What do you think?
Rate this book
Quarterly Essay #74
The Prosperity Gospel: How Scott Morrison won and Bill Shorten lost
What went wrong for Labor and how did Scott Morrison achieve his remarkable victory? In this dazzling report from the campaign trail, Erik Jensen homes in on the insecurities that drive Bill Shorten and the certainties that helped Scott Morrison win. He considers how each man reflects, challenges and comforts the national character.
Who are Morrison’s “quiet Australians”? What did Shorten Labor fail to see? And will fear always trump hope in politics? The Prosperity Gospel sheds new light on the politics of a divided nation.
“Arthur Sinodinos says the election is a crapshoot. He’s in a car park in Nowra, waiting for Morrison. ‘The momentum has been with us at different times, especially in Queensland,’ he says. ‘Central Queensland, even the outer suburbs of Brisbane. It’s a narrow pathway to victory, with the odds going the other way. But it ain’t over until it’s over.’ Despite everything, Arthur Sinodinos has an honest face. He does not look confident.” —Erik Jensen, The Prosperity Gospel
Who are Morrison’s “quiet Australians”? What did Shorten Labor fail to see? And will fear always trump hope in politics? The Prosperity Gospel sheds new light on the politics of a divided nation.
“Arthur Sinodinos says the election is a crapshoot. He’s in a car park in Nowra, waiting for Morrison. ‘The momentum has been with us at different times, especially in Queensland,’ he says. ‘Central Queensland, even the outer suburbs of Brisbane. It’s a narrow pathway to victory, with the odds going the other way. But it ain’t over until it’s over.’ Despite everything, Arthur Sinodinos has an honest face. He does not look confident.” —Erik Jensen, The Prosperity Gospel
124 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 1, 2019
14 people are currently reading
41 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
June 25, 2019
This so-called essay is actually little more than a hodge-podge of impressions jotted down during the 2019 electoral campaign. Short on structure and analysis, it has been rushed into print without any sense of hindsight or editorial curation.
July 9, 2019
In summary: Shorten lacked confidence, and Scott Morrison had it.
Also - Morrison used preaching tricks from his evangelical church to promote the Coalition “theology” of trickledown economics.
I found the incessant focus on the appearance and personal tics of the protagonists to be rather irritating and irrelevant. I felt sorry for Bill Shorten, the way the author read so much insecurity into almost everything he said or did.
As other reviewers have said - light on analysis and not a very enjoyable read.
Also - Morrison used preaching tricks from his evangelical church to promote the Coalition “theology” of trickledown economics.
I found the incessant focus on the appearance and personal tics of the protagonists to be rather irritating and irrelevant. I felt sorry for Bill Shorten, the way the author read so much insecurity into almost everything he said or did.
As other reviewers have said - light on analysis and not a very enjoyable read.
June 29, 2019
This essay contains some nicely observed vignettes from the campaign trail. That's about it.
Neither its title nor subtitle make sense. "Prosperity gospel" has a meaning and even a theological argument in its favour (whether you agree with it or not) but there's no investigation of that, nor any relationship it has to the L/NP victory that the title hints at. And the subtitle is just an untrue claim.
More interesting are the responses to Huntley's essay in the previous issue, and Huntley's own response, which is post-election. Some seem to circle around my own concerns (see that review if interested), and all provide food for thought.
Worth buying for the Huntley responses.
Neither its title nor subtitle make sense. "Prosperity gospel" has a meaning and even a theological argument in its favour (whether you agree with it or not) but there's no investigation of that, nor any relationship it has to the L/NP victory that the title hints at. And the subtitle is just an untrue claim.
More interesting are the responses to Huntley's essay in the previous issue, and Huntley's own response, which is post-election. Some seem to circle around my own concerns (see that review if interested), and all provide food for thought.
Worth buying for the Huntley responses.
July 5, 2019
Simply a play by play of the campaign trail. No analysis. A rare poor edition from the Quarterly Essay.
October 28, 2019
Alright but a bit 'trying-to-hard wanky' to use a technical academic term in literature. Erik Jensen really wants to be an intellectual but it just doesn't quite work.
July 26, 2019
A look at the 2019 Australian federal election. Long on impressionistic takes and emotion, short on details, and more of a word-collage than an essay in many respects. Almost entirely fails to live up to the promise of its subtitle.
July 17, 2019
If you're after any analysis as to why the LNP won the election as the subtitle would have you believe look elsewhere. This is merely a series of vignettes from the campaign trail that ultimately do little other than provide some very basic "behind the scenes" coverage of an election that has already been well trodden by other writers and journalists.
