Frydenberg’s failed comeback reveals massive problems in the Liberal Party

The Liberal Party’s political fortunes will never improve if it continues to laud and bring back unsuccessful candidates.

The re-emergence of the former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg as a potential Liberal Party candidate in Australian federal politics has resulted in a broad spectrum of reactions, from fervent enthusiasm to outright rejection and dismay, reflecting deep divisions within both the media landscape and the electorate. The narrative of Frydenberg’s political comeback centres not just around the man himself, but around the broader dynamics of media influence and leadership vacuums within the Liberal Party.

Frydenberg’s decision to step away from politics completely following his 2022 defeat to independent candidate Monique Ryan was initially viewed as a definitive closure to his parliamentary career, when he stated a desire to focus on “spending more time with family” and work within the private business sector—which, of course, many politicians cite when exiting the stressful arena of politics. However, the media, particularly outlets such Sky News, never let this narrative settle, instead, there has been a persistent media-led campaign over the past six months, suggesting not just a return but a necessary resurgence for Frydenberg to fill perceived leadership gaps within his party and, by extension, the nation.

The nation needs Frydenberg? Really? The campaign led by News Corporation was so exaggerated that it seemed as if a new Robert Menzies had been discovered; as though the sun itself was following the learned guru toward a rapidly approaching horizon, while the seas parted and the heavens opened, providing a pathway for the balding messiah to lead the Liberal Party back to the promised land of electoral nirvana.

Yet, Frydenberg is nothing like Menzies. Robert Menzies was not only a major figure in the creation of the Liberal Party in 1944 but also a leading figure in Australian history and centre-right conservative politics. While there is contention about Menzies’s effectiveness as Prime Minister, with some belief that his political skills lay more in creating and magnifying divisive problems for the Labor Party during the 1950s and 1960s rather than focusing on national development in the post-war era, he is still regarded as one of Australia’s leading political figures, especially in terms of longevity.

These media portrayals often gloss over substantial differences in political stature and context between Menzies and Frydenberg, sometimes bordering on a revisionist enthusiasm that overlooks the nuanced realities of contemporary political challenges. While Menzies was a towering figure within Australian politics, Frydenberg registers as a smaller footnote in history, ranking among the poorer performing Treasurers. His preference for political gamesmanship over national unity is also evident, as shown by his frequent partisan and negative commentary against the Victorian government during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The push for Frydenberg’s return also highlights the broader strategic machinations within conservative media circles. Outlets like Sky News have not only been vocal but almost prescriptive in their commentary, often promoting a dissatisfaction with the current Labor government and a nostalgic longing for the type of governance Frydenberg represents which, of course, is more of the same type of neoliberalist ideology that News Corporation supports and benefits from. This has been particularly evident in interviews and discussions where Frydenberg’s potential candidacy is discussed less in terms of ‘if’ and more as a matter of ‘when’, despite his repeated dismissals of such speculation.

The interactions between Frydenberg and the media, particularly with figures like Sharri Markson of Sky News, reveal a tension between personal agency and media-driven narratives. These dynamics raise important questions about the role of media in shaping political careers and, conversely, the extent to which politicians can and do manipulate media narratives to their advantage. It also paints a broader picture of the current state of the Liberal Party—riddled with leadership uncertainties and strategic anxieties—it looks towards familiar faces to reinvigorate its ranks amidst evolving political landscapes and voter demographics. However, if Frydenberg is supposedly the messiah for the Liberal Party, why was he so comprehensively defeated by Ryan at the 2022 federal election? Is Australia really needs the leadership of Frydenberg, why did he not offer himself for preselection for the seat of Kooyong when candidates were called for nomination several months ago?

The situation also encapsulates a fundamental tension within modern democratic systems: the oscillation between leadership as a reflection of public will versus leadership as a construct of media influence and internal party machinations. Frydenberg’s saga, whether he returns to the political fray at some point in the future or remains on the sidelines, serves as a contemporary case study in the complex interplay of media dynamics, personal decision-making, and political strategy within the fraught arena of Australian politics.

An unfulfilled political return and its implications

Analysing the implications of Frydenberg’s potential but ultimately failed return to Australian federal politics requires an understanding of his tenure and the broader political context. Frydenberg’s political career, particularly his time as Treasurer, draws mixed reviews that influence perceptions of his suitability for leadership. His political skills in the game of politics, while significant—he was in politics for 12 years and achieved the second-most important position in politics—often attracted scrutiny and criticism, and an concerted partisan ability to get people offside, as exemplified by his contentious interactions when he was energy minister within the Turnbull government between 2015–2017.

The exchange between Frydenberg and former South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill in 2017 highlighted one of the most infamous moments in Frydenberg’s career. Frydenberg initially claimed credit for a renewable energy program initiated by the South Australian government. Yet, several months later, during an extreme weather event that caused severe blackouts in the state, he blamed the same renewable program for the energy failures and criticised the South Australian government for its alleged irresponsibility. This incident was emblematic of Frydenberg’s tenure—marked by political strife and contentious policy implementation, which arguably clouded his effectiveness and leadership potential, as well as constantly moving blame—or creating blame—onto Labor governments in South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria. It’s a type of political leadership that Australia definitely does not need.

