The Contradiction of Pauline Hanson's Populism
Pauline Hanson's political career has long been characterized by a glaring gap between her fiery rhetoric and her actual policy positions. As Peter Lewis astutely observes, "The gap between what Pauline Hanson says and what she actually does is the real joke." This contradiction lies at the heart of understanding One Nation's surprising resurgence in Australian politics.
One Nation's Surging Popularity
Recent Guardian Essential polling reveals a startling development: more than half of Australians now express openness to voting for One Nation in future federal elections. This includes 45% of Labor voters and a third of all Greens supporters. These numbers represent a seismic shift for a party that has spent decades as a political punchline.
What makes this surge particularly remarkable is that it comes despite Hanson amplifying her crude attacks on Muslim Australians, rhetoric that even proved too extreme for some conservative Coalition members. The polling data was gathered during this controversial period, suggesting Hanson's appeal transcends traditional political boundaries.
The Super Progressive Movie Phenomenon
One Nation has skillfully employed crass humor to build its case, most notably through "A Super Progressive Movie," a feature-length cartoon that launched to boycotts and derision. The film pits "honest Aussies" against what it calls the "Naarm bubble" and its "aristocracy of special interests united under 'the victimhood.'"
While offensive to many, the movie demonstrates One Nation's understanding of contemporary political communication. It represents a right-wing version of South Park-style satire that resonates with certain segments of the population, particularly those feeling alienated from mainstream political discourse.
Understanding the Appeal
Several factors explain One Nation's growing appeal. First, the fragmentation of political discourse into self-reinforcing bubbles has created perfect conditions for angry outsiders to gain momentum. As one analyst noted, "If Hanson did not exist, the algorithm would invent someone like her."
Second, One Nation has successfully linked cultural concerns with material issues. For younger Australians struggling with housing affordability and cost of living pressures, Hanson's simple solution of cutting immigration connects cultural anxiety with economic reality. This represents what political scientists call "the holy grail of populism."
Third, One Nation voters express unique perspectives on national unity. While progressives often present One Nation as evidence of growing division, it's actually One Nation supporters who are most likely to say they feel Australia is becoming more divided. Their worldview sees "woke elites" as having cynically unified various minority groups into an alliance that dominates "normal" Australians.
Policy Divergences and Alignments
Examining policy preferences reveals both divergences and surprising alignments. The widest gap between One Nation voters and the broader population appears on climate change and renewable energy, which has become an emerging talisman for the party.
However, there are significant areas of agreement across the political spectrum. Protecting local industries enjoys strong support from all voter groups, as does regulating big tech and artificial intelligence. In the United States, similar cross-ideological alliances have emerged between figures as diverse as Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon on these issues.
The Existential Threat to Established Parties
One Nation's rise represents an existential challenge for multiple political forces. For the Coalition, particularly the Nationals and Liberals, Hanson's Fortress Australia rhetoric creates a difficult balancing act. The further conservative parties follow her lead, the harder it becomes to win back higher socioeconomic voters in metropolitan seats lost to independents.
For Labor, the challenge is twofold: containing the drain of its own voters to One Nation while positioning itself to win future contests should One Nation assume opposition status. The numbers suggest this is no longer a hypothetical concern but an emerging political reality.
Lessons from International Populism
International examples offer cautionary tales for how established parties should respond to populist challenges. The US Democrats assumed Donald Trump would be deemed unfit for office due to his crudity and alleged criminality, only to find themselves defending a system that had stopped delivering for working people.
In Britain, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has pursued what many see as an equally flawed approach, chasing the Reform UK party to the right with his own anti-immigration interventions. This strategy risks alienating progressive voters while failing to address the underlying frustrations driving populist support.
The Alternative Approach
A more promising strategy involves recognizing that One Nation represents not simply a right-wing political challenge but an expression of outsider frustration against dominant elites. The successful campaign of Zohran Mamdani for New York mayor offers one model, built on respectful engagement with Trump voters through curious street interviews.
This approach acknowledges that breaking people into identity groups has historically played into the hands of the powerful by undermining the material bonds of class that could unite across race and gender. When trade unions were stronger, they could drive solidarity from the shop floor up, championing material benefits like equal pay and universal healthcare.
The Reality Behind Hanson's Persona
Hanson's carefully cultivated image as the ultimate outsider collapses under examination of her party's actual record. One Nation has consistently opposed numerous pro-worker measures while enjoying patronage from figures like mining magnate Gina Rinehart, a regular visitor to Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort.
For all its momentum, Hanson's populism ultimately offers a vehicle for powerful interests to harness rational disdain for the status quo while pursuing policies that contradict her supporters' interests: winding back government, cutting taxes for the wealthy, and suppressing wages for workers.
The real political challenge for progressives isn't simply poking fun at welcomes to country and pronouns but defending against a populism that says one thing while doing another. As Australia approaches its next political chapter, understanding this contradiction may prove crucial to addressing the frustrations driving One Nation's surprising resurgence.