July 20, 2019
Look, Erik Jensen had a tough job. He probably thought Labor was going to win, so it would have been tricky to write an insightful piece, probably with little time, about why they didn't. To some extent it would have been dishonest.
So, instead, Jensen has just recounted the campaign. Really, if you paid any attention during the election campaign, you're not going to learn anything new. Yes, he does add some detail due to his first-hand observation. But these details don't serve to illuminate or represent anything new. It's just colouring in. All the classic tropes about Shorten being disingenuous and Morrison being 'dad next door' are there.
I haven't been too impressed with the essays I've read recently but this one really is a hard fail.
So, instead, Jensen has just recounted the campaign. Really, if you paid any attention during the election campaign, you're not going to learn anything new. Yes, he does add some detail due to his first-hand observation. But these details don't serve to illuminate or represent anything new. It's just colouring in. All the classic tropes about Shorten being disingenuous and Morrison being 'dad next door' are there.
I haven't been too impressed with the essays I've read recently but this one really is a hard fail.
August 10, 2019
There are way too many of these ‘essays’ posing as political commentary/analysis when the pages are filled with anecdotes bundled together and all tied up with superficial personality descriptions
This adds nothing to the hard work of coming to grips with the machinations and results of this painful election. Quarterly Essay is a vehicle that can carry much better work than this.
This adds nothing to the hard work of coming to grips with the machinations and results of this painful election. Quarterly Essay is a vehicle that can carry much better work than this.
September 19, 2019
The anecdotes were fun but there was no structure or purpose. Worst QE I’ve read.
January 28, 2021
A very interesting and informative essay that strengthened my belief in the incurable weaknesses in democracy. How money (power) corrupts everything.
July 9, 2022
This didn’t actually answer the question of why Morrison won. All it did was focus on personal attributes: namely, how much of a twat Morrison is and how unconfident Shorten is (apparently). Morrison’s warped idea of religious faith doesn’t make him confident, it makes him bigoted and self-righteous which are both signs of high insecurity.
January 8, 2020
It was interesting (and honestly, kind of depressing) to read this essay now in January 2020, seven months after the federal election result last year. The essay contained some good snapshots from the campaign trail, but in my opinion was lacking in actual analysis. I also hoped there would be more references to the title—‘The Prosperity Gospel’—but it seemed the religious aspect of Morrison’s campaign was only mentioned a few times here and there.
June 25, 2019
This was hard to relive. But an important account of the key defining moments through the 2019 election.
Let us learn
Let us learn
August 20, 2020
can’t help but feel deep sense of irony reading this in lockdown
August 26, 2019
Just a play by play of the campaign with little actual insight, more suited to a Long Read in the Monthly than a Quarterly Essay. From the title I was hoping for a lot more about how the Prosperity Gospel shapes Morrison's thinking.
August 14, 2019
No analysis whatsoever. Basically a litany of disjointed, shorthand diary entries on the campaign trail.
July 11, 2019
Quarterly Essays are invariablt interesting and this issue is no exception, the main piece being Erik Jensen't perspective on the recent Australian election campaign, with the usual section based on responses to the previous issue, by Rebecca Huntley, which I didn't read, although I like reading what she has to say.
Jensen is a fluent writer with some occasional excellent turns of phrase. It's not a polemic, but a series of observations about people and events on the campaign trail and the campaign itself. He asks interesting questions and provides some extra insight into what went on and what was thought and said.
A reasonable proportion of the text is given over to Bill Shorten, the man who was supposed to win the election, but didn't. There are some poignant observations about this not-well-liked man and I found personally relevant the paragraph about the home where the mother protects her children from the father.
Jensen concludes that Shorten doesn't know himself, which is an interesting observation that deserves serious consideration, even apart from the opposition of introversion and extraversion that was a subtle theme during the campaign.
The Liberal leader, and winner of the election, Scott Morrison, doesn't provide the same insights, probably due to his refusal to participate in Jensen's enterprise, but there are still some insights. The title of the essay reflects an aspect of what might be Morrison's religious beliefs, which dovetail nicely, I think, if not personally pleasantly, with how he projects his personality. The title also appears to allude to the issue of money, tax cuts, tax reform and so on.
In some respects this is policy versus hip-pocket, but there are several nuances and it's worthwhile knowing that only a small proportion of people are interested in politics, some of these people see it as a zero sum game, or tactics and then there's the reality that people can do the same thing for different reasons, voting being like that.
