By Mark Kenny

A version of this article was originally published by The Canberra Times.

The undisguised greed and self-aggrandisement in Trump's Washington is now affecting news judgements in this country.

Media outlets mostly trivialised the story when Peter Dutton went off-piste on Sydney radio declaring he would shun the nation's capital for the superior views and A-list lifestyle at the country's most exclusive address.

"When you've got a choice between Kirribilli [House] and living in Canberra and The Lodge, I think you'd take Sydney any day over Canberra." Dutton beamed unselfconsciously.

His family, he explained, as if filling in the missing piece, loved the harbour and considered Sydney "a great city".

Say what? In the blink of an eye, Dutton's insistent three-year campaign for the country's most important job dissolved, only to be replaced by parameters resembling a dream holiday, all-expenses-paid.

Had Dutton let the successful property investor part of his brain answer the question? Was this a "basket of deplorables" moment? You'll remember the race-leading Hillary Clinton gaffe in 2016 when she said "you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables".

Her slur breached the most basic campaigning rule: never insult the voters you're trying to win over.

It was not just the half million Australians in the ACT and surrounds to whom the elite harbourside scarper was an "up yours". It was anyone living outside Australia's inner-urban Tesla belts, anyone beyond what Scott Morrison derided as "the cafes, dinner parties and wine bars of our inner cities".

Recall Keating's hilarious, if apocryphal taunt, "If you're not living in Sydney, you're camping out". Who knew Dutton agreed, and so strongly he'd stake an election on it?

Dutton, lest we forget, has built his whole opposition schtick around a special empathy for the 'burbs where commutes are long, services short, and families struggle weekly "to put food on the table". What do these voters make of a taxpayer-funded house being not good enough?

Let's get serious. The job, prime minister of Australia, is capital-based. Its copious 24/7 responsibilities come with a grand home just five chauffeur-driven minutes from Parliament House, which in turn is a five-minute drive from the GG, PM&C, Treasury, Defence, DFAT, ASIO, and other crucial agencies of state. In times of peril, these proximities matter. Remember, for example, the instant closure of all US airspace during the first days of September 11.

By not residing in the capital, our potential FI-FO leader would be in town only for parliamentary sittings and cabinet meetings. Maybe they'd be moved to Sydney as well?

For a man who pines for pre-woke Australian values, dumping on the seat of national government is both off-brand and rude.

Only weeks ago, Dutton was belly-aching about the good old days when employees (public servants) did their eight hours under the boss's gaze.

"I don't think it's unreasonable that people, like in many other workplaces, are asked to go back to work for that face-to-face contact," he had told another Sydney radio station. "That's exactly what will happen if there's a change of government after the election."

Although, not for him. In fact, "face-to-face contact" between a harbourside PM and Canberra-based agency heads would rely more frequently on Zoom (or Signal?). Either that or most meetings would incur airfares, travel time and other on-costs. One for his new "minister for government efficiency" perhaps?

Work-from-home provisions are vital for those balancing job and family responsibilities - predominantly women.

It will not be lost on them that Dutton explicitly cites his own work-life balance while shaping to curtail theirs.

"I don't know who is advising him," Tweeted one respondent, "but they should be fired immediately. All he is doing is isolating potential supporters of all political persuasions".

As Clinton would attest, the singular goal in election campaigns is to build support, not blow it off.

The would-be PM's hubristic looseness raises further doubts about his judgement and readiness for the burden he seeks.

It was telling that he did not attempt to justify Sydney as Australia's prime commercial hub, however thin such a rationale might be. It was all about lifestyle.

Does this seem like a serious person positioning for the most complex global picture since the Cold War?

Defenders cite Howard and Morrison, but the Queenslander would be the first non-Sydney-based MP-PM to move there. The question remains, why?

Melburnians have long rued their second-city status. Dutton wants to make it official.

Bitterness lingers there after the Morrison government's pointless rhetorical war during the pandemic. Given what this could mean on election night, one might have expected a Coalition focus on relationship repair.

Canberra was founded as the seat of federal government precisely because it was not Sydney or Melbourne, nor any of the other colonial capitals. Elevating Sydney alone tears at the spirit and intent of this nation-creating design feature. Again, why?

Dutton, as a self-identifying traditionalist, should know that long-respected leadership customs which bespeak personal modesty, frugality and ongoing availability to specialist Press Gallery journalists are central to this country's broadly egalitarian governance.

More than any written rule, such cultural guardrails delimit executive ego and protect citizens from the cupidity overwhelming American democracy.

Mark Kenny is the Director of the ANU Australian Studies Institute and host of the Democracy Sausage podcast.