Below is another brilliant guest post from MB reader Erin Rolandsen, CEO of Angelassist. Erin’s previous articles can be read here and here.
Australia is facing a dangerous moment in its democratic life. On one side we have the word “immigration” being censored by bureaucrats. On the other side, we have extremists who want to co-opt the debate for their own agenda.
The March for Australia rallies have tapped into deep public discontent about immigration, housing, and environmental strain.
If we allow the issue to get framed through the lowest gear of politics—identity—we risk undoing years of careful, evidence-based debate on population policy that outlets like MacroBusiness have fought hard to cultivate.
To understand democracy better, I’ve created a framework I call The 3 I’s Hierarchy:
- Identity (the lowest rung)—This is politics driven by who you are and who you’re against.
- Interests (the middle rung)—Politics shaped by self-interest: jobs, taxes, and wealth.
- Ideas (the highest rung)—This is where democracies need to aspire to: a contest of ideas, allowing respectful, rational debate at the level of principle, vision, and the common good.
For societies to thrive, healthy democracies must rise to the top of this ladder. Unfortunately, many developed democracies have reverted to the lower rungs, where discussions become tribal and emotive instead of rational and constructive.
When politics is conducted at the level of Identity, it inevitably creates an “us versus them” dynamic. The March for Australia embodies this perfectly: “No foreign flags” and “Take back our country” create narratives of cultural siege.
Identity politics thrives by appealing to superiority—if not racial, then moral. The danger is that it leaves little room for nuance.
Anyone who questions either the slogans or censorship is cast as part of “them”. Identity-based movements become fertile ground for strongmen: the leader offers belonging to the in-group, not reasoned policy to the nation.
For more than a decade, MacroBusiness has built a case that excessive immigration, poorly managed, undermines wages, strains infrastructure, and inflates housing. This has been a debate grounded in Interests (economic outcomes) and pushing towards Ideas (what level of population growth serves the national good).
The March for Australia rallies threaten to collapse this debate back into the swamp of Identity.
Instead of asking: “How many people can we sensibly house, train and sustain?”, the question becomes: “Who belongs here?” That is a recipe for polarisation, not policy.
Worse, it risks making legitimate concerns about population management untouchable in mainstream discourse—tarring them as the territory of extremists.
If we want to have a serious conversation about immigration, we must insist on shifting the debate upward:
- From Identity: “Who are we?”
- Through Interests: “What migration settings best balance housing, wages, and services?
- To Ideas: “What kind of Australia do we want to build over the next 50 years?”
This requires discipline—from politicians, from the media, and from citizens themselves.
The March for Australia is not just another rally. It is a fork in the road. If it succeeds in dragging the immigration debate down to the level of Identity, Australia could lose the chance to craft a rational population policy for years.
If we hold the line—if we can keep the conversation anchored in Interests and elevate it into a true contest of ideas—then Australia can still navigate a path toward a sustainable and just future.
Democracy, like a car, only moves forward when we know how to change gears.
