A Rock Star Environment Minister (by Ryan Rodrick Beiler)
Jim wrote a piece a few weeks back about the new Bonhoeffer-quoting Aussie PM Kevin Rudd. Well, another fun fact is that he has appointed Peter Garrett, rock star turned environmental activist turned Member of Parliament, his new Minister for Environment. That's the Aussie version of putting Bono in charge of the foreign aid budget. Sort of.
If any of our non-Aussie readers know Garrett, it's likely as the singer for Midnight Oil, whose best known album was Diesel and Dust, with the hit single "Beds Are Burning" in 1988. They made many great albums since then, finally breaking up in 2002 when Garret chose to focus on politics. Knowing his music work much better than his political career—having seen the Oils live numerous times over the years—I'm curious if any readers from Down Under have comments on how his political role has changed his activism.
Either way, I'll continue to remember him as the lanky, frenzied, six-foot-six screaming skeleton whose music helped to inspire my own activism. Also, he's a church-going Christian, which doesn't necessarily make him a better politician, though I do think it made him a better rock star, as his faith-infused lyrics—which railed against environmental degradation, militarism, and consumerism—were an early and unlikely witness to my budding integration of faith and politics.
Though I discovered them while a freshman in high school in the early 90s, the first Midnight Oil album I bought was their 1985 release, Red Sails in the Sunset, which I found in the used rack at my local music store. This snippet from "Who Can Stand in the Way" is a great one for the Christmas season:
Now choppers strafe the supermaket sky and people wonder why
chopping down tons of trees got seas of print not a soul can read say
Why do I drown you build brick boxes one by one now they block my sun
But it's metal on metal it's the dance of T.V.
If Christ were here he'd camera check he'd cry so loud the planes would stop
He'd cry so loud the earth would shake and men would fall in tinsel town
There's just one thing, yes there's just one thing
Who can stand in they way when there's a dollar to be made
Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web editor for Sojourners.
Add to:
Category: Culture, Faith and Politics, Music
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
am i missing something? what does this mean?
Posted by: jerry | December 14, 2007 5:48 PM
Peter Garrett has gained plenty of bouquets and brickbats for moving to a centrist political party. A situation where activism is overrideen by compromise and targetting by rednecks and greenies alike. Garrett has shifted position on many issues a long way since the 80's; he no longer opposes US military eavesdropping and communication bases on Australian soil (as the end of the Cold War has morphed into the War on Terror), and has mitigated his militant stance on global warming (see Bali conference). However, some tihngs still get up his nose so strongly; corporate cover up on asbestos compensation for instance, new uranium mines, Japanese whale hunting and so on.
For Jerry's benefit; since Christmas was consumed by the official religion of the West (rampant consumerism), Garrett still takes shots at our worhsip of buying stuff, when the developing world needs so much more (and we are so spiritually poor).
Consider that as you go on the last rund of Christmas shopping.
Posted by: Feargal | December 14, 2007 10:09 PM
Dear Ryan
Hi! I'm an Oz fan of Peter Garrett and the Oils from the 'Diesel and Dust' (1987) days. I first heard of them when a mate slapped 'Beds are Burning' on his turntable, fixed me with a maniacal stare, stuck his neck too far forward and said 'The time has come. To say fair's fair. To pay the rent. To pay our share'.
For me, Peter's political change is summed up by an interview he did a few years ago, when Mark Latham was the leader of Peter's party, the Australian Labor Party ('ALP'), which was in Opposition at the time.
The interviewer asked Peter what he thought of Australian Government plans to expand the US military presence at Shoalwater Bay, near Rockhampton in Queensland. Peter replied with words to the effect that it was ridiculous, the policy was being made up and lobbed in by people in New York and Washington without Australians debating it. The journalist then asked whether Peter was aware that Mark Latham and the ALP supported the policy. Peter instantly replied that he supported Mark and the party on that policy, 100%. My immediate reaction was 'you two-faced hypocrite'. But on further reflection I realised that Peter was telling us both what he personally believed about the policy, and that he fully intended to argue his beliefs through the forums of the ALP, rather than in public. Fair enough, but also quite clever, really.
As to political radicals who go to church, I think Martin Luther King put it best when he said to be radical in one's politics and conservative in one's personal life and faith. Incidentally, people who've met Peter G. often say that he keeps his faith to himself, yet an environmentalist who worked with him said he was the biggest 'Bible-basher' she had ever met! She greatly admired him for his environmentalism, and said he was a very good man, yet he was constantly encouraging people to commit to some form of faith, such as the Tao for instance if not the Gospel.
I likewise find Kevin Rudd to be very clever, but also compassionate. He wrote a piece in 'The Monthly' (Oct. 2006) praising Bonhoeffer's concern for the marginalised and vulnerable, and yet in the recent election campaign Rudd seemed to turn his back on both refugees and indigenous Australians.
But just as Bonhoeffer was prepared to kill to get rid of Hitler, so too it appears Rudd was prepared to appear to compromise on refugees and indigenous Australians to get rid of Mr Howard, the former Prime Minister. It seems Rudd knew that Mr Howard would play the race card, and so refused to let the ALP left cause the party to divide on these explosive questions. Having gotten power, Rudd immediately cancelled the 'Pacific Solution' of processing refugees on Nauru (ie letting them rot in the roasting sun with minimal provisions). He has also expanded Mr Howard's Aboriginal 'intervention' that some have compared to racist legislation from white Australia's dark past, but by properly funding it, which is exactly what Oxfam Australia asked for earlier this year, before Mr Howard responded by sending in police rather than social workers, to help stop alleged paedophilia in remote communities.
