When Richard Di Natale became the leader of the Greens in 2015, he set about painting himself as a pragmatist, as someone in politics to Get Things Done. Perhaps sensing that the Greens are often viewed as unworldly, as political naïfs, he set out a new vision of the party as the voice of principled compromise. ‘I am not an ideologue’ he declared in a press conference, shortly after assuming his new post. Later in the day, he criticised the Abbott government on the grounds that it was ‘deeply ideological’. Clearly ‘deeply ideological’ was a bad thing to be, in Di Natale’s view.
Such rhetoric was both unsurprising and discouraging. Dissing ideology is a favourite sport among politicians, and a sign either that they haven’t understood what an ideology is, or that they have understood what it is but have decided for reasons of political expediency to paint themselves as its antidote, as ‘reality’ and ‘common sense’ incarnate. In Di Natale’s case, I took it as an indication that he was preparing to move his party to ‘the centre’, which is (I won’t need to tell NM readers) no less ‘ideological’ than a head-kicker for the CFMEU with a hammer-and-sickle tattoo on his arse. More so, in fact, since at least the head-kicker knows that politics involves a battle for resources and that the dominant ideology will tend to reflect the priorities of the people who find themselves on top of the pile. [More here.]
The Greens have moved to the left since Di Natale became leader. You could see it in the policies they took to the election (with the exception of the sugar tax, which is IMO a good policy even though it technically is a regressive tax). They even proposed a soft Universal Basic Income for “artists”.
The idea that they were “pragmatic” fit the politics of the day as a contrast from Milne (who had an activist image while overseeing the Greens moving to the right), but it has always been about working within parliament to get Greens policy passed. The image was probably also a calculation to help the Greens with their strategy of winning lower house seats.
But don’t forget it was a very different time, before Trump and Brexit, where Justin Trudeau was the template for political success. The events of 2016 have emboldened the Greens to be more ambitious with what they talk about, but very little has changed in terms of policy. The only change of note has been the drugs policy; far more progressive and in line with Di Natale’s background.
But also, his espoused support for neoliberalism fits his “intellectual” image. It used to be that the right was associated with reality and the left with “good in theory” ideas that were failing around the world (eg cold war era). The roles have switched, with the right blindly hoping that trickle down economics will save the day despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The idea that he’s a closet Liberal is Labor spin that some of the party’s younger members unfortunately swallowed in between 2nd year polsci classes and socialist alternative meetings.
Just don’t underestimate that in a country with compulsory voting and coming from a minor party that has a fringe image (unlike the US democrats as one of the major 2), Di Natale’s “educated professional” image is important to get ideas on the board. If Lee Rhiannon was a Labor MP she’d be an incredible leader that would drive the party to new heights as it found its soul again, but coming from the Greens, it would just be a reason to write them off without listening to them. People who’ve never even thought about voting for the Greens hear Di Natale out.
Di Natale is the best leader the Greens have amongst their team. All the others would be too easy for non supporters to write off (SJW/student politician Sarah Hanson Young, Melbourne hipster Adam Bandt, communist Lee Rhiannon). Ludlam maybe, but from Kitchen Cabinet you can tell his shy demeanour isn’t an act.