of political leaders has dominated the media, there has been little talk about the structure of Australia's blood market or the vaccine manufacturing capabilities of CSL, or whether such an important capability should be nationalised or have more competition introduced for future responses to pandemics.

Instead, the PM and state premiers are good/bad, competent/not competent, doing the right thing/doing the wrong thing, and a host of other things that have led to the collapse in confidence of the AstraZeneca vaccine and Australia's ability to deliver vaccinations within existing capabilities.

Misinformation supporting ideological positions is rife. Take for example the infographics being used by the Twitterati to criticise the PM and Australia’s pandemic response. Many Australians have had their first shot, and the poorly framed infographic will see Australia leap ahead of other countries in the region once the second shot is delivered. 

But the polls show that Morrison is still leading the pack. Under the conventions of our Westminster system, Morrison has been chosen to lead and the polls continue to show his government is in a strong position to win the next election. 

But with all the outrage against the current PM on Twitter, one could be forgiven for thinking this wasn't the case.

Janet Albrechtsen recently called Twitter “a putrid trough of polarisation where angry people sup for repeated hits of unplugged outrage”. But who are the Twitterati talking to?

When the life of the average Australian is pretty good given the global COVID-19 social, health, and economic crises, you'd think that the position of PM would be given its due respect. Not so the Twitterati.

The reality is that there is no alternative leadership proposition from Labor, and repeated calls by Greens leader Adam Bandt to form a coalition with Labor would only destroy Labor in the long run. And when the time comes, the Greens’ aspirational policy platform is unlikely to survive the political realities of a federal budget if they ever get into power.

At the Sydney Institute a few weeks ago, I asked Kevin Donnelly about “middle Australians” caught in the midst of the ongoing "culture war".

Donnelly said it was important for political leaders to "speak" to their "base". John Howard did this, as did Bob Hawke before him; and of course Menzies spoke to "the forgotten people”. Malcolm Turnbull paid the price when he was unable to speak to the party faithful.

Despite what the Twitterati says, word on the street largely supports Morrison and the Coalition (for now).

However, Michelle Grattan of The Conversation points to what may be the undoing of PM Morrison, if Morrison's captain’s call to indemnify GPs who administer AstraZeneca leaves the government “facing the heat without the ‘shield’ of its advisers” if it backfires.

But that would require a realistic alternative government. In the meantime, “outrage” culture has a lot to answer for hampering collective responses to the pandemic.

With ideologically-driven critics ignoring support for the Morrison government in the polls, it brings to mind some words from the poet Criss Jami: “the devil's happy when the critics run you off”. Outrageous!

Better the devil we know.

(Re)Learning How to Journal

My old and my new: Benjamin Franklin versus Kindle Paperwhite.

Journalling remains the most useful way to keep myself centred, and whenever I feel out of sorts, it is usually because I have let my journalling slip. But sometimes it slips because the process of journalling is no longer helping me, and I have to reset. Here is my current process of resetting my journalling habit.

I have written about my journalling process twice before. Beginning as a morning and evening routine in December 2016, my journalling habit has, since COVID-19 has allowed me to work from home more often, become a once-a-day habit.

The first thing I noticed was that the morning and evening routine I established while on long service leave was relatively easy to maintain, but it became difficult as my workload progressively increased. But the necessity of journalling has not diminished. But the process is no longer providing me with the relief from my monkey mind. Tim Ferriss says it best:

I’m just caging my monkey mind on paper so I can get on with my fucking day.

That's me.

My earlier process, documented in March 2018, included the Daily Stoic, the Daily Stoic Journal, Benjamin Franklin's Virtues Journal, and also La Rochefoucauld's Maxims and James Allen's meditations from As a Man Thinketh.

My second attempt at a major revamp of my journalling process was documented in February 2021. I had had some EMDR sessions that were extremely helpful and I wanted to try to do my own version of EMDR with some "self-tapping" to see if I could "speak" with my various parts (known as "parts therapy"). 

I also included a section where I recorded a "quote of the day". In recent times, I have drawn upon Ecclesiastes as my main source of inspiration. The final part was free-form writing to clear the monkey mind.

My idea was to leave the free-form writing until the end, so that I could get through the major exercises each day. When I was free-writing first, I ended up doing too much of this and not getting to the part where I looked to the Stoics or to my "virtues".  When I "flipped" this approach, I never got to finish my free-writing and I noticed my journal was more of a record of my Stoic and other exercises. I didn't get to clear my monkey mind, and I didn't have a record of my day.

It is clear that the Daily Stoic and the Daily Stoic Journal remain important, as does Franklin's Virtues Journal. I put the first two together in one section but now I use the Kindle version (it is much easier to carry when I travel). But I still use the hardcopy version of the Virtues Journal. It is small enough to carry around and I also like the other records I keep in the daily assessment of my behaviours.

But the free writing needs to be the first thing I do. If my journal does not keep a record of what I do nor clear my monkey mind, then what is the point of it? And I simply have to complete my daily Stoic exercises because that is essential to sticking to the logic (external events are neither good nor bad but my reactions to these are either virtuous or not).

So today I have been contemplating, among other things, how I will re-arrange my daily journalling regimen. It will look something like this:

1. Free writing: What I did, what I thought/dreamt/contemplated, what I will do, what is bothering me and so on.
2. Daily Stoic: Reflect on Ryan Holiday's Daily Stoic and the Daily Stoic Journal as I have done for years now.
3. Record my behaviours and responses against the Virtues Journal as I have done for years.
4. Ask myself a series of questions from a laminated page. The questions might include:

• Drawing on Bryan Collins:
• What’s on my mind?
• How should I have reacted in hindsight?
• How are things different now?
• What would I say to a younger version of myself?
• What am I grateful for?
• What do I value?
• Who helped me?
• What did I do?
• What should I stop doing?
• What should I do less?
• What should I continue doing?
• What should I do more?
• What should I start doing?
• And drawing on Dean Bokhari:
• Write down your goals every day.
• Keep a daily log.
• Journal three things you’re grateful for every day.
• Journal your problems.
• Journal your stresses.
• Journal your answer to “What’s the best thing that happened today?” every night before bed.
  

The above reorganises the first three essential parts of my journalling and reduces the number of things I write about. The daily quote was an interesting idea but I think it is better to record quotes I find rather than go looking for one each day - although interesting, the latter approach leads to procrastination.

There is some obvious repetition in the fourth part, and I will need to clarify the approach once I have given it a go. But for now, this is my latest approach to journalling.