Astroturf and Populism

Rae Wear

(University of Queensland)

Using ‘The Convoy of No Confidence’, a trucking convoy that drove to Parliament House in

Canberra in 2011 in an attempt to force the Gillard Labor government to an early election, this

paper explores the relationship between populism and ‘astroturfing’, the synthetic creation of

an apparently popular grassroots movement by a behind the scenes organisation. Participants

in the ‘Convoy of No Confidence’ named concerns as diverse as gay marriage, refugees, action

on climate change, the ban on live cattle exports, government waste and the importation of

Chinese apples as their reasons for participating. In many respects, The Convoy was similar to

other rural populist revolts in Australia. Links with behind the scenes organisors or other signs

of manipulative conduct characteristic of astroturfing were difficult to prove. What was clear,

however, was the one-sided nature of the Convoy’s oppositionalism. In contrast to other

populist movements which have been hostile towards all existing major parties, the Convoy

participants directed their anger almost entirely towards the Gillard government. In this, they

were joined by Coalition politicians and the right wing media.

Astroturfing refers to the artificial formation of apparently spontaneous grassroots

movements by private interests. The purpose is to convince governments that there is a

groundswell of community opinion on a particular issue in the belief that government will

take more notice of seemingly disinterested voters than of corporations with an obvious

barrow to push. An Astroturf organization, if well done, should be difficult to pick from a

genuinely grassroots populist movement. In this paper I explore the case of the „Convoy of

No Confidence‟ which was formed in 2011 and attracted considerable media attention as well

as speculation that it was an Astroturf movement (Glazov 2011; Keane, 2011). Close

examination of the Convoy reveals that its characteristics were similar to those of a genuinely

grassroots populist movement with one notable exception, which is that populism‟s anti–

system, anti-party bias was notably asymmetrical and was directed almost entirely against

Julia Gillard‟s minority Labor government. Like the Tea Party, the Convoy of No Confidence

had strong links with the conservative side of politics and had active support from right wing

media and significant elements of the Liberal and National Parties. It functioned as a support

movement for the Coalition, and it is this reciprocity of support that marks the Convoy out

from other Australian populist movements.

The resemblance of Astroturf organizations to authentic populist movements occurs because

many of the participants recruited to the cause are genuine in their beliefs. Above all else,

populism is characterised by an idealisation of the common people and anti-elitism (Canovan

1981:294). Beyond this, theorists have struggled to agree on what populism entails but after

an extensive literature review Taggart (2000:2) constructed an ideal type of populism whose

themes include hostility to representative politics and identification with an idealized

heartland. It also lacks core values, is a reaction to a sense of extreme crisis, is self-limiting

and chameleon-like in the way in which it reflects its backgound Not all movements will in

practice conform to this ideal type but as Taggart says, the characteristics are useful for

guiding us in an examination of a particular case (2000:3) and I have used them to guide my

analysis of the Convoy of No Confidence.

Astroturfing

The United States Tea Party is the best known Astroturf movement. It seems to have attracted

many genuine followers despite claims that it was created by Republican operative, Richard

Armey, director of the far-right Freedom Works and former House majority leader, and is

backed by the wealthy Koch Brothers to serve their elite interests (Krigman, 13 April, 2009;

Monbiot, 26 October 2010; Street and Dimaggio, 2011:6). Originally the expression

Astroturfing, when used in the political context, referred to the practice of creating ready-

made letters by PR firms with which to bombard political representatives or newspaper

editors (Reader, 2005: 43). The first use of the term is usually attributed to Texas Senator

Lloyd Bensten who applied it to lobbying campaigns generated by PR firms (Lyon and

Maxwell, 2004: 562). In addition to letter writing campaigns, some of these firms began

creating front organizations to push particular policy positions. For example, US tobacco

company, RJ Reynolds, created Get Government Off Our Back (GGOOB) in 1994. Its anti-

regulation agenda was presented as an expression of popular will that only coincidentally

advantaged the tobacco industry. GGOOB organized rallies, lobbied state legislators and

senators and GGOOB affiliates submitted newspaper articles and position papers provided by

R. J. Reynolds in support of reduced government regulation (Apolliono and Bero 2007: 421).

The success of these strategies was evident in the passage of a Bill through the new

Republican-led House of Representatives in 1995, whose text closely reflected a GGOOB

resolution on opposition to unnecessary regulation (Apolliono and Bero2007: 421). Beder

(2002) maintains a distinction between the creation of such front organizations by

corporations and astroturfing, which she uses to refer to the artificial creation of coalitions

and the manufacturing of public support (2000:32). In practice, the distinction is a fine one

because the intention behind both strategies is to convince policy makers that significant

numbers of disinterested voters support or oppose specific policies. I therefore use the term

astroturfing to describe strategies that incorporate all these elements.

Early astroturf campaigns focused on mail outs to Senators and Representatives but as the

technique was refined, letters were personalised to make each look as if it were written by a

separate author (Lyon and Maxwell 2004: 563). The intention of the behind-the scenes

organization generating the mail was to impress recipients with the number of adherents a

particular cause had, and thus to enhance its legitimacy. One practitioner cited by Beder

(2000: 30) explains:

The practical objective of letter-writing campaigns is not actually to get a majority of

the people behind a position and to express themselves on it-for it would be virtually

impossible to whip up that much enthusiasm-but to get such a heavy, sudden

outpouring of sentiment that lawmakers feel they are being besieged by a majority.

