By the time this article is published, Donald Trump will have been inaugurated as President, surrounded by climate deniers, anti-vaxxers, and to quote Paul Simon “a loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires”, voted in by a largely white working-class who have seen their living standards continue to decline and were looking someone to blame for their plight and for some simple solutions. In 2024, the nominally left of centre Labour Party’s victory in the UK, although a landslide in terms of seats due to the vagaries of its electoral system, had a historically low vote share despite the venality and incompetence of successive Conservative Governments. Why was this the case? While many ‘liberal’ Conservative voters fled to the Liberal Democrats and there was evidence of tactical voting, many voters were attracted to the populist prescriptions of the rebranded Reform Party (previously Brexit Party) led by the clownish Nigel Farage, which gained 14.3% of the vote, more than the Liberal Democrats. In France, the populist rebranded National Rally (formerly National Front) showed a surge in popularity in the recent elections and in Germany the extreme right wing AfD has been polling ahead of the centre-left SPD. Italy is led by the populist Giorgia Meloni, who has a history of membership of neo-fascist parties. In Hungary, Victor Orban has taken his government further and further to the right.
What do all these politicians and parties have in common? They are all nationalist (and the in the case of the British, French, German and Italian right-wing, anti-European Union), sceptical of climate change, anti-immigrant, anti-refugee and asylum seeker, often racist (especially Islamophobic), anti-‘woke’[1], anti-taxation, anti-‘elite’ and pro-individual ‘freedom’[2]. They all channel resentment at the long-term decline in living standards, the loss of jobs overseas and the change in their homogenous monoglot culture as a result of immigration. They also often perceive the latter as being the cause of job loss and housing stress. Some of these themes resonate in the Australian political discourse. It isn’t just the Coalition that engages in dog-whistle politics – how else to explain Albanese’s recent kowtowing to the mining lobby in WA and the salmon industry in Tasmania (in both cases chopping his Environment Minister off at the knees), and his Government’s attempts to cap the number of overseas students.
Why has this happened? Are the attitudes that underpin the rise of the radical Right grounded in fact or are they caused by more deep rooted responses to the changes of the last thirty years that have left many poorer, cynical, and disenfranchised? To answer those questions requires unpicking at least some of the core issues that underpin the rise of the radical Right – namely, the interrelated issues of the ‘flood’ of immigration in general (and international students in particular)[3], climate change, declining living standards and job loss. Considering these issues will allow some of the ‘explanations’ peddled by the radical Right – the rise of ‘woke’, the influence of elites and the loss of ‘control’[4]. This analysis may then lead to a consideration of the root causes of the populist phenomenon.
In a previous article, I unpicked the notion of identity and challenged the idea of nationalism. Associated with this idea is a general, and not always race-based, objection to immigration, even in countries like the US and Australia which are comprised largely of immigrants of one generation or another. Other than the loss of ‘identity’, objections generally are associated with the perceived loss of jobs and pressures on housing. (Perceptions of increased criminality are more commonly associated with refugee populations, particularly those from Africa. I will discuss that issue later.) Let’s look at jobs first. Here the facts are at odds with the perception. According to a study by the OECD, migration boosts the employment of the Australian‑born population and does not affect its wages. A 1 percentage point rise in the annual migrant inflow, on average, leads to a 0.53 per cent increase in the employment of the Australian‑born population. Furthermore it does not depress wages, and in most cases it has a positive impact on wage levels – the reasons for low wage growth are nothing to do with migration, as I will argue later. Australian‑born people of all skill levels, ages or genders benefit from this positive effect. Migration also contributes to Australia’s GDP, with some estimates suggesting that migrants contribute $330 billion to the country’s GDP. The contribution of international students has been the subject of some recent debate. We have been led to believe that they are a significant reason for housing pressures. Many live in halls of residence. Those who do not tend to live in cramped apartments in the inner city, or in run-down share houses, neither of which are desirable targets for home buyers. Let’s also consider their direct and indirect contributions to the economy. According to the Department of Education, for FY 2022-2023, education export income was worth $36.4 billion, and was ranked fourth after Coal, Iron Ore and Gas. In Victoria alone, it contributed 63,000 jobs to the Victorian economy and was worth $14.8 billion in export earnings. These numbers do not include the secondary effects of service provision to international students – just go to Monash University in Melbourne to see the range of hospitality services aimed at this population. Given these numbers, and if one still believes they are a cause of housing shortages, then perhaps some of this income, and the retained earnings of the wealthier universities, could be used to provide on-campus or close to campus dedicated accommodation for international students?
In a later post, I will discuss the issue of refugees and asylum seekers and the perceptions of criminality associated with specific migrant groups, before trying to untangle the resistance to policies that address the issue of climate change. The third, and final, part of this series will discuss the relative decline in living standards and attempt to address the reasons for the rise of populism. Sadly, solutions are a bit more of a challenge….
[1] Woke is an interesting word, originally coined to refer to awareness of social inequalities such as racism, sexism, and denial of the rights of LGBTIQ people. However, it is now used as a pejorative by the political Right and has also been used to criticise actions perceived as insincere or performative. Context is all!
[2] Of course, one person’s freedom is often exercised at the expense of those of others. As the philosopher Isaiah Berlin put it “’Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows’; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others”.
[3] Note the MAGA movement splintering into the anti-immigration faction and the Muskies who need skilled migration to support their companies’ growth.
[4] Is it a coincidence that the Australian agency that used to be called Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, has been known as the rather more militaristic Australian Border Force since 2015? Until 2009, it was just the plain old Australian Customs Service.
Miscellany 