This is the month when the politics of white grievance broke to the forefront of the No campaign against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. It’s no longer (if it ever was) about the technicalities of the Voice. It’s not even about the shoddy politics of attempting to maim a still-popular government.
Suddenly, publicly, it’s all about the “whitelash”: the backlash by the largely British-descended settler class (aging, usually non-urban, often poorly educated) against the increasing recognition that Indigenous culture is a defining force in the way we think about Australia.
As is often the case, outsiders see us better than we see ourselves, with The New York Times explaining “How an Aboriginal ‘Voice to Parliament’ Could Be Australia’s Brexit Moment”.
Call it our Brexit moment. Call it our Trump moment. It sure feels like those ugly twin pivots of 2016, when the right shed the subtlety of the dog-whistle to embrace the rhetoric of white grievance sitting at the heart of ethno-nationalist populism.
In government in Australia, power meant the Liberals found the dog-whistle good enough to appease the populist right while wedging Labor just enough to keep the party off balance (mixed with a few more openly racist moments like 2018’s African gangs panic). Early last year, an already electioneering Scott Morrison seemed more eager to nod to a tolerant multicultural electorate whose votes he needed than whip up the right’s traditional Australia Day moral panic.
Now, whether it be Tony Abbott’s public discomfort with the grace offered by Welcome to Country, or the racist slurs dressed up as comedy about domestic violence at the CPAC conservative conference, or the sneering by Labor apostate Gary Johns about Indigenous people living in “stupor”, the campaign is now openly centring the tropes of the whitelash.
The complaints oscillate between the pitiful and the false, but they have been circulating across social media, fed by the wilder reaches of right-wing media, for years.
They’ve been feeding the No case from the beginning: when Opposition Leader Peter Dutton exploited the media’s silly season mindset back in January with a demand for “details”, he winked at a classic white grievance, asking: “Will the government clarify the definition of Aboriginality to determine who can serve on the body?”
Like so much of our culture wars, both the term and the politics that drive them come from the United States. For “whitelash”, there’s the latest book by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Wesley Lowery reporting the rise in white supremacist violence following Trump’s first election. It’s a backlash, says US philosopher George Yancy in his 2018 book, against challenges to “the transcendental norm” of whiteness.
They find fertile ground in Australia’s own transcendental settler norm that drove the history wars of the John Howard era, in an attempt to deny how deep studies were remaking our non-Indigenous understanding of First Nations peoples on the continent: archaeology pushing our realisation of human habitation back 60,000 years; anthropology revealing the wonders of First Nations’ cultures; modern history uncovering the strength of Indigenous resistance to invasion.
But this eye-opening remains unevenly distributed. When Howard dog-whistled with “black armband” history, he condemned his supporters and political successors to shut their minds to what the research was offering them.
Noel Pearson’s poignant “We are a much-unloved people” Boyer Lecture last year foresaw this moment, noting that “despite never having met any of us and knowing very little about us … Australians hold and express strong views about us, the great proportion of which is negative and unfriendly”.
It would not take much, he warned, “to mobilise antipathy against Aboriginal people and conjure the worst imaginings about us and the recognition we seek”. Looks like plenty of the No campaigners have taken Pearson’s words as advice.
Although it’s uncomfortable to acknowledge, it’s easy to see why the No campaigners reckon they can ride the whitelash to a referendum win. Populist grievance politics draws its strength from attacks, particularly against an enemy it can characterise as “institutional” or “elite” (it’s why this past week Dutton has adopted the parallel Trump policy of attacking the Australian Electoral Commission).
Time to take the populist right at their word, to recognise that they’re looking beyond this referendum. In part, they’re looking towards the next federal election. Moreover, they’re already planning how to leverage a No vote into a cultural restoration of the comfortable, wannabe-English settler world they grew up in over half a century ago.
Is the No campaign riding the whitelash? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
I just feel for our First Nations community. The volume of hatred generated by what is such a small ask is pathetic. It also cements that Dutton and his ilk are at their core, racists. I know this isn’t shocking but if you’re willing to lie down with dogs, you’ll get fleas.
To me anyway, those who comprise the no camp have chosen this issue not so much to prevent a voice to parliament but rather to demonstrate their ability to disrupt a government narrative. It’s a case of ” if you don’t do what we ask we will rally our troops to make your life harder”. Right wing conservative here are mimicking the tactics of the American evangelical churches in the US where every politician seeking election now has to be seen with a bible in their hand. The recent exposure of American Evagelical advisors involved with the no camps suggest there is some truth to the theory. By en large American prosperity churches despise welfare, foreigners, tax and all minorities aside from themselves. It’s an easy fit for many in the coalition.
Exactly, as seen in UK and US too, ‘szalami tactics’ slice by slice; or ‘boiling frogs’ for permanent disruption.
When this referendum fails, which it appears destined to do, Anthony Albanese will be wholly responsible and as a result greatly weaken Labor’s chances at the next election.
The entire matter has been fumbled by Albanese from day one, from not holding a vote quickly enough to the mealy mouthed talking out of both sides of his mouth by telling us the Voice will do crucial things for First Nation’s people whilst simultaneously merely a powerless advisory body.
The tenor of attacks that would emerge from the far right was obvious from the very beginning and the Government not being ready to counter that is shoddy politics at best.
A far better course of action would have been for the Government to legislate a non-constitutional Voice in this term of Parliament, give it three years to show us how effective it was (or wasn’t) and then use that as a spring board to a referendum for a newly elected Labor Government in 2024. This would have the double effect of doing something immediately for an urgent problem and neutering arguments from the far right about the sky falling in (and also garnering vote for Labor from people who want to see the constitutional amendment).