The true situation may be quite the contrary.

US experience suggests that policymakers are more likely to respond to approaches made by

representatives of the public rather than to corporations whose self interested motives are

usually transparent (Apollonio and Bero 2007: 419). Politicians readily recognize that the

latter groups are first and foremost concerned with profits, which reduces their credibility as

spokespersons for the public or national interest (Beder, 2000: 4). Letter writing tactics to try

to influence politicians and public opinion are not new- in Australia the League of Rights was

an early practitioner of multiple mailings- but developments in information technology have

greatly facilitated the process. In a further parallel with the League of Rights‟ strategic

approach, United States research shows that local newspapers were the dominant targets

(Reading, 2005: 47). The internet, has, however revolutionized these activities because it

allows a few people to create the illusion of multiple participants in online forums and

comment threads. Guardian journalist George Monbiot cites the example of a whistleblower

who claims to have used 70 personae to create the impression of widespread support for his

pro-corporate arguments. (23 Feb. 2011) „Persona management software‟ facilitates this kind

of deception (Monbiot, 2011). PR companies also use modern telecommunications

technology to connect callers whom they have already primed direct to politicians.

Conservative talk show hosts in the United States do the same thing: callers to radio

programs are routed to a telemarketer who will then patch them through to their

Congressional representative. The multiple calls on the same topic then create the impression

that there is a groundswell of feeling about a particular issue. Revelations of corporate

manipulation are likely to weaken the impact of such strategies and McNutt and Boland argue

that „an Astroturf effort cannot easily continue once it is successfully identified‟ (2007: 169).

It appears, however, that the situation is more complex once astroturfing has mobilized

genuine grassroots support. The Tea Party movement shows that allegations of astroturfing

did little to dampen the enthusiasm of adherents and given that such allegations usually come

from the political left, may even vindicate supporters‟ feelings of being under attack. While

polling indicates declining support for the Tea Party, this is more likely related to the episodic

nature of populism than to revelations about who is pulling the strings (Brissendon 2012;

Taggart, 2000: 1).

Astroturfing is big business in the United States where the comparative absence of party

discipline makes the lobbying of individual politicians worthwhile and where the three levels

of government allow multiple points of contact. A substantial majority of grassroots lobbying

firms operate at local and state level with many based in California because its system of

citizens initiated referenda provides additional opportunities for grassroots lobbying firms

(Walker, 2009:84-85). Walker estimates that organizing grassroots support for pro-business

positions is a half billion dollar a year industry (2009: 83). Numerous PR and lobbying firms

incorporate the creation of grassroots movements into their lobbying strategies. The great

majority of United States Astroturf organizations belong to the anti-tax, anti-regulation

libertarian right and many of those involved in them are connected with the Republican Party

(Walker: 84). The usual pattern for those setting up a front organization is to choose a name

that sounds like an environmental, consumer public interest or even scientific groups (Beder

2000: 4). The National Wetlands Coalition is not, despite its name and flying duck logo, an

organization dedicated to the protection of wetlands, but a coalition largely comprised of oil

and gas companies such as Exxon, Shell and Mobil, who want to be able to drill in wetlands

unimpeded (Beder, 2000:30). Much of the information conveyed to decision-makers by

Astroturf organizations is unverifiable (Lyon and Maxwell, 2004:562) and is designed to

muddy the waters. Wilson cites a case uncovered by the Guardian newspaper in which

Monsanto‟s PR firm fabricated expert scientists to cast doubt on peer-reviewed reports of the

dangers of GM crops (2006:183). Bivings, the PR firm used by Monsanto (which co-

incidentally developed AstroTurfTM the authentic bright green artificial grass), in an article

on its website, shows how firms can conceal their vested interests:

There are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let the

audience know that your organization is directly involved. Message boards, chat

rooms, and list servs are a great way to anonymously monitor what is being said.

Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make postings to these outlets

that present your position as an uninvolved third party (quoted in Monbiot, 14

December 2010).

Other astroturf organisations were funded by the mining and pharmaceuticals industries

(Lyon and Maxwell 2004: 564). Manufactured grassroots lobbying was instrumental in the

defeat of President Clinton‟s health care reforms in 1993 and 1994 (Walker 2009:86). The

Obama administration claimed that opposition to its health care reforms by groups such as

Conservatives for Patient Rights should be considered with a „jaundiced eye‟ because of

„the Astro-turf nature of grass roots lobbying‟ (Jackson 2009). Lest it be thought that

accusations of astroturfing are directed solely at the right, the right wing Reason Foundation

(David Koch is listed on its website as a trustee) accused the President of routinely stacking

town hall meetings with „astroturf‟ supporters (Dalmia 2009). Street and Di Maggio also

acknowledge fake activism on the left in the guise of MoveOn and the Organisation for

America which is affiliated with the Obama White House (2011: ix).

