The Surge in One Nation Support

This was intended to be an audio/video Vlog, but it seems I’m still in the process of having to re-learn how to edit video, so this will have to do for now ….

This undeniable and poll-supported dynamic in Australian politics needs some analysis, to the degree that it’s even objectively or reasonably possible, because such political analysis is notoriously difficult for any country, including ours.

Some pundits have suggested the recent wave of support for One Nation is a reflection of global political trends. The Right is certainly looming large in a number of contexts, but for me this explanation seems a touch clichéd and simplistic. Global politics is seldom a homogeneity. It’s complex. The political pendulum constantly swings, and it swings differently for different countries in different historical moments. In the USA, for example, I think we can fairly say there’s a movement to the Left in progress, and hopefully that will be reflected at the November Mid-Term elections. But is there an identifiable swing of that proverbial political pendulum to the Right happening here in Australia? I’m not sure. If it is, I think it’s marginal.

For me the simplest, almost Occam’s Razor-type explanation for One Nation’s rise in recent polling is the collapse of the Coalition. Those poor, pathetic bastards are really in the proverbial, if not literal, shitter. Labor’s astounding victory at the last election – which we’ve not seen since John Howard laid-waste to a rather hapless Paul Keating – did the Coalition untold damage. Of course I was preeminently pleased by that result because I thoroughly – and openly – dislike conservative ideology, but that result has left something of a hole for the nation’s conservative voters. Sadly, One Nation seems to be, at least to some extent, filling that void.

I honestly can’t hide how utterly horrifying that dynamic is to me. I mean, yeah, the Coalition is in a bad way, but One Nation as an alternative? What the actual fuck are you people thinking? Over the last couple of decades conservative politics and ideology has slid to the Right, but this is simply delirious. I mean, One Nation isn’t even a “conservative” party. It represents the worst reactionary, right-wing populism this country has seen in many decades. John Howard was bad enough in this regard but Pauline Hanson is off-the-charts. She’s literally created one of the ugliest, most detestable cultural movements in this country and while I have to grant her the success of that, I’d much rather she hadn’t, or that so many have bought into the agitprop of at all.

Can you remember a political party that has had to dump so many endorsed candidates because their criminal or ethically dodgy pasts were revealed? No, me neither. Can you remember a political party that’s had so many of their candidates bail on them after using that party to get elected? No, me neither. As an organisation they are almost incapable of inspiring loyalty. One Nation is a fucking joke, in every possible sense. I mean, just look at these policy-hollow cheap-arse grifters: https://shop.onenation.org.au/

I can appreciate that conservative voters need a place to hang their hat and feel politically and culturally relevant, and to feel as though someone on their side of politics has their back, but seriously, this is their only or best option? That’s just downright depressing.

One Nation and their adoption of the MAGA mentality

It’s undeniable that Hanson and One Nation have hung their hat on the populist American MAGA movement (personality cult). How any self-respecting, even superficially intellectually conscious conservative Australian voter could have any truck with that deranged ardour is beyond me. It’s shameful. Now Hanson is sidling up to the likes of Tommy Robinson. Give me a goddamned break. They are now fuelling anti-immigration prejudice in this country of the most ignorant and bigoted kind. I swear we’re only moments away from migrants eating our cats and dogs. If you have a lucid, fact-based argument against our current levels of immigration I’m happy to hear it. If you’re going to spew One Nation talking points and propaganda and pretend you’re a decent human being, you can piss the hell off.

Now, in conclusion, I’m no psephologist and would never claim to have any expertise in that field, so you can take what follows with a Maldon-size grain of salt, but I can’t see One Nation doing especially well at the next federal election, despite the current polling. They might grab another couple of places in the Senate and maybe steal a couple of lower-house seats from the LNP in Queensland, but I don’t see the scope for them to achieve much more than that. So, I would say to Australia’s conservative voters: I know you’re disappointed with the current Coalition’s status and parliamentary performance, which is objectively pretty dismal, but please stick with them, because strong Oppositions are always important for our democracy, and One Nation has exactly zero capacity to perform that role.

Edit: like the stupid person I am, I failed to include an element of this dynamic I think to be important – the media. Our parlous 4th estate has fallen over itself to give Hanson and One Nation publicity and even political credibility – but based on what? A few polls? Hanson as a potential Prime Minister? The fuck? There’s no statistical basis on which such a proposition is other that utterly fatuous.

There has been essentially no analysis of policy, no analysis of the political dynamic in and of itself. Chasing a headline and promoting controversy is all our battalion of bellicose political-journalist boofheads seem to have in their pseudo-intellectual armoury. It’s pathetic and embarrassing. More than that, it’s culturally alarming. Thank Dog for Social Media, where at least some semblance of integrity and genuine concern exists, even if also a fair-share of nonsense and propaganda. I think by now most of us have learned how to discern the difference.