Well argued Crackly.
It is deeply puzzling – Albo and his cohort have spent a lifetime in politics!
At some stage in his past, Albo “hated Tories”.
How have they allowed themselves to be outplayed?
Well if the No campaign wins it won’t be long until the chooks come home to roost.
How many of us remember those heady days of South Africa’s Apartheid regime and the boycott which included sporting teams…..
Well we might be able to relive those days only, it will be us, the Australians, not welcome anywhere……….
The people who voted “No” may have many fewer friends than they had before the referendum.
Thanks for a good laugh.
And I thought it was just the No side who were prophesising the sky falling in!
“At some stage in his past, Albo “hated Tories”.”
Now he’s almost fully become one.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Albo has acted in good faith. He made a promise – he’s keeping a promise. His approach from the issue has been of the highest integrity. He wants Australians to own the decision and doesn’t want to be seen to be overtly manipluting the argument. The No side under the stewardship of the LNP and certain parts of the media have done the opposite. They have gone out of their way to manipulate & distort the argument for the No case. They have acted in extremely bad faith and utterly without integrity. I don’t find it plausible to blame Albo for this and the assertion that he has fumbled it, is based on highly selective listening. His message is clear. Inclusion in the constitution recognises the right of first nations people to be part of the nation. This will not entitle them to influence very law & statute, rather just to express an opinion on matters that directly concern them.
I’m not debating the value or otherwise of the Voice, I’m purely talking about the politics.
Albanese can have all the good faith, integrity, and get on whatever high horse he wants. The fact is, everyone could see how a Dutton led coalition would behave and how the right wing media would spin it, and to not account for that is poor politics.
Integrity doesn’t win referendums. Having a clear cut message that doesn’t confuse people does. Like it or not, the No side have had far better cut through with their messaging.
So, Albanese can feel good about himself when the referendum fails because at least he kept his ‘integrity’. However, the media will absolutely hold him to account. It’s far too soon to be making election predications, but a Labor minority government in 2024 seems the most plausible outcome to me.
I support both your comments, Crqckly-Doo. It’s a mystery why Albanese made the Voice one of his priorities but refuses to show leadership in supporting it.
“I’m purely talking about the politics.”
Which is precisely what the NO camp want from us – no wonder they’re getting traction.
Albanese seems to think he doesn’t need to fight fire with fire. The YES case may be morally correct, but that alone will not save it. It needs bolstering with good strong leadership skills and a dash of charisma, which Albanese has increasingly shown he lacks.
Put someone like Jason Clare in charge of it. It was him who rescued and reset Labor’s 2021 election campaign after Albanese’s “gaffe”, then absence due to Covid.
Although, if he did that, Albanese would be inviting comparison, which I doubt he would welcome.
Thats the problem. Reducing it to a purely political argument undermines the good faith of the debate for both sides. Look at Brexit for example. The Leave case was built on bad faith arguments, won narrowly and has been a moving disaster of nation destroying momentum ever since. Great Britain is now a nation full of regret. If we give credence to the likes of the LNP and the bad actors in the Murdoch media then our future is similarly dire. We need to stand on principle and not judge issues on how well dirty politics are played. It’s not a boxing match!
Agreed.
I feel that the No campaign is improperly suggesting that if the non-aboriginal can’t have ‘it’, then neither can the First Peoples. But ordinary people fail to realise that there are many many big end of town lobbyists (which is what in effect a Voice would be for First Nations peoples) that prowl the corridors of power and get their views in front of politicians easily. This is really just a leveling of the playing field and I despair of those who feel somehow they are coming off worse, and even more despicable are the extreme views being circulated of ‘they’ll own the beaches and your back yard, you’ll have to pay rent for your privileges’. This is not the Australia I made a home in, where the fair shake of the sauce bottle was presented as the crux of Australian society.
After nearly 30 years in parliament and supposedly a good ‘strategist’, Albanese has been blundering through his prime ministership. Starting with the fumbles in (already in opposition really) in the election campaign, to the poor judgements of attending a certain wedding, Anthony from Rio Tinto, the housing policy debacle, Qantas defense, doubling down on tax cuts, Aukus, the Labor conference, it just doesn’t stop and then this – I believe he didn’t think that Dutton (who he tought was a man of his word) would play this dirty. Very naive.
At best naive at worst setting up Voice for failure, to re-energise the LNP who can then play funny biggers; based on assumption Labor will win next election, or have leverage to do The Voice, again…..
Also ignores a RW legacy media cartel locking up above median age with disinformation, to be spread as misinformation by word of mouth in communities, esp. regional, and social media astroturfing to create doubts amongst middle aged and younger; disruption to avoid change, even if positive.
biggers = buggers
As opposed to the current strategy which is almost certainly going to fail?
So true.
Labor seem to be of the opinion the opposition will suddenly transform into a functional entity. They won’t, and they will still get votes.
The campaign so far has been a sight to see, and crook. The NO dungheap stinks, of deliberate ignorance and confused negativity, while the YES team (hah) is slow, vague, overconfident, underwhelming, barely convincing, floating. But, Who could support a brown dropping like Abbott?
I am disappointed that the government decided to hold a stand-alone vote for the Voice, rather than holding it at the same time as an election. Stand-alone referendums act like lightning rods for anyone feeling cranky with life.