It is tempting to say that Australia has become more racist.
The ugliness feels louder. Islamophobia feels less coded. Public language feels coarser. Spend even a few minutes scrolling through X and it is easy to conclude that something dark has broken loose.
But before we declare a moral collapse, we should ask a harder question.
What if the problem is not that Australians have suddenly become worse people – but that our political and digital systems now reward our worst impulses?
Modern politics is not merely a contest of ideas. It is a contest of mobilisation. And mobilisation is driven less by calm policy detail than by emotion. Of all emotions available to politicians, grievance is the most efficient.
Grievance simplifies complexity. It identifies villains. It creates solidarity through shared resentment. It turns diffuse frustration into political energy.
The lesson of the last decade – particularly under figures such as Donald Trump – is not that inflammatory rhetoric is disqualifying. The lesson is that it can be catalytic. Anger, when properly directed, mobilises voters who might otherwise remain disengaged.
Australia has its own history here. Pauline Hanson built an enduring political brand on cultural grievance long before it became a global template. What has changed is not the existence of such politics, but its perceived effectiveness. When grievance proves electorally useful, others take note.
This does not require widespread bigotry to succeed. It requires only enough resonance to drive engagement and turnout.
And here is where social media enters the equation.
Platforms are not civic institutions. They are commercial enterprises. Their core objective is engagement – because engagement drives advertising revenue. Conflict performs better than compromise. Outrage performs better than nuance. Fear performs better than reassurance.
The design logic of platforms like X is simple: amplify what provokes reaction.
This creates a feedback loop. A politician frames an issue in emotionally charged terms. The framing spreads rapidly online because it triggers responses. High engagement signals success. Others replicate the strategy. The tone shifts incrementally. What once felt fringe begins to feel normal.
Hatred is not merely expressed; it is incentivised.
That is why the present moment feels so volatile. Social media collapses distance. It exposes us to the most extreme voices with algorithmic precision. It gives the impression that hostility is everywhere – even when it may represent a loud minority rather than a silent majority.
But visibility alters perception, and perception alters politics.
As language hardens, the boundaries of acceptable discourse shift. Terms move from coded to explicit. Opponents become enemies. Complex social issues are reduced to civilisational struggles.
The risk to democracy is subtle but profound.
Grievance politics reframes compromise as betrayal. It recasts diversity as threat. It treats disagreement as existential danger. In such an environment, persuasion gives way to mobilisation – and mobilisation requires a target.
This is why racism and Islamophobia become politically useful tools. Not necessarily because they reflect majority opinion, but because they generate emotional intensity. They activate identity. They drive clicks. They fill rallies. They dominate news cycles.
And once the incentive structure rewards such tactics, restraint becomes politically costly.
None of this means Australia is uniquely broken. Nor does it mean that hatred now defines the nation. It means we are operating within systems that magnify our angriest voices and monetise our most divisive instincts.
Incentives matter. They shape behaviour more reliably than moral exhortation.
If grievance continues to win votes, politicians will deploy it.
If outrage continues to drive engagement, platforms will amplify it.
The supply will not diminish while the rewards remain.
The deeper question, then, is whether democratic societies can recalibrate those incentives. Voters can refuse to reward division. Media institutions can choose not to chase every provocation. Users can disengage from the algorithmic spiral.
History suggests that periods of heightened anger eventually provoke backlash – that societies rediscover the value of restraint when the costs of perpetual outrage become too high.
But that correction is not automatic. It depends on collective choices.
It may feel as though something in Australia has coarsened beyond repair. Yet the more precise diagnosis is less apocalyptic and more structural.
We are living in an era where grievance is politically efficient and outrage is commercially profitable.
That is the system we inhabit. Whether it remains the system we reward is a choice – one that does not belong to politicians or platforms alone.
See also:
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Please consider donating now via:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund to help secure the future of our site.
Your support will go directly toward covering essential costs like web hosting renewals and helping us bring new features to life. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps us keep improving and growing.
Thank you for standing with us – we truly couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
So very true, the tone of Australian culture has changed and not for the better. In my view, this is as a result of the decline in both state and federal governance since the ’80’s. People are feeling pain and they have to take it out on some one or some thing.
But look around, this is not an Australian issue but a world wide one, people are (in their view) suffering and as a result, are lashing out and as a result of improved social communication, this unrest is on the rise.
The mainstream media persists in conflating anti-semitism and Islamophobia. The facts are that some people have a genuine concern, maybe fear, maybe hatred, for the activities of extremist individuals of both the Zionist and Jihadi movements. In general, Australians don’t fear or hate citizens of either Jewish of Islamic faith who live co-operatively within our communities.