Frydenberg’s tenure as Treasurer of Australia also faced criticism for an inadequate preparation for economic downturns, especially around the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the government’s assurances that the economy was set to be “back in black,” indicating a return to surplus, the reality was quite different. In early 2020, Australia was on the brink of a recession, and had already experienced a per-capita recession during 2019, before the recession was confirmed in September 2020. Although it was difficult to foresee the full economic effects of COVID-19, this assessment was supported by many leading economists at the time, suggesting that the economic strategies in place were not sufficient to avert the downturns.

In addition, Frydenberg’s desire for a political comeback, often hinted at but never fully embraced, reflects a common pattern among politicians who find the allure of public office hard to resist. However, the lack of enthusiasm for his return from significant portions of the electorate, coupled with mixed assessments of his previous tenure, poses substantial barriers. These barriers are not just personal but are emblematic of the broader challenges facing the Liberal Party, struggling to redefine its leadership and direction in a rapidly changing political landscape.

The discussion around Frydenberg’s return to politics—and subsequent failure—is not just about him but reflects broader issues of leadership, effectiveness, and public accountability in Australian politics. The Liberal Party’s leadership void and the electorate’s reaction to Frydenberg’s political behaviours highlights a critical period of introspection and potential transformation within the party. As the party struggles to deal with these challenges, the lessons from Frydenberg’s career and the public’s response to his failed comeback might inform its strategies and choices ahead, defining not just its future leaders but its path forward in an evolving political arena.

Liberal Party faces many internal challenges

The broader issues within the Liberal Party extend beyond the potential return of Frydenberg and reveals systemic challenges and ideological shifts that the party faces. The dynamics within the Victorian branch, marked by political infighting and the influence of conservative religious groups—Mormons and Pentecostals—exemplify the internal complexities that threaten the party’s unity and efficacy. This tumultuous backdrop raises substantial questions about the party’s direction and its ability to address the concerns of a diverse electorate.

The selection of Amelia Hamer in the seat of Kooyong represents a strategic response by the Liberal Party to adapt to the evolving political landscape, particularly in response to the defeat of Frydenberg by independent candidate Monique Ryan at the federal election in 2022. Hamer—a younger and moderate candidate—signifies a potential shift towards moderation, reflecting a broader strategy to recalibrate the party’s appeal. The emphasis on selecting a moderate candidate, akin to the successful teal independents, suggests at least an acknowledgment of the electorate’s shifting priorities and the necessity for the Liberal Party to evolve beyond traditional harsh and hard-line conservatism.

However, the challenges of reinventing the party are steep. The presence of deep-seated factions and the influence of external ideological forces complicate efforts to present a unified front. The task is not only about finding suitable candidates but also about fundamentally reassessing the party’s values and strategies to resonate with contemporary Australian society.

In this context, the fixation on figures such as Frydenberg and the constant speculation about their political futures can distract from more pressing organisational reforms. While individuals like Frydenberg can play significant roles, the focus on individual comebacks should not overshadow the need for systemic and ideological renewal within the party. The situation in Victoria, with its particular political complexities, serves as a microcosm of the national challenges facing the Liberal Party and the engagement with local issues and responsiveness to the electorate’s changing demands are crucial for the party’s revival.

The Liberal Party of Australia faces a critical challenge in regaining its relevance and appeal among the broader electorate. To do this effectively, the party needs to engage authentically with both internal and external challenges. This includes selecting candidates who resonate with a wider range of voters, as well as redefining its ideological boundaries to better reflect the values and expectations of contemporary Australians.

While current polling, such as the Newspoll, shows the party holding a competitive position with 50 percent in the two-party preferred vote, this surface-level metric doesn’t fully capture the underlying issues within the party and, besides, an election is not on the immediate horizon and the electorate is not yet fully engaged with the issues that will determine the next election. Since 1996, the Liberal Party has also focused significantly on divisive issues like climate change and culture wars, and this focus might have overshadowed more pressing concerns for many Australians, potentially alienating voters who are more interested in pragmatic solutions to immediate economic, social, and environmental challenges.

Given the increasingly competitive and diverse political landscape, the Liberal Party’s ability to adapt and address the deeper structural issues it faces, while refocusing on the real, everyday concerns of Australians, will likely determine its future success.

However, the question remains whether the party is currently equipped to undertake such significant changes. The evidence, as it stands, suggests challenges in this area. The party’s emphasis on divisive issues over the past few decades and its struggle to resonate broadly with modern Australian values will hinder its ability to transform effectively, and it remains to be seen whether can align its philosophies and practices with the needs and expectations of contemporary Australia.