There are some interesting and thoughtful responses to Huntley's piece, which enable the reader to get an idea about what she was talking about. Huntley's response is also instructive. Who Australians are and how they want to live their lives appears both a moveable feast in some ways, and possessing a theme of typicality over the decades, or even centuries, notwithstanding the worthy changes wrought by multiculturalism
Jensen is a fluent writer with some occasional excellent turns of phrase. It's not a polemic, but a series of observations about people and events on the campaign trail and the campaign itself. He asks interesting questions and provides some extra insight into what went on and what was thought and said.
A reasonable proportion of the text is given over to Bill Shorten, the man who was supposed to win the election, but didn't. There are some poignant observations about this not-well-liked man and I found personally relevant the paragraph about the home where the mother protects her children from the father.
Jensen concludes that Shorten doesn't know himself, which is an interesting observation that deserves serious consideration, even apart from the opposition of introversion and extraversion that was a subtle theme during the campaign.
The Liberal leader, and winner of the election, Scott Morrison, doesn't provide the same insights, probably due to his refusal to participate in Jensen's enterprise, but there are still some insights. The title of the essay reflects an aspect of what might be Morrison's religious beliefs, which dovetail nicely, I think, if not personally pleasantly, with how he projects his personality. The title also appears to allude to the issue of money, tax cuts, tax reform and so on.
In some respects this is policy versus hip-pocket, but there are several nuances and it's worthwhile knowing that only a small proportion of people are interested in politics, some of these people see it as a zero sum game, or tactics and then there's the reality that people can do the same thing for different reasons, voting being like that.
There are some interesting and thoughtful responses to Huntley's piece, which enable the reader to get an idea about what she was talking about. Huntley's response is also instructive. Who Australians are and how they want to live their lives appears both a moveable feast in some ways, and possessing a theme of typicality over the decades, or even centuries, notwithstanding the worthy changes wrought by multiculturalism
October 6, 2020
"Morrison’s Australia is humble and the people in it are humble. That is the word he uses. Their aspirations are decent, honest, simple. They are nothing to sneer at. They are quiet, hard-working people. They are quietly getting on with life. The repetitions do not matter: the words all mean the same thing. These people are forgiven greed because what they want is not so much. Work entitles reward. Morrison fuses prosperity with virtue. He fuses himself to Howard and then to Menzies. The only glimpse of a future is in the retirement for which you are already saving.
The great truth of Bill Shorten is that he doesn’t know himself. He hasn’t settled his character. In that way, he is like the country: ill at ease and incomplete. It is not just what he hides – the ruthlessness, the bastardry: it’s that there are parts of him he has never found. Had he been prime minister, he would have governed from insecurity for an insecure nation. He would have built consensus because that is the only real way to answer uncertainty. As it is, Australia has found comfort once again in a hardman who says everything is simple and some of you will be okay."
The great truth of Bill Shorten is that he doesn’t know himself. He hasn’t settled his character. In that way, he is like the country: ill at ease and incomplete. It is not just what he hides – the ruthlessness, the bastardry: it’s that there are parts of him he has never found. Had he been prime minister, he would have governed from insecurity for an insecure nation. He would have built consensus because that is the only real way to answer uncertainty. As it is, Australia has found comfort once again in a hardman who says everything is simple and some of you will be okay."
December 27, 2020
‘What happened?’
It has been a while since Labor lost the last Federal election. Lost it, or threw it away with poorly explained policies? Or, in an Australian electoral environment where presidential election style campaigning seems to be the new normal, did Scott Morrison somehow seem a safer pair of hands?
Me, I live in a very safe Labor seat and not a lot of campaigning takes place here. If I were to return ‘home’ to Tasmania, I would feel much more important. But I digress. I expected Labor to win the Federal election, until they ventured into the poorly explained minefield of franking credits. Memo to the Labor party, policy change can be a good thing, but it needs to be clearly articulated. And the concerns of those it applies to need to be listened to. This is not the only reason Labor lost the election of course.
In this essay, Erik Jensen compared leaders, and relative strengths and weaknesses. It is ancient history now, but I think that one reason Scott Morrison won was that he projected a confidence that Bill Shorten didn’t.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
It has been a while since Labor lost the last Federal election. Lost it, or threw it away with poorly explained policies? Or, in an Australian electoral environment where presidential election style campaigning seems to be the new normal, did Scott Morrison somehow seem a safer pair of hands?