If I were a fly on the wall in Pauline Hanson’s Office I would probably have the highest IQ in the room.
But that doesn’t help me when it comes to comprehending Pauline Hansons’ speeches which remain gibberish to me!
Gievance politics offers only confected problems but offers no solutions.
That’s One Nation
That’s the Libs
But don’t ask for evidence to support grievences.
A recent discussion pointed to the calls for sharia law to be the law in Britain, I was talking to a pom, eho is studying for a Phd…. Mulsims are over running Britsin apparently, and ee’d better watch out herr.
Muslims are 6% of thebpopulation in Britain, they are generally more law abiding than the other 94% of the population according to imprisonment rates….. I would be surprised if it were different here.
It’s fun to challene the grievancers, but they generally respond by citing a vague passed on story an internet meme as proof that things are bad and the government is useless
When you have bad governance you get more people with grievances.
Surely, the up-to-4 million Australians living in poverty have a genuine grievance with Labor governance when they were told no one would be left behind.
Surely, the Gen Z’s and Millenials that realize that Labor is setting them up to try to survive in an environment not inducive to human habitation by opening up fossil fuel projects, have a genuine grievance with Labor governance.
Surely, those who believed Labor when it campaigned on improved transparency and integrity in government, and when it claimed jobs for mates and corruption would end have a genuine grievance with Labor governance.
Surely, those who want a home of their own but can’t afford one have a genuine grievance with Labor governance.
Surely, those who can see and oppose the financial bonfire that is AUKUS have a genuine grievance with Labor governance.
Surely, those against corporate tax avoidance and corruption have a genuine grievance with Labor governance.
Surely, the 4.1% unemployed that the RBA are too few have a genuine grievance with Labor governance.
Surely, those who can’t afford or get early childcare because of lack of qualified educators have a genuine grievance with Labor governance.
Surely, those forced into a disadvantage in our public schooling that is underfunded have a genuine grievance with Labor governance.
Surely, our young who are offered a severely diminished tertiary education system to work with have a genuine grievance with Labor governance.
Surely, the aged who are dealing with a robo-assessment regime that is failing badly have a genuine grievance with Labor governance.
Surely, our young who are being offered a future where Australia’s standard of living falls behind other countries due to a lack of investment in research and development.
Surely, those traumatized by gambling have a genuine grievance with Labor governance.
Surely, NDIS recipients who have had their programs adversely affected by a robo-tool have a genuine grievance with Labor governance.
Surely, the victims of Labor’s state violence have a genuine grievance with Labor governance.
Surely, the children who are jailed when corporate executives get just a miserly fine for breaking the law have a genuine grievance with Labor governance.
Michael is right in his analysis of the interplay between social media and grievance politics, but bad governance creates grievances and should be called out.
There is a school of thought that the shift in popularity to One Nation is due to people recognizing (correctly imo) that the system is rigged in favour of the ultrawealthy and big Capital, that the Labor/Coalition duopoly aren’t going to serve them, but instead will instead rule to funnel money to the wealthiest. Their mistake would be to think that One Nation would be any different – we have seen that One Nations voting has served big corporations not battlers.
Call me a grisler, a whinger or a purveyor of grievance, but don’t call me Shirley.
There is a question to be raised about Australians and these issues or symptoms?
They (re)emerged post white Australia in ’80s-90s under Howard, Atlas Koch & Tanton Network outlets and NewsCorp led informing of the still…. skip dominated RW MSM and now enlarged influencer ecosystem via Meta, YouTube and X.
However, for anyone looking offshore, exactly the same ‘architecture of influence’ exists in the UK etc., following the US vs open society, EU/trade blocs, immigrants, science & enlightenment, the centre and 21stC.
They are opposd to social and demographic change to use crowded middle aged and older voter cohorts to oppose change via dog whistles etc. and outright BS.
Cannot stop the mother lode of demographic change happening as skips now ~50% population becoming a significant minority in cities, but still dominant in regions, then the big ‘die off’ commences…..
Ditto RW MSM inc BBC tactics & on piste messaging vs Starmer ie. daily relentless inflation of any issue, poll or scandal to Starmer, indirectly, then same media ecosystem demands he steps down; rinse and repeat.
(While platforming alleged Russain asset Farage, but precluding any questions about Russia, Epstein, Tech Bros. & Bannon).
Worse than grinding down centrist leaders and disappearing any sensible policy area, it’s creating insurgent or radicalised voters eg Brexit ‘pensioner populism’ to oppose liberal democracy and policies for future generations….. peak ‘collective narcissism’…….