Why was Whitlam not angrier?
Jon Stanford’s detailed re-examination of the Whitlam dismissal leads to the inevitable conclusion that the many forces which truly feared his government had the luck to find a willing political assassin in John Kerr, abetted by perhaps partly ignorant accomplices in Malcolm Fraser, Reg Withers and others. It is clear that without Kerr, the dismissal simply could not have happened.
What I cannot understand is Whitlam’s relative silence on the affair. It is possible that he did not initially realise how outrageously Kerr had been influenced in his actions. But with time – eg when he received the US “apology” from Jimmy Carter in 1977 – the truth must have become clear to him. At least after his departure from politics in 1977, he could (and should) have spoken out.
We can’t ask him about this now. But others with deep knowledge of the whole affair might have answers.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
