Make no mistake, Pauline Hanson is extreme. But she can do something rival politicians can’t
The most important thing to say about Pauline Hanson’s appearance at the National Press Club last week is also clear (or at least it should be): she confirmed that she is a far-right politician.
Hanson’s familiarity is clearly part of his appeal. It’s part of the furniture. The same goes for Barnaby Joyce. These sentiments, exemplified by the widespread tendency to mention “Pauline” and “Barnaby”, can make the One Nation clamor seem almost banal: just another episode in the dull comedy of Australian politics. But this familiarity should not be allowed to obscure the dangerous and foreign nature of the situation: a far-right party currently has more votes than any other party in Australia.
This isn’t just a label. This is an accurate description of the positions Hanson put forward last week.
But Hanson just wants “monoculture,” wants serious cuts in immigration, openly hates Islam, believes global warming is a “hoax,” doesn’t want to limit the rights of transgender people and restrict access to abortion. He wants such issues to be placed at the center of political debate. These are not idle beliefs; They are very important to his project.
It’s possible that these problems will eventually come back to Hanson; At some point Australians decide they don’t want someone with those views representing them. But we’re not there yet, and we shouldn’t assume we will.
There were two surprising facts in last week’s speech. The first was that Hanson also appeared left-wing at times. At one point he talked about poverty and homelessness. He was clearly emotional. This was the kind of fiery rhetoric you once expected from the left; before the left became so afraid of the right to paint itself as a “bleeding heart” that it focused insufficiently on “ordinary Australians” and largely stopped talking about such things. He then came back to the topic by talking about children needing shoes and uniforms for school.
As one astute observer told me, one reason rhetoric like this resonates is that Hanson voters (this rapidly expanding category) can now imagine themselves drifting toward poverty. This is the precarious economy and world that people feel they live in.
This wasn’t the only issue on which Hanson came to the major parties from the left. Hanson warned about Labor cuts to the NDIS; He said some people had been excluded from the programme, “they probably really need the help and support of the NDIS”. He wanted to regulate AI rather than leaving it mostly “in the hands of companies” as Labor said it had done.
There are a few lessons from this. The first is that everyone’s political space is ripe for usurpation. The second is about directness. When Hanson talked about poverty, he was expressing a clear problem. And despite all these problems, he was willing to talk about how these problems came about. His explanations consist of fantasies; renewable energy and mostly immigrants. Because of this false simplicity, his job is easier than that of other politicians.
But his speech nevertheless pointed out significant flaws that had developed over decades in the language of other politicians. Many people have lost the ability to express what is wrong in society because they fear that they will be blamed if they cannot fix it. And many have become reluctant to explain the reasons for fear that not everyone will agree. Often this means that politicians are unwilling or unable to accurately describe the world that voters can see around them. This creates a barrier between the political class and the voters; A barrier that Hanson broke.
Hanson’s speech also revealed a surprising weakness. There are many useful comparisons that can be made between the rise of US President Donald Trump and Hanson. But Trump is a unique figure driven by his own passions, whims and follies. Hanson was oddly conventional at times; This was the result of decades spent trying to maintain political life. When pressed on policies, he said they would be announced later. He emphasized how much work still remains to be done regarding the possibility of taking over the government. These are the measured talking points of a typical major party leader.
The appeal of Trump and Hanson is, first and foremost, symbols; Screens where voters’ frustrations can be reflected. Trump has maintained this power thanks to his volatility and uniqueness. Conversely, Hanson’s surprising adherence to tradition may at some point threaten his power as a symbol, relegating him to the status of a run-of-the-mill politician whose policies are mundane, real, and challengeable.
But at this point he remains something different: a celebrity immune to political logic. It may remain so. And although some of his positions may turn off some voters, those voters may still choose to ignore those policies in favor of others: after all, this happens to every party.
Or the idea that Hanson will trap himself may be wrong, because ultimately it won’t be Hanson who will take the far right to another level; He said that his most important contribution would be to open space for another right-wing populist.
Meanwhile, as parliament returns, Labor continues to demonstrate the advantage every government has over its rivals: the ability to get things done. This budget debate has ultimately been little different from others: first debates, then tweaks and policies followed by legislation. At the end of all this, the government will be able to show what it has done.
This will rightly be a test for Labor against One Nation and others: has he done enough to make voters think he is the best option to govern the country? In the remaining two years of this term, the Labor Party will have to clearly express the problems it sees, the reasons for these problems and the answers. This sounds simple; until I remembered how rarely that happens these days.
By Sean Kelly Game: The Portrait of Scott Morrisona regular columnist and former advisor to Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.
Get a weekly opinion pack that will challenge, defend and inform your own views. Sign up for our opinion newsletter.
Sean Kelly is the author of The Game: A Portrait of Scott Morrison, regular columnist and former advisor to Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.Connect with: X.
