Liberal Leader Angus Taylor barely has his toes in the sand and already there are articles pondering if he might be nudged aside in favour of Andrew Hastie.

Well, maybe not nudging, but perhaps putting little feelers out to see if voters nibble.

For a while, some people have held the view that Hastie presents a more digestible version of conservatism for the masses – a sort of half-way house between Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott.

While it is true that the Coalition are struggling in the polls, those in the backrooms of power would do well to remember they are being beaten by a party unapologetically to the right, not the left.

Keep in mind, the metrics of populism remain complex.

Besides, Andrew Hastie’s last notable spat involved getting a bit cross at his Instagram followers for criticising him over a voting backflip regarding the hate speech laws. Now it appears Hastie is taking a leaf out of the Canavan Book of Attacking One Nation by going after Pauline Hanson’s so-called ‘MAGA-first’ position.

In this case, Pauline Hanson was interviewed on Inside Politics about the US’s performance in the Iran War – an extremely complex regional conflict against several nation states, a collection of Islamic terror groups on home turf, and actual pirates. All of it funded through decades of cowardice and blood money from Democrats, Republicans, and other Western regimes who were too afraid to upset the oil cart.

And for framing purposes, this was a relatively, well, let’s not call it hostile, but certainly a stern interview and the Iran question came deep into the conversation.

The question was, if Pauline Hanson were to become Prime Minister and Donald Trump asked Australia to join a theoretical war in the Middle East or in the Taiwan Straits against China, would she be inclined to join?

Keep in mind, this sort of theoretical question cannot be answered, not really, because the specific circumstances and response of other countries change every possible strategic equation. It is essentially a question of, ‘Do you generally support our most powerful ally and the world’s largest war machine?’

This is what Pauline Hanson said:

‘That is a hypothetical question. And I am not going to answer that this time because that needs to be strategically advised … that I would be listening to … all the Defence etc.’

And that is the most honest and measured answer I’ve heard any leader give to that sort of question. The journalist immediately followed with, ‘Do you still support Trump’s war in Iran?’

Again, Senator Hanson gave a calm response. ‘I think we needed to make sure that Iran didn’t have nuclear weaponry, by all means.’

‘Was it a success?’

‘It is still going on. We don’t know. If we can get the Strait of Hormuz open and we get the oil supply … but you can’t allow that dictatorship and that happening in the world. I think it would be more detrimental to the world if [Iran] were allowed to have that [nuclear] weapon.’

Nothing radical or wrong with that answer.

‘Do you think Trump has made any mistakes in his presidency to date?’

‘I’m sure he has,’ replied Senator Hanson. ‘But I am not an American citizen. Let them decide.’

She went on, when pushed toward the affirmative, to describe certain things she did support including the protection of biological women’s rights, cracking down on mass migration from the Mexican border, and the creation of fresh investment for Americans. These things she described as positive.

‘Would you ever have an argument with the Trump Administration?’

‘If I didn’t agree with them. I’ll have an argument with anyone. Or I will debate them.’

That was the conversation about MAGA-first politics. It is unclear how it could be handled any better, including by a Coalition leader.

News.com.au reported:

[Andrew] Hastie fiercely decried Ms Hanson’s comments on Monday, telling the outlet that it was ‘not controversial’ to say Trump’s war has not gone to plan.

‘Pauline Hanson’s problem is that she is MAGA first, even when the Australian people suffer the economic consequences,’ he told the [Sydney Morning Herald].

This is a difference of opinion. Senator Hanson is waiting for the war to reach its conclusion before passing judgment, Hastie sees fit to critique it during operations. Both are valid, but it hard to follow the logic that by withholding judgement, Hanson is ‘MAGA first’.

In the Sydney Morning Herald, Andrew Hastie went on to say:

‘Our first loyalty must be to the Australian people. Not to international institutions, not to ideology like MAGA, but to the Australian people, first and foremost. The US is a close ally, but we should always be frank with our friends, and speak up for the national interest.’

…okay?

Are we listening to the same interview with Hanson?

I am finding his logic difficult to follow. Hanson said she would ‘debate anyone’, including Trump.

And to Hastie’s point about economic consequences, that is largely our own fault. The Coalition and Labor both allowed Australia’s fuel independence to die off to dangerous levels leaving us vulnerable to any global tension. When Trump tried to give us the hint about Iran months in advance, we made no plans to secure fuel from America or allies across the Pacific.

What is the US supposed to do, sit around and wait for Iran to hold the oil region hostage with nuclear weapons? It is not as if that would make the situation less risky. Both major parties ignored decades of geopolitical risk for economic convenience. This is the cost.

For anyone fantasising about a leadership spill (which there is no evidence of), Angus Taylor remains best placed to face off Albanese at the next election.

Since being joined by Tony Abbott as Federal Party President, the Coalition has cooled its attacks both on One Nation and MAGA after that tactic turned into a disaster for Peter Dutton.

Perhaps some people within the broad church are trying to resurrect it?

The same article notes:

Coalition strategists believe that linking her to Trump is one of the best ways to diminish her standing among voters, as Labor did with former Liberal Leader Peter Dutton at the last election.

A failed strategy, it should be noted.

There was nothing newsworthy in Pauline Hanson’s interview on Iran.

What is interesting is the fire being lit beneath Andrew Hastie that might suggest there is a bit of factional movement to see if a leadership spill could improve the polls.