Although artificially generated Astroturf movements of both left and right attract genuine

believers to the cause, they effectively subsidize supporters‟ involvement by reducing the

costs in time and effort of participation (Walker 2009:84). Individuals no longer have to start

from scratch in their lobbying efforts. Critics of Astroturf organizations argue that secondary

goals such as community empowerment, the development of civic skills and the creation of

on-going networks are absent in synthetic movements (McNutt and Boland, 2007: 168).These

characteristics however, also appear to be absent from some movements widely recognized

as authentically populist, such as Pauline Hanson‟s One Nation which deliberately built an

organization that sidelined ordinary members but nevertheless for a short period of time

attracted numerous supporters (Ward, 2000; Wear, 2011) Populist movements are much

more likely to be characterized by a tight knit group clustered around a charismatic leader

along the lines of One Nation than to be like the nineteenth century American People‟s Party

whose leadership was comprised of a motley crew of „professional men, rural editors, third-

party veterans, and professional reformers‟ (Hofstadter 1955:101). Although the Convoy of

No Confidence had no publically recognized leader of the charismatic Hanson type, the

media regularly identified a group of organizers largely associated with the National Road

Freighters association (NFRA). The leadership model of itself seems irrelevant to whether or

not a movement is Astroturf or genuinely populist.

Astroturfing in Australia: The Convoy of No Confidence

Australia‟s federal system, party discipline, greater centralization and limited avenues for

direct citizen participation mean that astroturfing has been less prevalent here than in the

United States. Nevertheless as recent campaigns by the mining and gambling industries

indicate, vested interests in Australia now also combine insider and outsider campaign

strategies. In this context it is likely that astroturfing occurs as well. Beder, in a rare

academic study of the phenomenon in this country gives examples of Australian front

organizations including the Forest Protection Society funded by the logging industry and

Mothers Opposing Pollution, a group opposed to the use of plastic milk bottles and funded by

the Association of Liquid Paperboard Carton Manufacturers (Wilson 2006 183: Beder 2002:

31), which is also a sponsor of New South Wales Keep Australia Beautiful campaign (Beder

2005: 5). As Beder points out, sponsors of the equivalent national Keep Australia Beautiful

campaign, such as Mitsubishi Motors, Tetrapak, Coca-Cola Amatil and the Wrigley

Company all have an interest in focusing the public‟s attention on individual litterers rather

than on the producers of packaging (Beder 2000: 5). More recently, Australia‟s three major

tobacco firms operated under the cover of The Alliance of Australian Retailers to oppose the

Gillard Government‟s introduction of plain packaging laws (Orr and Costar, 2012 ).

None of these organizations has attracted the public attention of the Convoy of No

Confidence, nor could they be termed populist movements. The Convoy of No Confidence

was organized in August 2011 and involved 11 vehicle convoys that started from different

parts of Australia and eventually converged on the national capital. Trucks departed from

Port Hedland, Cairns, Rockhampton, Rocklea,, Yatala, Perth, Adelaide, Colac, Warrugul,

Midura and Bendigo (Gordon, 2011). Each convoy was colour coded although the organisors

were careful to avoid green (Doherty and Streak, 2011). The Convoy of No Confidence, like

the American Tea Party, and unlike front organizations such as the Forest Protection Society,

is in many respects difficult to distinguish from a genuine, albeit small and short-lived,

populist movement. Of course, this may be because it never was an Astroturf organization in

the first place, but the fact that its politics of resentment was so one sided is suggestive. Like

the Tea Party, its political links and sympathies were overtly with the right and the

involvement of extreme right broadcaster Alan Jones mirrored the support given to the Tea

Party by Fox News, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. On the basis of its ideological

similarity with the Tea Party, the small number of organizers and the indirect connection of

two of them with the Heartland Institute, a US global-warming denial group, Glazov

speculates that The Convoy was an Astroturf movement (2011). Keane concurs but is vaguer

about the Convoy‟s backing - mining magnate Gina Rinehart is the only person named

(2011). Although mining billionaires would clearly have benefited if the Convoy had

succeeded in its goals, no one appears to have found a clear money or organizational trail

leading to vested interests. Nor has there been a careful analysis of letter writing campaigns

or mailouts to parliamentarians to determine whether Convoy participants were deliberately

trying to create an impression of greater support than they actually had. Newspapers perused

for this article suggest that there was a great deal of support from the rural press for the

Convoy‟s aims and numerous letters of support were published.

According to contemporaneous newspaper articles and internet searches that the majority of

the Convoy‟s organisors were members of the National Road Freighters Association and

included NRFA president (now past president) Mick Pattel, the Liberal National Party (LNP)

candidate for the 2012 Queensland election for the state seat of Mount Isa, Vice President

Rick Finning and incoming president Darryl Pedersen. Also mentioned as an organisor was

Peter Madden, self-proclaimed former sex addict and Christian Activist (Massola, 12

October, 2011; Marx, 2011). Occasional reference was made to a Coalition of Industries as

the primary organizer of the Convoy with the NFRA as a supporter of that broader group.

