Anyone who writes an epitaph for the One Nation Party cannot forget the commentators who predicted its demise before, only to find egg on their faces a few weeks later. Nevertheless, with One Nation currently engaged in a particularly farcical bout of self-destruction, it is a good time to ask whether the Pauline Hanson phenomenon achieved anything for the people who welcomed its appearance.
Of course, people were attracted to Ms Hanson for different reasons. Clearly, some who dislike Asians and Aborigines saw her as a kindred spirit, however much she might claim to be colour-blind in her attitudes. Her attacks on tariff reduction, foreign ownership and privatisation found many sympathisers, including people who otherwise saw her as a Great Female Satan.
Hanson's wholehearted patriotism also struck a respondent chord with those who think that Australia is a pretty good country, and who expect their leaders to be more forthright in expressing their pride in the nation's achievements, rather than apologising for its past.
But the ultimate basis of Hanson's appeal lay in her mettle, her willingness to talk about issues that arrogant elites and craven politicians had tried to rope off from public discussion, and her refusal to back down despite all the vitriol that was directed against her. Many people who recognised that she was probably incapable of providing any real analysis of the nation's problems -- let alone answers -- or who strongly disagreed with her on key matters, still hoped that some benefits might result from the jolt she was giving to Australia's political culture.
These people, who included members of the Federal Coalition, thought that Hanson could open up a space which would make it easier to challenge the Labor-Democrat consensus on issues such as multiculturalism and Aboriginal affairs. By staking out a radical position, she would effectively move the boundaries of public debate, allowing other conservative politicians to express the more moderate views of middle Australia without being denounced as bigots by the media.
That is not how things turned out.
Certainly, where Pauline Hanson's sentiments coincided with those of the caffe latte set, such as her attacks on "economic rationalism", people on the left were very happy to use One Nation's apparent ability to garner support on these issues to back up their own denunciations. So Hanson and her party can probably claim some responsibility for the ALP's increased readiness to turn its back on economic reform.
In that sense One Nation has delivered something to those followers who were attracted by its economic views, although whether this is in the ultimate interests of Australia is a different question. And One Nation's advocacy, however muddled, of concerns which stir up few passions in the metropolitan centres, such as the plight of rural and provincial Australia, has focused more attention on the problems than might otherwise have been the case.
But as far as opening up debate on topics covered by the umbrella of "political correctness" -- the issue which brought Pauline Hanson to prominence in the first place -- she and her party have been a dismal failure. Questions such as the points of tension between cultural diversity and social harmony, or the costs and benefits of preferential treatment and affirmative action policies for racial and ethnic minorities, or the long-term economic and social effects of native title, are no more the subject of honest and wide-ranging public discussion than they were in Paul Keating's heyday.
There are a number of reasons for this failure. The first is the unwillingness of One Nation to examine difficult and sensitive matters in an intelligent and constructive manner. Hanson's standard approach, and that of her party, is to present a grab-bag of slogans and poorly digested facts and half-truths, wrapped up with occasionally worthwhile observations. This approach may be sufficient when you are going along with the elites' favoured nostrums, but when you are fighting a cultural battle against them a lot more thought and effort is required.
This made it all the more easy for the beneficiaries of the Keating era to demonise Ms Hanson and One Nation. While the intemperate and grossly disproportionate nature of their attacks increased One Nation's appeal to ordinary Australians, it frightened away many prominent people who might have wanted to take a more informed and responsible stand against the conventional wisdom of the elites.
False, but frequently repeated claims that John Howard and Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Herron had "caved in" to One Nation, and the Government's baffled and inept reaction to these charges also helped to ensure that the dead hand of "political correctness" would continue to stifle public debate.
The left would have vilified Hanson no matter how articulate and compelling her arguments may have been. But as Victoria's maverick premier Jeff Kennett has shown, an astute and hard-working politician can readily overcome such hostility and even use it to create support that is more enduring than the nine day wonder that Pauline Hanson brought into being.
For many years Kennett was bitterly despised and ridiculed by the ABC, the Melbourne Age and the whole of the city's left establishment, and although some of the initial virulence has declined, he still incurs their considerable displeasure. But now he is also the country's most popular, and arguably the most effective, political leader. His critical but reasoned and civil response to Hanson was far more damaging to her in Victoria than the sanctimonious and sometimes violent wailing of her other opponents.
Despite its negatives, I think that the rise, and likely fall, of One Nation has brought one real benefit. The shenanigans of the party's leading troika, not to speak of the antics of some of its lesser lights, have brought home an important lesson. Australians who are tempted by the idea that some Joan of Arc can lead them out of bondage can now see that "anti" politicians are often more arrogant, foolish, and indifferent to public opinion than the ordinary kind.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment