“Angrification makes it easier and quicker to find a political leader and social media platform where you can weaponise the broader anger on an issue,” writes political columnist ANDREW HUGHES. 

As we edge closer to year’s end, one thing is becoming clearer by the day: parties that are benefitting the most currently seem to be the ones stirring the pot the hardest. 

Inflammatory posts on social media, wild policies, usually with no funding or evidence to support their claimed effectiveness, and the use of the media to carry messages that allow for cutting-and-pasting on to the different social media platforms by influencer supporters, are all signs of parties doing this. Big list, right? 

Angrification, and its politics, is here. And it’s here because of us. 

This is the uncomfortable reality many of us may not like to acknowledge. Many of us are angry. Silently angry because of reasons we rarely make public because of how that may make us sound. 

But parties and candidates know. They know they are guilty of pot stirring, but the ingredients, well the ingredients we added ourselves because of how we feel we are treated by those in government. 

Sometimes this is understandable. The cost of living is smashing many right now. Second jobs are back in vogue, along with noodles and toast. Holidays? Back to the coast, not overseas. Upgrading to the second or third home? Renos instead. 

It feels a lot like a recession. The treasurer, local or federal, seem to pretend that isn’t happening. Understandable considering their role, as eminent economist Saul Eslake noted recently, in “conscious policy decisions” partly creating those circumstances. 

Thank you not very much for not listening! 

When we turn to their opponents in the hope of better alternatives we are met just with a social media post about how they, too, are angry. That is not an alternative. That is laziness. So our anger grows, becoming even more fertile to those who know how to tap into it. 

Add to this those who feel they have been excluded or left out from life’s good-luck lottery. They are becoming one of the key segments of the next election for the right-wing vote. 

Thanks to some good polling work by RedBridge, Demos, and YouGov, to name but a few, we know who they are likely to be: over 18 (but especially 55+), not tertiary educated, Christian identified, male and, for some, earning between $100k-$150k a year. Not all speak English at home. 

This segment is growing. They feel that they have been unfairly discriminated against because they aren’t something on a diversity, equity and inclusion form, so no easy access to promotions, good-paying office jobs, nor access to affordable housing, health and education programs. 

And their ranks are growing. Diversifying. More women, for example, identify with their male counterparts. Why? Any “outlier views” they have can now be expressed via leaders who know they are looking for someone to grab that ladle and stir hard and fast.

Many women, especially those aged 35-49 outside white collar occupations, feel excluded. They largely remain silent to most of us, but they are there and are people you know. 

This is because angrification is coming up more and more in policy areas where once there was only room for rational and logical debates across parliamentary chambers and committee rooms. 

That was then, this is now. Angrification does not care about policy costings, managerial buzzwords or polite debates. 

Angrification makes it easier and quicker to find a political leader and social media platform where you can weaponise the broader anger on an issue. 

Who is guilty of doing this? Everyone. The thing is it was done as an art earlier. Even sparingly for fear it could also turn on you. We didn’t notice it because it was kept largely for strategic use only. 

Abbott was good at it through his anti-woke agenda, but then met his equal in Gillard’s famous misogyny speech which gave her momentum by tapping into the anger of generations of women who had endured decades of inequality. 

Hawke? Head of the ACTU, used anger of the union movement to become PM and then validated his use of it by delivering the Accord. 

Now, it seems to be the new go-to daily strategy. And it’s effective because they know us. Just how angry we really are. But that anger is also like us: becoming more diverse. 

While we tend to focus on just a few larger segments right now, more grow by the day. 

An example? When those outside the middle rings of urban areas have inequality to their equals just 10 minutes away, then you know the ingredients are already in the pot. 

So, who should we really blame for what happens when it is stirred?

Dr Andrew Hughes lectures at the ANU Research School of Management, where he specialises in political marketing.

News all day, every day at CityNews.com.au.