What is interesting, however, about the media’s almost total lack of critical analysis of One Nation and its unabashed promotion, is that it seems to be counterproductive. The polls are already turning. That political pendulum is already swinging, and I think it’s because the more Hanson and One Nation are granted a place in the consciousness of the voting public, the more that presence makes us uncomfortable. The more it makes us question our judgements and values. And so it ought. I mean, in the fair-dinkum stakes, which I would hope to still be an abiding element of our collective Australian psychology – how can this mob be taken seriously? There’s simply no identifiable basis for such enthusiasm.

Thanks for giving me your time.

Unknown's avatar

About Dan Rowden

Dan Rowden is a freelance writer and philosopher who has been active in philosophical and political discourse since Malcolm Turnbull invented the Internet in Australia. For the last 15 years he has contributed to and administered Internet philosophy forums. Politics is a secondary interest, but he recognises moments of significance in Australia's political history.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to The Surge in One Nation Support

  1. randalstella's avatar randalstella says:

    One.

    Particularly by the examples in politics, we now well know that lies are close to murder. Vicious lies are right next to murder. Murder is far from excluded in politics. Watch out for belonging, when it gets to be exclusive, as if claiming a moral right. Watch out for extreme Us. To belong, We might just murder to contain Our politics – you never know. That this continent is owned exclusively by pale-skinned Europeans is not even a bad joke. And beyond parody.

    But it was the first sort of thing we heard from PH, when (still) the Liberal candidate for Oxley, in 1996. I remember it as this fantastic horror. Howard looming was bad enough: this was bleached evil.

    On the PH off the scale. Herein a differentiation between mentality and temperament. In so far as temperament is inside a mentality, as its means.

    First of all, in an important sense PH is not such an oddity. She is mainly unusual by the brazen opportunism, from the opportunities that have fallen her way, and encouraged her public performance of her bigotry – the one interest in public life that she has. Her latest stroke of good fortune has been Gina Rinehart. Her biggest fortune by far so far; and not just coincidentally also the biggest surge in her support so far, by far. Maybe she also has a gift for public persistence in her hate. Hate particularly seems to motivate her, animate her.

    Otherwise you might encounter sour and vocal bigots all about the place – who would not think of public performance, beyond very localised earbashing. And maybe they could not think of much worse than being a public performer. PH can. She has a similar mentality, but an odder temperament. She wants public retribution for the anger she feels. Her anger fuels her indignation, that hateful things are not being done often enough. So, she wants to make public policy out of it.

    There is plenty of irrational malice among humans. It seems to come so naturally. It is impossible not to see it, even if anyone might have been lucky enough not to experience it personally. This is a dangerous species. It is a beast for domination. The Media show that. The Media love it. They’ve been so lucky to cotton on to the temperament of PH, resilient public hater. When other bigots are so often private, seclusive ingrates. She encourages so many to be followers. Authoritarians are ready followers, obedient servants for force.

    The mentality they share wants to pick on those with less power, and it can thus thrive with the defenceless, the powerless, as its obsessive self-indulgence. It is the jackboot cop bored by night shift and touring around for someone to harass and menace. You can see how easily she is able to rouse support – without any evidence and by sheer hate. If she had to have evidence it would not work so well. If she had evidence it would not work so well. If she had logic she’d be just another mumbler with a theory. If it just had to be straight-out honest belief, it would struggle to surge. It offers a realm of malign fantasy – by magic categories of targets. It is a performance by a nasty but not uncommon mentality, but by an odder temperament.

    It runs by the inherent energy of lies – and the more blatant the lies the more she is likely to be supported, through the Media: the assumption that she is believed all through all her claims seems cognitively implausible. Even for the nitwits – especially for the more malignant ones. I have to infer that she is a mix of these herself, nitwit and malevolent fiend. Dull and fierce. Intellectually uninterested and incapable, and ferociously intent. She is a roaming preacher for excuses by which to mean harm; at least to threaten it and more to persecute if she possibly can. Her idea of abstractions is to carp them as malice. Like a learner who never managed to abstract properly: she is a regressive on the Piaget schedule of mental and intellectual and moral development.

    The curse is cursed. She goes on like a veteran child, possessed by the devil: ‘We are sick of the lot of you! ‘ she blurts because, while she is insatiable for publicity, she has no argument: when questioned about her world tour to rendezvous with a British racist criminal thug. If only she could smash the questioner. She has a ‘policy’ to close down such questions, to close anything but an insular view of the world.

    She claims herself such a patriot, and travels to England to trash Australia, for not being fascistic like the people she admires. It is the contradiction that fascism takes pride in, and dares anyone to object.

Leave a comment