References to the Coalition of Industries, were, however, scarce and it seems safe to assume

that the NFRA was the organisor and the Coalition of Industries a front organization designed

to suggest broad levels of support. (Sothern Riverina News, 7 Sept 2011: Just Grounds

Community website 10 July, 2011). The NFRA promotes an extreme anti-government

regulation agenda, with a major issue of concern being fatigue management legislation,

described by President Pedersen as „stupid‟ (NRFA website). In its opposition to this

legislation, the NFRA certainly bears some resemblance to front organizations in the United

States that are formed to oppose specific pieces of legislation (Beder, 2000:31). The NFRA

had other trucking related concerns including registration costs, road conditions and the

forthcoming carbon price (Mounster, 2011).The NRFA in turn belongs to the Just Grounds

Community that unites a clutch of small fringe groups such as Property Rights Australia, The

Australian Tea Party– and Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce- as members. According to the

NRFA national secretary, Terrie Bradley, the Convoy was given financial support by donors

who wished to remain anonymous (Taylor and O‟Malley, 2011). While this is suggestive of

astroturfing, it is by no means conclusive as many organizations accept anonymous

donations.

The principal industry lobbyist, the Australian Trucking Association (ATA), distanced itself

from the Convoy and its goals which were all opposed to the minority Labor Gillard

Government policies, and which were, according to an ATA spokesman, „completely

unrelated to trucking‟(Whittaker and O‟Meara, 2011; Taylor and O‟Malley, 2011). Among

those most frequently mentioned were the government‟s proposed carbon tax, bans on the

live export of cattle to Indonesia, and the government‟s Inquiry into the media but other

issues mentioned included boat people, school halls, pink batts, imported Chinese and New

Zealand apples, the threat of banana imports, tightening environmental controls on farming,

poker machine legislation, the National Broadband Network, overseas purchase of farm land,

and same-sex couples rearing children (Higgins, 201; Doherty and Streak, 2011; Anderson,

2011). One participant family said that they were against „pretty much everything‟ (quoted in

Singer 2011).

Populism is ideologically hollow and attaches to a range of political positions of both left and

right (Taggart 2000:4). Whatever its ideological attachment- and the Convoy was clearly of

the right-populist movements are fundamentally oppositional and antagonistic towards

established parties and elites. Unlike other populist movements which tend to wish a „plague

on both your houses‟ the Convoy focused entirely on the wrongs of the Gillard government.

Indeed the movement made clear that the Convoy‟s lack of confidence was in the federal

government specifically rather than in representative politics more generally. It is this one-

sidedness rather than its right wing politics that distinguishes the Convoy from other populist

movements. Although other Australian populist movements have been closely aligned with

the non-Labor side of politics they have been much more even-handed in their opposition to

„pretty much everything‟. The early rural settlers who formed the various Australian Country

Parties were driven by a strong sense that they were unrepresented by both the urban-based

major parties of the time. One Nation supporters also felt disenfranchised and were strongly

opposed to some of the conservative Howard government‟s policies on gun control, the sale

of Telstra and other neo-liberal policies. Even extreme right groups with more affinity with

the Coalition government than Labor, criticised both sides of politics. The Social Credit

influenced League if Rights which had infiltrated the Country and Liberal parties and was

deeply opposed to the Whitlam Labor government, rapidly became disillusioned with

Malcolm Fraser‟s Coalition government, especially on race issues (Simson, 1993).i The

LaRouchite Citizens Electoral Council made equally wild claims against both the Victorian

Liberal Kennett government and Paul Keating‟s federal Labor ministry (Gardener, 1998).

The „Joh for Canberra‟ escapade smashed the Coalition parties and helped the ALP to retain

office in 1987. More recently, the newly formed Katter‟s Australian Party has rejected all

three major parties in favour of a return to subsidization of agriculture and protection

(website, 2012.). Its most controversial advertisement broadcast during the lead up to the

2012 Queensland State election was targeted directly at LNP leader Campbell Newman and

his support for gay marriage.

The Convoy was much more one sided than these movements in its hostility to the Gillard

government and backing for the Coalition parties led by Tony Abbott. There were parallels

with the Tea-Party‟s one sided antipathy towards the Democratic Party (Street and DiMaggio,

2011, 104 and its desire to help the Republicans return to office (Street and Di Maggio 135).

It has been more usual in Australia for populist movements such as Pauline Hanson‟s One

Nation, the Joh for PM campaign and Katter‟s Australian party to hope, however fancifully,

to install their own leaders as PM or premier, rather than to try to boost the Coalition‟s

chances. The Convoy was different in that it never sought to establish itself as a rival to the

major parties. Instead, it drew active support from Coalition members. Opposition leader

Tony Abbott had predicted just such a people‟s revolt against the carbon tax (Coorey, 2011).

He joined the Convoy north of Canberra where he described participants as „salt-of-the-earth

Australians who feel they are being ripped off by a bad government (anonymous, 2011

Tablelands Advertiser). Members of the Coalition, including Abbott, and Nationals leader,

Warren Truss, Liberal frontbenchers Bronwyn Bishop, Sophie Mirabella and Joanna Gash,

and Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce, who tabled the Convoy‟s petition in parliament,

addressed convoy participants on the lawns of parliament House in Canberra to loud

applause. Just as Republican politicians echoed Tea Party themes, Coalition members

reiterated Convoy concerns (Street and Di Maggio 2011:4; Taylor 17 August 2011).

