Sometimes a commentator or columnist, in the search for relevancy, can stretch their argument too thin. They choose a topic, hoping a few glib one-liners will make others forget the deficiencies of the debate they are presenting.
In deriding the contributions of sportspeople to charities, some of which bear their names, former Federal Treasurer Peter Costello last week delivered one such column in the Melbourne Age.
Costello is no stranger to controversy, nor to putting his feet in ‘it’.
In his former career, Mr Costello had the protection of parliamentary privilege, which allowed him to sling misinformation along with dubious and spurious barbs across the floor.
It did not matter how misinformed or disingenious the barbs were, as long as they halted any momentum the honourable members on the other side might be gaining.
And that’s just how last week’s article questioning the altruism of sportspeople came across, an ill-informed attack.
Costello may have had some fine points to make about the cult of personality and the publicity-machine but the sweeping generalisations he did make, harmed his argument.
His broad brushstrokes piece, which started with discussing the Shliz Warnley affair and concluded with the St. Kilda schoolgirl imbroglio, appeared disorganised and poorly constructed, almost like policy on the run.
But where Costello really had me laughing was his suggestion that “parents would quake with fear” to hear of school visits by footballers.
Coming from anyone else other than a politician, this comment might have been an interesting contribution to the debate. A smashing conclusion even, one that would have had many nodding their heads in agreement.
Instead, it left Costello open to claims of hypocrisy.
I’m sure we have all been involved in a school or community club that has received funding from government, whether it be state or federal.
Don’t the politicians make the most of it?
Their flacks send out pressers and ensure the recipients of the grants give as much credit to the government as possible when the media discusses the project with them.
And boy, do they get shirty if the recipient or media don’t pay them their dues.
Then, they front the opening, with a hackneyed speech about the ‘love’ their government feels for the particular organisation and how they, as servants of the community, relate to their constituents.
Those who remain awake at the speech’s conclusion clap compliantly, thankful the experience is over.
Once completed, the speech is folded up, placed in the suit pocket and stored for the next opening.
Afterwards, the politicians make sure they are in the frame for every uninspiring pigeon shot possible, grabbing any passing staff members and department heads who might have had even a remote interest in the project to get their melon in as well.
Ten minutes later, they zip off in a Commcar with a homemade sandwich in their mouth, just in case they get asked any questions about what they are really doing for their community.
I remember my local politician attending a long-anticipated school gym opening where he congratulated the community on the development “of this fine shed”, revealing just how out of touch he was.
Politicians rarely give any of ‘our’ money for altruistic purposes and, in fact, their whole-being is reliant on pleasing us with their party favours.
It is unlikely that any politician would be on solid ground criticising anyone for their less than altruistic notions.
Maybe I’m just an old cynic but I don’t think it is just footballers that have parents quaking in their boots upon hearing they will be attending their child’s school.