Me, I live in a very safe Labor seat and not a lot of campaigning takes place here. If I were to return ‘home’ to Tasmania, I would feel much more important. But I digress. I expected Labor to win the Federal election, until they ventured into the poorly explained minefield of franking credits. Memo to the Labor party, policy change can be a good thing, but it needs to be clearly articulated. And the concerns of those it applies to need to be listened to. This is not the only reason Labor lost the election of course.
In this essay, Erik Jensen compared leaders, and relative strengths and weaknesses. It is ancient history now, but I think that one reason Scott Morrison won was that he projected a confidence that Bill Shorten didn’t.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
December 30, 2021
Whilst the title suggests analysis of "How Scott Morrison Won and Bill Shorten Lost", there is little , if any, discussion of just that. There is no through line that provides an answer to the question prompted. As such, by the end of it I found myself no wiser in the 2019 federal election.
Masquerading the complete lack of analysis, Jensen relies on stereotypes of both Shorten and Morrison that have already been exhausted by the media. When he is not churning out the stereotypes, Jensen lapses into excessive description of whatever is at the top of his mind. Ultimately, the stereotypes and description coalesced to create an utterly vapid essay.
Jensen is a journalist. Yet you would not know it by the writing. The essays at times becomes confusing as to who is who. The essay lack questioning. Both fundamentals to being a journalist.
Instead of wasting your time reading the essay, a retrospective look at the media coverage of the election would be much more fruitful.
Masquerading the complete lack of analysis, Jensen relies on stereotypes of both Shorten and Morrison that have already been exhausted by the media. When he is not churning out the stereotypes, Jensen lapses into excessive description of whatever is at the top of his mind. Ultimately, the stereotypes and description coalesced to create an utterly vapid essay.
Jensen is a journalist. Yet you would not know it by the writing. The essays at times becomes confusing as to who is who. The essay lack questioning. Both fundamentals to being a journalist.
Instead of wasting your time reading the essay, a retrospective look at the media coverage of the election would be much more fruitful.
Read
March 21, 2024Erik Jensen's writing is engaging and pleasant to read (although I could have done without the bit about Morrison's nipples), but The Prosperity Gospel was a disappointment for me. I realise that Jensen probably had the incredibly challenging task of having to rewrite his essay a month out from publication after the shock LNP victory, but there is very little analysis here and the question of how Scott Morrison won and Bill Shorten lost is never answered as promised. This is part recap of the standout moments of the 2019 federal election, part profile of Shorten and Morrison, and while some of the behind the scenes information was interesting in a gossipy sort of way, there wasn't a whole lot here.
January 20, 2026
I am surprised to see how many people have poorly rated this essay.
The prose is not that of a traditional essay but I think it is so beautiful. The annecdotes provide an intimacy into a set of campaigns that were certainly the most memorable in Australia’s history.
It paints several parallel portraits of multiple politician, but two delicate and detailed portraits of Morrison and Shorten provide nuance, softness and colour to these two men.
The essay is gentle and compelling which stands in complete opposite to the brashness of campaigning.
The prose is not that of a traditional essay but I think it is so beautiful. The annecdotes provide an intimacy into a set of campaigns that were certainly the most memorable in Australia’s history.
It paints several parallel portraits of multiple politician, but two delicate and detailed portraits of Morrison and Shorten provide nuance, softness and colour to these two men.
The essay is gentle and compelling which stands in complete opposite to the brashness of campaigning.
November 1, 2019
This isn’t your conventional essay, but this wasn’t a conventional election. More a collection of vignettes this piece is incredible, especially with candour in which the thoughts of politicians and their staffers is portrayed. Honestly, read it just to experience the last page, it hits likes a punch in the gut.
June 21, 2020
Different to your usual quarterly essay because it doesn't hold your hand. Read as a series of vignettes, it's analysis is subtle with a lot of character insights. However, the final say does fall a little flat. In summary, shorten was intelligent but insecure, whereas Morrison is a confident salesman but an idiot.
April 13, 2020
Much lighter than the usual QE, and the fact that Shorten gave interviews for the book while Morrison didn't made it feel a bit lopsided, and not in Shorten's favour. Other than those two points it is a perfectly good reminder of the election, and the two major players.
November 4, 2019
''Tragedy is what happens when half the world is comfortable.'' I think this says it all, really.
January 30, 2020
Interesting enough but a bit depressing that these two men are the best Australia has to offer.
March 22, 2021
For an essay entitled "How", there is very little how, and far too much who, what, when, where and whining.
August 8, 2021
Hey Siri, define "hindsight bias"
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews