As election results have come in from around the world over the past 18 months, the most commonly used word in the media has been “Shocked”.
It happened last week when the New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters, announced he was forming a coalition government with Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Party – a result few commentators expected.
Also last week, the Austrian wunderkind Sebastian Kurz stunned the political class with a thumping election victory, having campaigned on shutting down migrant routes into Europe and restricting welfare benefits for refugees.
In Germany last month, the two historically dominant political blocs – Angela Merkel’s Conservatives and the Social Democrats – fell to a combined vote of less than 55 percent, as a new anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany (AFG), stormed into parliament.
In November, in the mother of all shocks, Donald Trump’s US Presidential victory was based on resurgent nationalism, with Americans voting for a leader strong enough to secure their borders against illegal migration and Islamic terrorism.
This cycle of improbable results started with Brexit, in June last year, as the British people took back their sovereignty and avoided the worst consequences of Europe’s refugee crisis.
Notice a pattern?
Across the globe, people are voting for stronger borders and lower immigration.
In New Zealand, Peters has been campaigning for 30 years against the unbridled flow of people into his country – a milder version of our own Pauline Hanson.
The Kiwi surprise was the way in which Labour campaigned for a 40 percent cut to New Zealand’s migration intake, plus a crackdown on “backdoor immigration via student visas”.
Ardern said her policy would improve housing affordability, lower infrastructure costs and give cities like Auckland “a breather” from urban sprawl.
This is simply commonsense.
The wonder of Australian politics is that neither major party understands the benefits of reducing immigration, of returning our national intake to its 20th century average of 70,000 per annum, down from the current ‘Big Australia’ level of 200,000.
Cutting migration takes the pressure off housing demand, thereby lowering prices and assisting market entry.
It also reduces labour market competition, ending the curse of wage stagnation.
Newly arrived migrants have a clear preference for living in major cities, adding to congestion and over-population.
Around Australia, governments have tried to keep pace with suburban growth through increased infrastructure spending, but what’s the point in sending the budget further into deficit when the smartest, no-cost solution is to turn off the immigration tap?
Voters see this reality everyday, sitting in traffic jams, living in dysfunctional suburbs plagued by perpetual sprawl.
They have had enough.
They want an immigration policy devised for the benefit of people who live here now, not as a blind, benevolent favour to the rest of the world.
Left-wing activists and United Nations committees can bleat about this nationalistic sentiment, but they don’t have to spend three to four hours commuting each day, living their lives away from loved ones.
There is not a single advocate for Big Australia who appreciates these outer suburban realities.
Selfishly, the migration lobby supports a policy with no impact on their own gentrified, inner-city boroughs, while wrecking the lifestyle of others.
The elites don’t get it.
In a world of constant change, voters are looking for new anchors of social solidarity, policies that protect the interests of the nation state.
Left-wing politics is now based on everything being fluid.
It’s trying to create a ‘Less World’: genderless, borderless, wealthless and nationless.
Voters are responding with demands for greater certainty.
Nation-first migration policies are at the top of their list.
Research in the United States, for instance, has shown that the best way of identifying Trump supporters is to look at their views on immigration.
Most conservatives are struggling to adapt to this electoral change.
Writing in The Australian last Friday, Greg Sheridan attributed the Ardern/Peters coalition to “the rise of celebrity politicians, the fall of good governments and the terror of the populists.”
Leaders who are in touch with public opinion and advocate popular policies are practicing “terror”?
What’s truly terrifying for the political class is that voters have broken free from the old ideologies.
They reject the Left’s promotion of fluidity, a world repeatedly turned upside down.
But they also have reservations about the institutions of traditional conservatism: big business, mainstream media, religious bodies and political parties.
Unless conservatives can create new points of institutional success and popular appeal, the new politics threatens to sweep them away.
The Ardern/Peters/Kurz/AFG/Trump/Brexit ascendency is not a passing fad.
It’s a cry for help from an electorate increasingly dismayed by attacks on its cultural integrity: its language, its history, its values, its existence.
If cutting migration numbers and strengthening national borders gives people greater certainty in their lives, then that’s a good thing.
Imagine a young family in the outer suburbs, struggling with housing affordability, longing for a decent wage increase, confused by the teaching of radical gender theory at their kids’ school and puzzled as to why anyone would want to abolish Australia Day.
The last thing they need is the over-development of their suburb and congestion of their streets, fuelled by excessive migration.
The good life does not come from constant chaos and confusion.
It requires the solid foundations of social stability, and that’s why people around the world are supporting leaders who believe in strong borders and lower immigration.
This article was originally published by The Daily Telegraph. Read the original article here.