The Convoy was also supported by the right wing media, especially in the bush. Numerous

small newspapers ran positive editorials and articles about the Convoy (for example

Townsville Bulletin 19 August 2011; Chinchilla News 29 Sept 2011; Northern Miner 2

September 201; North Queensland Register 1 September 2011). Rupert Murdoch‟s

broadsheet the Australian also ran supportive articles that presented the convoy as an

authentic grassroots uprising. (for example, Higgins, 15 Aug 2011; Nadin and Higgins 8

August 2011; Johns, 18 August 2011). Talkback broadcasters Ray Hadley and Alan Jones

were conspicuous in their support. Jones, who has made a great deal of his bush roots and has

built a reputation for on air rage directed at liberal elites was particularly close to Tony

Abbott. Jones‟s biographer Chris Masters says that the two men share a „mutual high regard‟

(2006, 349) despite their disagreement over Abbott‟s promise of funding for legal action

against Pauline Hanson whom Jones had supported (Masters 2006, 349). In interviews with

Convoy organisors, Jones was in lockstep with their views on issues such as live meat

exports, the carbon tax, asylum seekers and the need for PM Gillard to „go away‟. (Media

Monitors, 15 August 2011; 16 August 2011). At the rally where Jones was MC, he

demonstrated the sort of „verbal bullying‟ associated with „Tea-Party–supporting Fox News

pundits‟ (Street and Di Maggio 2011: 103) when he attacked journalist Jacqueline Maley who

had asked Jones if he had been paid to compere the rally - a legitimate question in the light of

the „cash for comment affair‟ in which Jones was found to have presented advertisements as

news in return for money (Masters 371-3910). Jones, who denied being paid for compering,

responded with rage and incited the crowd to the point where Maley feared for her safety

(Maley, 23 August 2011).

Underpinning the concerns of Convoy participants with many of Gillard Government policies

was the feeling that the minority government was somehow illegitimate, leading to a demand

that the Governor General dissolve both houses of parliament. Given that the Australian

constitution specifies the circumstances in which a double dissolution election may be held

and that these had not occurred, their goal was unachievable but it is a reminder of the

frustration that populist movements experience when confronted with the checks and

balances of constitutional democracy. Indeed populist logic demands that political opponents

must always be illegitimate because they do not represent the political will of the people

(Abts and Rummens 2007: 419). There was a strong belief among Convoy participants that

the legitimately elected parliamentary majority comprised of Labor, Green and Independents

did not represent the majority of people. According to one participant „there has been a

deliberate ignoring of the people‟s voice‟ (quoted in Higgins, 2011). Convoy organisor Mick

Patel was reported as saying of the Gillard Government that „the people believe it has failed

miserably‟ (Doherty and Streak, 2011) and Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce, who spoke at

the Canberra rally said „that the convoy was an expression of what most Australians were

feeling‟ (Sunshine Coast Daily, 2011). Margaret Canovan (2005:65) has highlighted the

tensions that arise in representative systems when „the-people-as-excluded part have claimed

power as the largest section of the people-as sovereign whole‟. Often, in fact, the „people as

excluded part‟ do not represent a numerical majority but their strong sense of being in the

right makes it acceptable to them for their opinion to hold sway (Richmond, 1977:115-16).

Old themes of politics as a struggle between country and city, of alienation and lack of status

and security for rural people emerged (see Graham, 1966:43). Kate Milton of Ingham

referred to a central tenet of agrarian fundamentalism in her letter of support for the Convoy

but also highlighted the ALP‟s inadequate representation of rural people:

A majority of the people involved in that convoy are the people who feed and service

this country. Farmers, graziers, truckies, small business owners and their employees.

These are decent people who work very hard to scratch a living out of the soils of this

great country that our fathers and grandfathers fought and died for. It just goes to

show the Labor party‟s opinion of Australia‟s industries and primary producers

(2011).

Milton, like fellow Convoy supporter, Ken Knuth who also applauded „these rural folk,

mostly battlers and truckies who grow the food for this nation‟ (2011) gave honorary agrarian

status to sympathetic townsfolk such as small business owners and truckies. This reaching out

to other groups was also a ploy of the old Australian Country party who even in its days of

greatest strength could not rely on farmer support alone and tried to bring other groups of

workers into its fold (Wear 2009, 90-91). In another echo of earlier rural movements, there

was a strong feeling among participants „that city Australians had no understanding of the

difficulties faced by people in rural areas and a belief that city dwellers had it easy; in the

words of one Convoy participant, city people are insulated to what is going on… they are

either public employees or on a salary‟ (quoted in Mesner, 2011). Another felt that the money

spent on the office for climate change would be better spent „on health and education for rural

families‟ (cited in Taylor, 2011). Yet another complained that „we don‟t have a government

who is bush savvy, and city people don‟t have the savvy to run this country‟ (Jenkin, 2011).

