The Albanese Enigma
Anthony Albanese won his party leadership not as the victor of an open, contested party election, but through backroom negotiations. He brought to the leadership no sense of being the champion who had best fought for Labor values and won the party’s affection.
Albanese seems more negotiator than leader, so he appears as a man without uncompromising commitment to any particular cause. His stance is appropriate for much government business: politics – ‘the art of the possible’ – requires flexibility. But voters have to know that that flexibility does not compromise their leader’s core values for critical causes. A leader must hold those values sacrosanct; he must advocate for principle ahead of political gain. Too often Albanese has sacrificed this commitment to principle, has not shown his determination through passionate advocacy. He may make a statement of principled intent, but this becomes an opening gambit: he will likely concede ground eventually, look for bipartisan agreement. He flinches from the fight.
And so we are left with an enigma: Anthony Albanese, a man who strove behind the scenes for the right to lead his party and his country, but of whom we struggle to see why he wanted that so much.