Joe Hildebrand’s opinion piece on the “perfect” politician showed the results of a “truly terrible”

experiment of the state of Australian politics. As a wake-up call to the people to understand the
mess of the primary parties. It reminds the people of the grim truth of our society, and how those in
power are making decisions. Targeted towards everyone involved in politics, be it a voter, politician,
or anywhere in between, this article comes as a metaphorical smack in the face at the direction the
society is forcing the politicians.

Hildebrand begins his piece with a recount, the proposal of an experiment where one would create
the “perfect politician”. A buzzword which would cause the reader to question the fundamentals of
being a politician. “The political climate… was confused”, to anyone who the times it would have
been a comedic emphatic jar. To those unknown of the situation it was “confused, bitter and
fraught” words not usually used to describe the situation of politics, in most cases politicians like to
know what they’re doing. Short phrases such as “knifing”, “first – or was it a second?” strengthen
the confused state the author is trying to portray throughout the whole first paragraph. It seemed
his experiment was used as a beacon within the kafuffle of politics a seemingly “incorruptible”,
“without fear or favour” politician rose.

Hildebrand delves deeper into the ideologies behind such a man, the average man, “bland and beige
as one could imagine”. Derived from the poll standings on the perfect leader. The most averagely
weighted opinions. One might inevitably thing of how this may result in disaster, a collation of
opinions. Opposing the archaic idea that a politician was to push for their own beliefs and rather to
please the masses for a better “poll rating”. The authre himself didn’t even hope to think that this
cobbled together politician would work for any reason. It shows the complete disarray at which our
society perceives problems, this shows that just from taking from the polls one is clearly unable to
formulate a coherent standpoint on a single subject, and will not please everyone. When faced with
much more confronting problems, which require a multifaceted range of ideas, the “perfect
politician” fails. To the amusement of the audience, and less to those in question “backflipped and
sidestepped”. To see the main parties swinging sides against a certain issue, “arguing against policies
they themselves once advocated”. The irony of the whole political world, that politicians are trying
to be people pleasers rather than those who change society. Hildebrand realised that his
“Frankenstein” policitian was the extreme embodiment of the current status of “post-truth world”.
He jeers at the idea that politicians are willing to throw away their “reason” for some “matters of
opinion”, and that no matter how trivial something seems, there will be someone to challenge the
idea.

This leads well into the idea of being “too democratic”, a deeper and more meaningful self-thought
and recount than before. Hildebrand’s tone shifts into a darker expression as he explores
philosophical ideas, upon his model of government. To have both major parties to “gravitate to the
sensible centre once in power”. Similarly to his “Frankenstein” creation, where the ideas were
perfectly neutral. The perfectly neutral, without cause governmental figure will simply just “descend
into chaos”. Assuring that we have seen that happen too, in recent years to the amusement and
detriment of our country. Statistics of polls and the absurd over-indulgence with them seem to
completely plague our political world “killing” Kevin, when the numbers dropped down below half
by a single percent. The use of a metaphoric world where there are no politicians and society could
cut the middle man, a model which would reflect on our currently society, but challenges the reader
to see the world in a different perception, to see the actions of politicians for what they really are.

Contention has been clear throughout the piece, the comedic jests against the notion of an all
abiding politician to the clear philosophical ideas behind the impacts of such a person. The
completely moronic mindless following of the public voice and opinion and the apparent need for a
debate has Hildebrand written this piece. Clearly outlining his ideology in this almost rant like
structure, from the hypothetical to the reality.