Because of their oppositional, anti-system characteristic, populist movements tend to draw

disparate groups of the disaffected to their banner. Over time in Australia, groups such as

Social Credit, the League of Rights, Citizens Electoral Councils and One Nation appear to

have shared ideas and personnel who gravitate from group to group as old ones fade and

newcomers take their place. (Ward, 2000 98-102). It is unsurprising that some of them found

a place in the Convoy of No Confidence. Many of them shared the „paranoid style‟ common

to similar American groups (Hofstadter, 1967). Suspicions of conspiracies against the

interests of the people have characterized both American and Australian populism

(Hofstadter, 1963, 62; Wear 2000, 59-61) Some themes that emerged from Convoy

participants included he influence of the United Nations (Whittaker and O‟Meara, 2011), a

conspiracy to form World Government by the Rothschilds, and the machinations of the

Bavarian Iluminati ( Glazov, 2011). One of the Western Australian organisors positioned his

concerns about the carbon tax legislation in the context of the United Nations and global

finance. Referring to the Clean Energy Bill 2011, he said „The words “global warming” are

not mentioned but monetary transfers to the United Nations are outlined and power is given

to an international consortium of finance companies‟ (Thompson in Sheehan, 2011). Another

protestor‟s sandwich board of messages which carried the warning „Abbott is a Rhodes

Scholar and Jesuit=New World Order‟ was unusual in attacking a Liberal figure.(Stensholt,

2011). The idea that Rhodes scholars belong to a secret society aimed at world domination is

an old one on the right wing fringe – given added piquancy by the supposed presence of Lord

Rothschild on the founding committee (Jasper, nd).

Underpinning these resentments was a not always articulated vision of an alternative

Australia, an imaginary heartland that more accurately reflected the values of participants

than the current model. According to Taggart:

The heartland is a territory of the imagination. Its explicit invocation occurs only at

times of difficulty, and the process yields a notion that is unfocused and yet very

powerful as an evocation of that life and those qualities worth defending, thereby

stirring populists into political action. The heartland is that place, embodying the

positive aspects of everyday life‟ (2000: 95).

Convoy participants clearly felt that their way of life was under threat by an alliance between

the Gillard government and the Greens. Many of them were responding to real concerns

caused by the temporary cessation of live cattle exports to Indonesia or competition from

imports of foreign fruit. Other confronted fears about what might happen under a carbon tax

or by same-sex couples rearing children. Leader of the Nationals Warren Truss told them that

„our country is at risk because of this government and its policies‟. Truss‟s statement was

self-serving but it captured the sense of many participants that a callous government was

indifferent to their plight.

When support for the Convoy was much less that the „tsunami of people‟ (2011, Doherty and

Streak) organisors had promised, there was an immediate resort to conspiracy theory to

explain the lower than anticipated numbers. Given that the goal of such movements is to

impress policymakers and the public with the strength of their support it was imperative that

an explanation be found for the small numbers. Although the Convoy‟s leaders stressed the

numerous demonstrations of support from country people along the Convoy‟s 11 routes to

Canberra, many rural townsfolk who had been urged by the coordinators to cater for large

numbers of visitors were disappointed. For example, the NRFA reimbursed the Coolac

community for the money they spent in preparation for 400 participants rather than the 100

who actually appeared (Martin 8 September 201). Wallandeen publican, Kerry Murphy

compained, „we busted our nuts for nothing and prepared for days, but only 10 trucks arrived‟

(quoted in Olding and Cook). The story was repeated in other small towns en route (Olding

and Cook, 2011). The numbers who finally made it to the grounds of parliament were

disappointingly small (some estimates put the numbers as low as 300), causing Labor

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Anthony Albanese to tell the parliament that it was

„a Convoy of No Consequence‟ (Willinhgam, 2011). Broadcaster Alan Jones told the

assembled protestors that in the „darkest day for Australians‟ (Tablelands Advertiser, 29

August 2011) a two kilometer long convoy „had been stopped at the border between the New

South Wales [sic] and the ACT (Australian Capital Territory)‟ (ABC 26 August 2011). Police

had in fact halted the convoy for a few minutes to explain arrangements but the story that

they had been stopped was repeated by numerous speakers at the rally. A further unlikely

explanation that rally organisers had deliberately staggered the arrival of the 11 separate

convoys to prevent gridlock in Canberra gained currency in parts of the rural press

Mikkelson, 2011). According to one participant this made „the convoy look a lot smaller than

it was‟ (Mikkelson, 2011).

In fact the Convoy had been unable to build the broad support movement of a Tea Party or

Pauline Hanson‟s One Nation. Some of the protestors associated with the Convoy appeared in

the federal parliament‟s public gallery a few months later, holding an Australian flag and

chanting „Democracy is dead‟ and „no mandate‟ but in reality the movement had all but

disappeared. (AAP 12 Oct 2011). In itself, this is not unusual because populist movements

tend to be episodic and self-limiting (Taggart, 2000, 4), but the Convoy‟s appearance was

shorter than most and failed to gather momentum or a real groundswell of national support.

This may have been because the Convoy, unlike Pauline Hanson‟s One Nation, Joh for

Canberra or Katter‟s Australian Party did not present a genuine third party alternative.