Best wishes,
Tom Spencer
Brisbane
Queensland
Oz
Posted by: Tom Spencer | December 16, 2007 6:53 AM
As an Australian who has been a big fan of the Oils, I have mixed feelings about Peter Garrett now. I still believe in his integrity - he genuinely wants to change things from the inside and by being a minister in a major party (that is now in Government) he would feel he is in the best position of anyone to effect real change.
However there is also a feeling amongst many former fans of his that he has sold out, particularly on the US bases issue and on climate change. As the minister however, he is forced to toe the party line, and therefore the things we see him say in public will not necessarily be his personal point of view.
I'm not sure if I could do what Garrett is doing, saying things in public that I don't believe in, for the sake of the party. Garrett has always said that they party is bigger than the individual which I accept. However there is a point that when you constantly have to compromise, you slowly become dulled and less radical over time. I think of the analogy of the frog in a pot of water. Put it in boiling water and it will jump out straight away, but put it in cold water and slowly bring it to the boil and it will boil alive.
There are many people who were hoping he would join the Greens, who are now the third political force in Australia and gained a couple of senators in the recent election. As a Greens senator he would have had less influence but may have been able to speak with much more conviction as their policies are closer to his personal viewpoints.
Now that he is a Government minister (though not Minister for Climate Change - that is Penny Wong) I hope Garrett can wield his considerable influence. I believe he is a good man at heart and wants genuine change. We could do less than pray for him.
Posted by: Nils | December 16, 2007 5:04 PM
Yes, as an Aussie I am happy to see the change in our political scenery. But democracy is MUCH more than a vote every 3 or 4 years... We are to pray for our leaders, and those we don't like, get to know them personally, write letters, hold them accountable, tell them when they do good, and also when we feel they have made a poor decision, and spread the word of justice and fair play.
I am most glad that Peter G did not joint the Greens - their name is a misnomer - environmental issues are not their main agenda... they will undermine everything Christian, especially the Family, try to break down censorship, and push "everyone doing what is right in their own eyes".
With the political agenda heavily leaning to vastly improved management of the environment, including mitigating climate change, all political parties need to be green! What kind of stewards are we if not? And what future do we and our kids have if we are not? There is no economy without God's amazing creation!
Posted by: Peter C | December 17, 2007 1:16 AM
The issue of christian engagement in politics in Australia operates in a different frame to that of the USA.
On the issue of his gifts and personal style Peter Garrett may have been better placed in the Greens - Peter is in the prophetic mode and would have been better placed as a Greens Senator than as a labor party Minister.
They are two different vocations. However he made a decision and needs support in the prayers, encouragement and counsel of his fellow Christians in that context.
A side comment on the issue of the Greens - many Christians unlike a previous commentator on this thread take the view that a vote for them is an appropriate way of registering the importance of environmental issues on the political scene.
I happen to disagree with the Green party's stance on a number of issues but do not accept the above characterisation as being an accurate account of their policy. There has been a strong though understated non-conformist and Quaker engagement in shaping the environmental policy.
The phrase about everyone doing what is right in their own eyes is an accurate account of the general consumer orientation of the general culture rather than that of any specific party.
I would heartily endorse the last sentence. there is no economy without God's creation.
To translate it into the language of the corporate sector - the economy is a wholly dependent subsidiary of the environment.
Posted by: Doug | December 18, 2007 5:58 AM
The issue of christian engagement in politics in Australia operates in a different frame to that of the USA.
On the issue of his gifts and personal style Peter Garrett may have been better placed in the Greens - Peter is in the prophetic mode and would have been better placed as a Greens Senator than as a labor party Minister.
They are two different vocations. However he made a decision and needs support in the prayers, encouragement and counsel of his fellow Christians in that context.
A side comment on the issue of the Greens - many Christians unlike a previous commentator on this thread take the view that a vote for them is an appropriate way of registering the importance of environmental issues on the political scene.
I happen to disagree with the Green party's stance on a number of issues but do not accept the above characterisation as being an accurate account of their policy. There has been a strong though understated non-conformist and Quaker engagement in shaping the environmental policy.
The phrase about everyone doing what is right in their own eyes is an accurate account of the general consumer orientation of the general culture rather than that of any specific party.
I would heartily endorse the last sentence. there is no economy without God's creation.
To translate it into the language of the corporate sector - the economy is a wholly dependent subsidiary of the environment.
Posted by: Doug | December 18, 2007 5:58 AM
Hey Ryan, as someone whose parents once worked closely with Garrett on anti-nuclear campaigns, as an individual he really is the goods IMHO. I think he chose the hard road (Labor) over the safe Greens option (and I say that as a Greens member).
There are mixed feelings in the Greens - some betrayal, some accepting that we need people to risk their soul to work on the inside, etc.
It does say something about Garrett that even in the Greens, I don't hear anyone saying he "wanted power" in the self-serving sense. Everyone knows he's taking a beating in there, we're mostly just hoping he gets out alive.
I think we are all waiting to see if we can identify anything different about the Labor Party with Garrett in it. Surely that's the test. So far, about the only thing is a hint of recognition in the media that politicians can hold one view personally but accept party discipline publicly (unlike in the USA, party discipline is everything here. If a Labor MP votes against the party line, they are expelled immediately. Curiously, this features as a line in a Midnight Oil song about how power gets you in the end!)
The Bonhoeffer analogy does strike me, obviously in a less critical context than the great man. I wouldn't be surprised if Garrett has read his Ethics.
On the Christian/Greens question - I'm curious: which of grassroots democracy, ecological sustainability, social equity and nonviolence do you think is a problem for Christians? And why is "the Family" a Christian thing? Don't Muslims have families too?
Posted by: Justin | December 20, 2007 7:12 PM
Great to see articles and discussion that include an international perspective - more than the usual US Democrat vs Republican issues.
Posted by: Kent Kingston | December 20, 2007 10:14 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?