How do we judge 'brilliant jerks' like Bob Hawke?

Fortuitously, at the time of reading some salacious titbits about his aggressive sexual appetite, I also read an article from the American Enterprise Institute entitled "The Dilemma of Brilliant Jerks". My Adelaide friend who was regularly the object of his attention when he was in town never complained to me about him being a jerk or otherwise - but by any standard, in his private life and insofar as that overlapped with his work, he was an all-time gold-medal jerk. Jerk is an Americanism. We say pig.

The Institute article correctly identifies the dilemma we face when really talented or competent people are in fact jerks. Do we subject them to cancel culture because they deserve it, and thereby miss out on the contribution of their game-changing brilliance? The answer ought not be to let them off because they're clever, nor should it be to cancel them. Both responses are crude and lack even a modicum of emotional intelligence.

Surely we can triage the level of piglike behaviour. We should take into account whether there was serial offending or a one-time defalcation, the seriousness of the behaviour, and the harm done to the victims. We'd want to be sure of the truth of the allegations, and multiple complainants might be a pointer for us on that score. Sometimes it will be behaviour that warrants a DCM (Don't Come Monday) or a face-saving decision to resign.

A recent Joe Biden appointment illustrates the hazards of navigating this approach. He elevated a stellar scientist to a cabinet post. Then the people who had suffered bullying and abuse came out of the woodwork. The delight of the science community at the appointment was short-lived. He resigned.

People are complex creatures. Several women who had worked for this man set up a scholarship in his name. Plenty of people said they had never had a negative experience with him. Was he a Jekyll and Hyde-type character? Did he only prey on the weak, or were there just some people unlucky enough to catch his bad eye? We'll probably never know.

Which brings us back to Hawke. He confessed to his philandering and alcoholism. Quite why some people say "Oh, but he admitted it" as if that were a thoroughly redeeming fact I don't know. For a long while, at least, he went on the wagon. No such change of heart with women.

Philandering is quite an elegant word, but if reports are true there was nothing elegant about his. Women were objects to give him pleasure or relief. Married to one while there were affairs with others. He cheated on his wife, and indeed on some mistresses. He was the centre of his world. He could be charming, but that's just lipstick on the pig.

I wrote what I hope was considered a very nice piece in praise of the lovely Hazel when she died. I was both flattered and annoyed when he rang. Flattered because Australia's best Labor prime minister didn't need to take the trouble. Angry because when he said how generous the article was, I interrupted him and said it was simply the truth. Somewhat taken aback, he said "Oh well, um, I'll give you that." What a condescending approach to insert himself as the arbiter of what was true or otherwise about the wife he spent a lifetime humiliating. It was hard to not bite his head off.

MORE AMANDA VANSTONE:

There was an article saying he had spent her last day or hours holding her hand and singing to her. A touching gesture, sadly completely overtaken by the release of what should have been a very private moment to the media.

Now we can all reflect on the party that markets itself as being the party for the status of women. It is more properly described as a serial killer of women in politics. As a matter of record, the three longest-serving women in cabinet are Liberals. In Hawke's day, Labor was chock-a-block with people who would publicly say one thing, but behind closed doors, among themselves, openly tolerate their leader behaving quite appallingly. Let's not kid ourselves that hardly anyone knew. Most if not all of them did. They knew, they shut up, and they went out and actively praised the man.

There's a good case for the media keeping out of politicians' private lives. But when the holder of the second-highest office in the land preaches respect for the status of women yet practises the humiliation thereof one might have expected the hypocrisy to get some focus. How quiet do you think they would have been if Howard had behaved that way? You get the point.

You might say this is all in the past. And it is. But the #metoo movement goes back into people's lives decades ago. Statues are torn down because of what people did years ago. Their good deeds do not save them. Only Labor's double standard saved Hawke.

Make no mistake, that double standard is alive and well.