Peter Lewis, executive director of Essential, proposes a radical shift in how Australians respond to Pauline Hanson and One Nation. Instead of meeting her anger with outrage, he suggests engaging her policies with equanimity and polite requests for explanation. This approach, he argues, reveals her lack of preparedness to govern, as demonstrated during her National Press Club address.
One Nation's Polling Rise and the Anger Machine
According to the latest Guardian Essential Report, One Nation maintains a meteoric rise in the polls, with 29% of voters having crossed the Hanson line and 23% One Nation curious. The right track/wrong track metric suggests anger is a key driver. Political strategist Ed Coper, in his book Angertainment, explains how algorithms cater to outrage, pushing voters toward the far right. Lewis notes that while Hanson has focused on race for 30 years, only now are her messages traveling beyond the fringes, aided by big tech platforms.
The National Press Club Address: Policy Scrutiny Exposed
Hanson's National Press Club address provided genuine scrutiny of her policies. When asked how pulling out of the UN would invalidate Australia's shipping and aviation treaties, she had no answer. Her call to scrap paid parental leave was swiftly walked back, and her panic over a "mono-culture" was contradicted when she later embraced Australia's rainbow World Cup squad. Lewis argues that by engaging rather than rejecting, we hold her accountable.
Concerns About One Nation's Governing Capacity
A majority of One Nation-curious voters fear the party is not equipped to govern, according to Essential polling. Even those saying they would vote for Hanson express concern. Lewis suggests that by treating Hanson with equanimity and engaging in good faith, we can channel political momentum into productive discussion about Australia's place in the world.
Conclusion: Empathy Over Outrage
Lewis concludes that genuine empathy travels further than anger. By listening to Hanson and her supporters, we can find common ground before addressing points of friction. He cites Coper's point that meeting people where they are invites them into something bigger. This approach, he argues, is more effective than condemnation or cancellation.