Conclusion

In many respects the Convoy bore a strong resemblance to previous, more impactful rural

populist revolts such as the ill-fated and ill advised Joh for Canberra campaign, the more

successful Pauline Hanson‟s One Nation and, in the early years of the twentieth century, the

Australian Country Party. All of these movements were based on the resentments of regional

people against the centres of power. All movements shared an implicit vision of a heartland

where people of their own kind were valued and all were clearly motivated by a perception of

crisis that was not necessarily shared by the rest of the country. Where the Convoy differed

from other populist movements was that its members directed their rage almost entirely at the

Gillard government and that it was closely aligned with the Coalition. It was actively

supported by members of both the Liberal and National Parties and by the right wing media.

This close connection with one side of politics is suggestive of astroturfing. In the absence of

both a clear trail to organisors or donors beyond the NFRA and conclusive evidence of

manipulated letter writing and media campaigns, it is the clearest sign that the NFRA was an

Astroturf organization.

References

AAP. 2011. „Public Gallery Disrupts Question Time‟. 12 October.

Beder, S. 2000. „The Corporate Assault on Democracy. Australian Rationalist 52: 4-11.

Abts, K. and S. Rummens. 2007. „Populism versus Democracy.‟ Political Studies 55, 405-424.

Anderson, J. 2011. „Convoy of No Confidence: angry northerners hit the road for Canberra, escort

guaranteed‟, Townsville Bulletin, 19 August.

Anonymous. 2011. „Protest convoy heads off‟. Sunshine Coast Daily. 20 August.

Apolliono, D. E. and Bero, L. A. 2007. „The Creation of Industry Front Groups: The Tobacco

Industry and “Get Government Off Our Back”‟ American Journal of Public Health. 97 (3): 419-27.

Beder, S. 2002. Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism. Totnes, Devon: Green

Books

Brissendon, M. 2012 „Tea Party is Losing its Steam‟, The Drum ABC 18 Jan

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-18/brissendon-tea-party-losing-its-steam/3779134 Accessed 31

Jan. 2012.

Canovan, M. 1981. Populism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Canovan, M. 2005. The People. Cambridge: Polity.

Coorey, P. 2011. „Abbott predicts revolt on tax‟ Sydney Morning Herald .25 February.

Dalmia, S. 2009. „Obama‟s “Astro-turf” Health Care Conversation‟. Reason Foundation 15

Augusthttp://reason.org/blog/show/obamas-astro-turf-health-care accessed 1 Feb 2012.

Doherty, M. and D. Streak. 2011.„All roads lead to discontent, The Canberra Times,20 August.

Glazov, R. 2011. „Unanswered Questions on the Convoy of No Confidence‟. The Drum Opinion,

ABC 22 August http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2850098.htmlaccessed 31 Jan. 2012.

Gordon, C. „All roads lead to Canberra‟ Goulburn Post, 16 August.

Graham, B. D. 1966. The Formation of the Australian Country Parties. Canberra: Australian

National University Press.

Higgins, E. 2011. „Mass convoy to make “real‟‟ voices heard‟. The Australian, 15 August.

Hofstadter, R. 1955. The Age of Reform. New York: Vintage.

Hofstadter, R. 1967. The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays. New York: Vintage.

Jackson, D. 2009. „Obama White House Decries „Astro-turf‟ lobbying Against Health Care‟ USA

Today, 4 August.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/08/68496154/1accessed 1 Feb. 2012.

Jasper, W.F. nd. „Reviewing the Rhodes Legacy‟. Conspiracy Archive.

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/research/rhodesscholars.html accessed 9 March 2012.

Jenkin, C. 2011. „Protestors stir up pioneering spirit‟, Northern Miner, 2 August.

Johns, G. 2011. „Convoy a revolt of working people‟. The Australian, 18 August.

„Jones gets into anti-carbon tax rally strife‟.2011. Transcript ABC, 28 August.

Just Grounds Community. Website.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JNxdqfDKAoUJ:justgroundsonline.com/grou

ps+site:justgroundsonline.com+just+grounds+community&cd=9&hl=en&ct= accessed 5 March, 2012.

Katter‟s Australian Party, 2012. „Issues‟. http://www.ausparty.org.au/who-we-are/our-

people/profiles/bob-katter.html accessed 8 March 2012.

Keane, B. 2011. „What Motivates the Parl House Rallies? Crikey 23

Augusthttp://www.crikey.com.au/2011/08/23/on-the-trail-of-the-persecuted-what-motivates-the-parl-

house-rallies/ accessed 31 Jan 2012

Knuth, K. 2011. „Voice of the north dismissing convoy just arrogance‟, Townsville Bulletin 29

August.

Krugman, P. 2009. „Tea Parties Forever‟. New York Times, 13 April.

Lyon, T. P. and Maxwell, J. W. „Astroturf: Interest Group Lobbying and Corporate Strategy‟,

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 13 (4) 561-597.

Marx, J. 2011. ‟The Devil within: Christian Democratic Party member Peter J. Madden. The Monthly,

March.

