Meaning: This quote by John Hewson, an Australian politician and former leader of the Liberal Party, sheds light on the challenges and expectations faced by individuals in academic and public life. The quote reflects Hewson's realization that his inclination to provide thorough and detailed responses, characteristic of an academic, may not always align with the pragmatic or strategic approach required in the realm of politics.

In the context of academia, the habit of "answering the question" speaks to the commitment to intellectual rigor and the pursuit of knowledge. Academics are trained to engage deeply with questions, analyze them from multiple perspectives, and provide comprehensive and well-reasoned answers. This approach is essential for advancing scholarship and addressing complex issues in various fields of study. However, in the realm of politics, where messaging, public perception, and political maneuvering are crucial, the same approach may not always be the most effective.

The phrase "I should have fobbed it off" suggests that Hewson recognizes the need to sometimes deflect or evade questions rather than directly addressing them. This tactic, often employed in politics, allows individuals to navigate sensitive or contentious topics without committing to a specific stance or risking potential backlash. While this approach may seem at odds with the principles of transparency and accountability, it is a common strategy in political communication and public discourse.

Hewson's acknowledgment of this contrast between academic and political behavior highlights the complexities of transitioning between different spheres of influence. As an academic, one is expected to delve deeply into issues, offer nuanced insights, and engage in rigorous debate. Conversely, in the political arena, the emphasis may be more on persuasion, negotiation, and the careful management of public opinion.

The quote also underscores the tension between intellectual honesty and the demands of practical politics. Academics are often driven by a commitment to truth-seeking and the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. In contrast, politicians may face pressures to prioritize expediency, compromise, and the pursuit of power. Negotiating these competing demands requires a delicate balance and an acute awareness of the context in which one is operating.

Furthermore, Hewson's reflection may resonate with individuals who navigate multiple roles or professional identities. Whether in academia, business, or public service, the need to adapt one's communication style and decision-making process to suit different contexts is a common challenge. It requires a keen understanding of the expectations, constraints, and priorities inherent in each domain.

In conclusion, John Hewson's quote encapsulates the tension between the academic inclination to thoroughly answer questions and the political imperative to navigate them strategically. It prompts us to consider the complexities of reconciling intellectual rigor with the practical demands of public life. The quote serves as a reminder of the nuanced skills and adaptive strategies required when engaging in diverse professional spheres.