BY ALISON DELLIT
After losing to a party which did not even pretend to expect to win, it's no surprise that the Country Liberal Party is regretting its decision to preference One Nation ahead of Labor in the Northern Territory elections.
It is certain that this decision exacerbated the swing against the CLP. One Nation polled a modest (but not insignificant) 7% average in the five rural seats it contested — not enough for its preferences to make any difference to the CLP.
In the northern suburbs of Darwin, however, the preference debate quickly became the issue of the election, as voters from non-Anglo backgrounds were outraged by the CLP's association with a party identified as overtly racist.
On the surface of it, this seems absurd. Given the CLP's 20-year love affair with racist venom, the preference deal with One Nation should have been the least of it.
Mandatory sentencing, open conflict with the land councils, references to the local Aboriginal population as "lazy blacks" and finally the anti-social conduct act have all had a more destructive impact on race relations than Pauline Hanson ever could have.
Of course, the CLP concentrates on anti-Aboriginal racism and, given the NT's large migrant population, has not discharged the same venom against non-Anglo migrant communities.
The party's anti-Aboriginal racism has been employed as a tool of division, designed to secure non-Aboriginal workers' and students' support for big business' attempts to crush the local land councils, which still have considerable legal power to hinder destructive developments on their land.
Public campaigning against the racist legislation of the CLP government has decreased the support that the CLP has within Darwin. Preferences to One Nation thus may have been symbolic to some voters of the broader racism of the CLP, which they had come to reject.
This is the tightrope that John Howard must now walk.
On the one hand, racist scapegoating is a key part of the Liberals' election strategy — providing the central distraction from the increasingly apparent class divide.
On the other, One Nation is political poison amongst much of the urban electorate, who take for granted hard-won ideals of racial equality and cultural diversity.
If the Coalition is seen to be supporting One Nation, it will hurt the Liberals' vote in the cities. But the National Party is worried that if it is not seen to be supporting One Nation, its vote will suffer.
One Nation's support is strong primarily outside the major cities, among socially conservative farmers and small businesses which have become less and less viable through years of economic rationalist deregulation and competition policy.
For them, One Nation embodies their raw anger against being deserted by the party that they feel should have looked after their needs. The decision to direct preferences away from One Nation makes some furious because it indicates yet again that the Nationals are not listening.
But it is questionable whether anything — short of becoming a coalition of independents — can save the Nationals now.
Former National MP Bob Katter's decision to cut and run is just an acceptance that it is not being associated with One Nation that is poison to the Nationals — it's being associated with the Liberal Party.
The Nationals are stuck because their policies in government are hurting their traditional base. Howard intends to gamble that it is more important right now not to alienate urban Liberal supporters than to placate mostly rural One Nation supporters.
This is not unreasonable — even in Western Australia, where the One Nation vote was high, their preferences generally did not follow the ticket and many ended up with the Coalition even when directed elsewhere.
The second task that Howard has is to distance Liberal racism from One Nation racism. So while Pauline Hanson attacks "Muslims and Chinese", Liberal figures attack "ethnic crime gangs".
While Hanson calls Aborigines lazy, Howard argues that have been psychologically "damaged" by too much welfare money. Hanson wants to turn boatloads of refugees away at the coast, Ruddock settles for deporting them after three years in desert detention.
This reinvention is not that hard when the Labor "opposition" is backing you up. Shadow minister for immigration Con Sciacca told a Canberra forum this month that Ruddock was certainly "not racist".
Less than a fortnight later, NSW Labor Premier Bob Carr held a high profile press conference with Ruddock where he emphasised his support for Ruddock's efforts to "make it easier to send people back who shouldn't be here".
Howard and the Liberals have every intention of repudiating One Nation. But they have no intention of repudiating racist scapegoating.
It may save Howard from a complete thrashing at the polls — but it could be residents of "Middle Eastern appearance" getting that thrashing on the streets.