Massola, J. 2011. „Anti-carbon tax protestors interrupt Julia Gillard during question time‟, The

Australian , 12 October.

Masters, C. 2006. Jonestown: The power and myth of Alan Jones. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and

Unwin.

McNutt, J. and K. Boland. 2007. „Astroturf, Technology and the Future of Community Mobilization:

Implications for Nonprofit Theory. Journal of Sociology& Social Welfare XXXIV (3): 165-178.

Media Monitors, 15 August 2011, 16 August 2011.

Mesner, K. 2011. The Morning Bulletin, 19 August.

Mikkelson, J. 2011. „What goes around‟ The Gladstone Observer. 27 August.

Milton, K. „Primary producers at breaking point‟ Herbert River Express, 31 August.

Monbiot G. 2010. „Reclaim the Cyber-Commons‟. The Guardian. 14 December

http://www.monbiot.com/2010/12/13/reclaim-the-cyber-commons/ Accessed 12 Jan 2012.

Monbiot, G. 2011. „The need to protect the internet from “astroturfing” grows ever more urgent‟ The

Guardian 23 February

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/feb/23/need-to-protect-internet-from-

astroturfing accesssed 11 Jan 2012

Mounster, B. 2011. „Truckies roll out protest‟ The Mercury. 11 August.

Nadin, M. and E. Higgins. 2011. „Truckies no-confidence convoy to drive carbon messagehome‟. The

Australian, 8 August.

National Road Freighters Association website http://nrfa.com.au/who-are-the-nrfa/ accessed 5 March

2012.

Olding, R and H. Cook. 2011.„The pub with no patrons: a detour that depressed a small town‟. The

Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August.

Orr, G. and B. Costar, 2012. „Old Figures on New Money‟, Inside Stor. 3

February http://inside.org.au/old-figures-on-new-money/ accessed 7 Feb 2012.

„Peter Madden: Christian Activist‟, Website http://www.petermadden.com.au/about-peter-

madden.html

Reader, B. 2005. „Who‟s really writing those “canned” Letters to the Editor?‟ Newspaper Research

Journal, 26 (2/3): 43-56.

Richmond, K. 1977. „Rural attitudes and the daylight saving campaign in New South Wales „. Farm

Policy 16 (4), 111-117.

Sheehan, P. 2011. „Today, a road convoy will set off from Port Hedland‟. The Ballarat Courier. 16

August.

Singer, J. 2011. „Protestors lacked any real focus‟ Herald Sun, 24 August

Southern Riverina News, 7 Sept 2011

Stensholt, J. 2011. „Smorgasbord on a sandwich board‟ Financial Review. 23 August.

Stimson, S 1993.„Last stand for the extreme right‟ National Times, 25-31 May.

Street, P. and A. DiMaggio, 2011. Crashing the Tea Party: Mass Media and the Campaign to Remake

American Politics. Boulder Co: Paradigm.

Taggart, P. 2000. Populism Buckingham: Open University.

Taylor, C. 2011.„A Convoy of No Confidence will head through‟ The Daily Advertiser, 10 August.

Taylor, L. 2011. „Keep it civil, urges Abbott as protestors maintain the rage‟. The Sydney Morning

Herald. 17 August.

Taylor, L. and N. O‟Malley 2011. „Protestors rage at false reports trucks stopped‟ The Sydney

Morning Herald 23 August.

The petition of the National Road Freighters Association

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/co2/petition-convoy-to-canberra-2011.pdf

Walker, E. 2009. „Privatizing Participation: Civic Change and the Organizational dynamics of

Grassroots Lobbying Firms‟. American Sociological Review 74 (1): 83-105.

Ward, I. 2000. „One Nation: organisation, party and democracy‟ in The Rise and Fall of One Nation

eds M. Leach, G. Stokes and I ward. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Warhurst, J. 2011.„Rural protestors are homeless‟, The Canberra Times, 25 August

Wear R. 2010. 'Pauline Hanson Support Movement'. In Roslyn Follett (Ed.), Found in Fryer: Stories

from the Fryer Library Collection (pp. 190-191) St Lucia, Qld: The University of Queensland

Library.

Wear, R. 2009. „Countrymindedness and the Nationals‟ In The National Party: Pospects for the

Great Survivors. Crows Nest NSW: Allen and Unwin, 81-100.

Wear, R. 2000. „One Nation and the Queensland Right‟. In The Rise and Fall of One Nation eds M.

Leach, G. Stokes and I ward. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.7-73.

Whittaker, J. and C. O‟Meara 2011. „Industry shuns, but anti-government protest keeps on truckin‟,

Crikey, 22 August. http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/08/22/industry-shuns-but-anti-government-

protest-keeps-on-truckin/ accessed 5 March 2011.

Willingham, R. 2011. „Convoy of no confidence runs short on revs‟. The Age, 23 August

Wilson K. 2006. „Grassroots versus Astroturf: Discrediting Democracy‟, Overland183:13-17

i The League simultaneously courted right wing members of the Liberals and Nationals. Richards also produces evidence that League members also belonged to these parties. See M. Richards 1972. ‘Coalition finds itself infiltrated’ The Age, 29 February