There is an article in The Saturday Paper floating the idea that Tony Abbott is a Populist (according to an unnamed Liberal source). To me, this presents a fundamental misunderstanding of the ‘Populist’ movement which, itself, carries a title and definition forced upon it by its enemies.
Whatever. They are stuck with it for now.
Populism is popular, but popularity is not its definition.
Nigel Farage was a Populist, waving his little Union Jack flag at the EU, long before whispers of Number 10. Pauline Hanson was a Populist when she looked down the camera lens and uttered her infamous catchphrase, ‘Please explain…’
Tony Abbott, while a fondly remembered Prime Minister by the Blue Ribbon faithful, is neither electorally popular at the moment or a Populist in the Faragian sense. He is a Liberal of the conservative faction. Some argue Abbott may not even be a true Menzian, given how far the Liberal Party has drifted from the politics of Menzies.
(Menzies has been bastardised in campaign speeches for so long, very few people remember what the original man stood for. He is more like a spirit invoked for drama rather than a genuine policy guardrail.)
The Left and Right of politics are speaking a completely different language these days (spend five minutes listening to the ABC and see if you can decipher them) and I feel a great deal is being lost in translation.
Which is a bad thing.
When you are having a cultural revolution on the Right, correctly identifying the combatants is important, otherwise, how will the public know what ideas are being contested?
The election of Abbott as Federal Party President is a re-assertion of Australian Liberalism in the hope the party can head-off the Populist threat before it reaches Faragian levels of support. He has been selected as a last-ditch effort to oppose Populism.
These are different political ideologies. They have different policies. Different ethics. And a different vision for the future of the nation.
Returning to the Saturday Paper article, after spending a while quoting unnamed Liberal sources, including one in Victoria hoping to build an ‘Abbott-proof fence’ (for those too young for the reference, see ‘rabbit-proof fence’), it finally wanders into the source of the Populist accusation.
A former Liberal minister, whose identity we are left to guess at, apparently said:
‘The Abbott roadshow is like some grotesque carnival of the worst elements of Australian political Populism, turning the once great Liberal Party into the operating wing of Sky After Dark, where no minority is safe from a dog whistle, no bias or bigotry unwelcome, and decency is banished to a back cupboard to join the one or two remaining Liberal moderates shaking nervously in the dark.’
Of course, I thoroughly disagree with the accusations contained within the quote. If asked to clarify them with evidence, I suspect the unnamed individual would mutter something about Net Zero or complain about losing their seat.
It is strange none of these anonymous sources bothered to point out that the Liberal Party has waged a sustained campaign against Pauline Hanson over many decades. Blue and Orange have been at war since the start, and the Coalition have done the heavy lifting. To confuse the two movements seems more like the bitter ramblings of a disaffected moderate faction attacking their right flank rather than a serious political observation.
Which is interesting, because they are always lecturing the public about misinformation.
However, it is true to say that Populism is in competition with the Liberals. And the Nationals. And Labor. It may very well be the case that Populism replaces at least one of these parties.
The article goes on to discuss the potential rise of Andrew Hastie and imagined downfall of Angus Taylor – with Hastie apparently a preference for the moderates.
If you spend some time looking at how the word ‘Populist’ is used by political figures and the media at large, it lends weight to the idea that ‘Populist’ is thrown around as a slur to avoid using ‘bigot’, ‘racist’, or ‘cooker’. Drawing the connection between conservative Liberals and Pauline Hanson is meant to tarnish them with the brush of (imagined) extremism.
In this case, it is not even clear what sort of Populism Abbott is accused of subscribing to.
Populism is notoriously difficult to define, except that it provides the counter argument to Woke.
They are ideological opposites and yet lack coherent definitions aside from saying you know it when you see it. Nigel Farage, Donald Trump, Javier Milei, and Pauline Hanson are all broadly ‘Populist’ but their philosophy predates Populism while their policies and world views vary considerably.
Country-to-country, perhaps it would be better to say ‘Populism’ is the cross-political response to Establishment parties, whatever they may be. It is a rejection of UN directives, World Economic Forum think tanks, and the scourge of resurrected international socialism. Certainly, it is universally against globalist ideas such as mass migration, open borders, surveillance state technology, and anti-free speech legislation.
The Liberal Party is pretty mixed on these and wrote some of the worst policy ideas. (Remember Digital ID?)
Populists share a belief in the superiority of the national interest over international bureaucratic demands, have a suspicion of the Big State, and speak to the working class and middle class. These are very loose philosophies that used to be universal to both the left and right of Western major parties.
Personally, I do not believe ‘Populism’ is an accurate descriptor of Western political movements.
The reason Populist leaders, such as Farage, Hanson, and Trump, manage to gain support from conservatives, unionists, academics, and the working class is because they are offering a vision of restoration. The return of nations they view as being destroyed by modern politics. This is, broadly, conservatism but it is a conservatism of national identity.
And yes, wanting to restore long-lost nations is popular.
The Liberal Party that Tony Abbott and Angus Taylor are trying to lead is not Populist, it is Liberal. They borrow some Populist ideas, just as Populists borrow from conservatism, but they are not offering a complete rejection of the progressive ideals that worked their way into the party through the moderate wing of the broad church. The moderate faction is not being expelled from the party. Sitting MPs are still trying to devise ways to fend off the Teals in rich seats and battle the Greens and Labor in poorer city suburbs.
The Liberals have their own civil war to fight in addition to a conservative battle and a broader culture war against the Left. Populists might not be able to define who they are, but they know what they want. Liberals know who they are, but struggle to articulate what they want.
It is fitting that the ideology that tops Western polls has no clear definition and that its political opponents fundamentally mischaracterise the cultural struggle underpinning the collapse of mainstream parties.
So no, Tony Abbott is not a Populist, and that is fine. He has never set out to be one.
Flat White is written by Alexandra Marshall. If you would like to support her work, shout her a coffee over at donor-box.
