ArticlePauline Hanson and Barack Obama couldn’t be further apart ideologically, visually, or vocally. But they resemble each other more than you think.
Beneath the surface these two political opposites share a common strategic trait – they can see people who feel unseen.
Obama campaigned on hope and a vibe of optimism. Hanson is campaigning on disaffection and discontent. But both style themselves as political outsiders, focus on authenticity and relatability, and have a way of making people feel heard at a time of distrust in national institutions.
And they’re not alone. Boris Johnson, Donald Trump, Zohran Mamdani, Nigel Farage, and Jacinda Ardern have all used the politics of empathy with devastating effect.
This is true for both left and right.
As expert election-predictor Sir John Curtice put it, the common factor at play is that these political leaders ‘speak human’.
I remember standing with a small group of friends on Washington’s National Mall in 2009 with more than 2 million Americans during Barack Obama’s first inauguration. The feeling in the air went beyond naïve hope. People felt like they were getting their country back. For the first time in a long time, someone was listening again.
Many who voted for One Nation during the recent Farrer by-election echoed similar sentiments: the feeling of being neglected, ignored, not taken seriously. As the pollsters tell us, the most common denominator across Hanson’s growing supporter base is the feeling that they’ve ‘had a gutful’. Obama’s campaign team openly spoke of their political strategy to capitalise on an almost identical national sentiment of public frustration with the status quo.
The political establishment assumed we’d seen the last of Pauline Hanson following the loss of her seat of Oxley in the 1998 federal election, and her subsequent incarceration. 18 years later, she’s back baby! And with feeling. However, this time the press gallery, the pundits and her political opponents are struggling to punch back. Their old playbook for countering One Nation doesn’t seem to be working. Impassioned claims of racism. Accusations of policy vacuousness. Contentions of fiscal recklessness. None of it seems to be cutting through. The more arguments Hanson’s critics seem to make, the more steadily One Nation’s primary vote ratchets up.
One Nation’s primary vote now regularly draws level – and sometimes exceeds – Labor in opinion polls. And Hanson now makes regular waves in polling on Australia’s ‘preferred Prime Minister.’
Like it or not, ‘speaking human’ is trending, and the major parties ignore it at their peril.
The tone of Obama and Hanson’s critics are strangely similar – reflexively pivoting to broad stereotypes that tend to fall flat with voters. Obama’s angriest critics said he was a communist. Hanson’s enemies label her a racist. And yet, Barack and Pauline kept/keep cutting through.
Whether it’s a national vibe of hope or despair, people want to be listened to. Obama and Hanson’s supporters have essentially nothing in common, except the longing to be heard. Regardless of what you think of their politics, both offer a masterclass in responsively listening and interpreting people back to themselves.
It’s not just the economy anymore. It’s empathy about the economy, stupid.
Political scientist Drew Weston noted in his book The Political Brain (2007) that effective political messaging appeals to the frontal emotion circuits while less effective political strategies target the frontal reasoning circuits – using facts, figures and argument. Importantly, in a contest between the two brain centres, emotion tends to beat reason. In other words, ‘speaking human’ eats policy for breakfast.
Critics of One Nation’s form, substance and rhetoric need to get past sterile talking points that try to reason people out of their Hanson-ism. It’s not reason that got them there in the first place. It’s political empathy. Hillary Clinton learned the hard way from her ‘basket of deplorables’ comment about Donald Trump’s supporters. Anthony Albanese and Angus Taylor would do well to take note. And so would the rest of us.
Making sense is a good start, but it’s not enough. Some truths stand the test of time for a reason. Giving people a sense that they are seen is not just good politics, it addresses a fundamental need. Perhaps we all need to start ‘speaking human,’ listening more closely, and making sure everyone feels included.
Max Jeganathan is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Public Christianity. He served as an adviser in the Rudd-Gillard governments and is undertaking a PhD in law on the ethical foundations of political liberalism.