I really like the slogans this year. From the incumbent we have ‘Moving Forward’; the challenger proposes ‘Real Action’. Two pithy statements. The former is shapely, symmetrical. Four syllables, two words. Gillard’s and Abbot’s phrases are much better than ‘The answer is Liberal’ or ‘Keeping Australia in safe hands’. Those two historical calling cards were far too long. I prefer brevity, like Whitlam’s ‘It’s time’, or Keating’s ‘Leadership’. Nice, short, no mucking about. Howard’s ‘Go for growth’ had an alliterative ring, but was pipped by ‘Kevin07’, which, in hindsight, has to be the best slogan we have ever seen. It is a rhyme and a single word at the same time! An entire campaign shortly summed. Brilliant! Surely such a glorious statement should have ensured the Prime Ministerial longevity of its namesake. And, just like Howard’s ‘Incentivation’, the depth of its meaninglessness makes it truly one for the ages. ‘Join the swing to Labor’ is another great motto, but, given it was created in the sexually charged 1960s, a bit too risqué for my tastes. Especially when it was paired with ‘Where the action is’. Again, that word. Action. Like Abbot, the ALP has, throughout our electoral history, proposed Action. Real Action. We do like Action-slogans in Australia. In fact, we have liked it since the Labor Party used ‘Time for action’ in 1963. Just like ‘What Labor promises, Labor will do’ - another getupandgo catchphrase. Some argue that sloganism is a simple entry point into the complexity of political debate for the voting public. Others say it is symptomatic of the 24-hour media cycle. I’m not entirely sure. What I am sure of is that reducing entire policy platforms to two word by-lines results in a loss of nuance between the parties. If the devil is in the details, then the beginning of a campaign period often becomes the equivalent of a political exorcism. The minutiae are lost. So too is the dividing line between the major parties. At this point in the process, it is not a choice between two strongly contested and rationally-sound policy approaches; between two viable leaders. Not yet. Rather, it is a slight veer towards one of two ideologies lying either slightly to the left, or slightly to the right, of the middle of the political road. As the campaign wears on, the two hopefuls will need to separate themselves from their slogans. In 2007, me-tooism became so de rigueur that it didn’t matter whether Rudd or Howard would eventually call The Lodge home. If that happens again in 2010, this election, as Waleed Aly lamented, will indeed be remembered as the ‘the least important in recent Australian political history’. I’m just hoping we can keep the bastards honest. Marty Bortz
Masters student
School of Social and Political Sciences
University of Melbourne