These days, it seems that a sure way to publish a book or have an article printed is to propose a new agenda for progressive Australia. The question of rejuvenation for progressive movements is not unique to Australia, as the same conversations are taking place across Europe and elsewhere. The use of language is often addressed superficially, yet it is largely responsible for losses to our collective identity, whether that be understood as a moral, intellectual or cultural construct. A change in rhetorical course is much needed.
The extent of the problem was apparent on several occasions last year. The first question asked after Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced in March that eight people were known to be dead and 74 missing due to the flooding in Queensland was modern politics reductio ad adsurdum. The focus of the interrogative was not the extent of the human tragedy, nor even what Gillard planned to do in the coming days to support devastated cities and towns. No, the focus of the question was the government's capacity to bring the budget back to surplus.
Nothing the Prime Minister said during the news conference invited such a question. In a broader sense, her government is guilty only of passively inheriting a political discourse that has degenerated for decades. This is not confined to Australia but is consistent across the West. The language of economics is now the common language of modern politics.
Certainly, Labor has been as responsible as any modern party for this dehumanising political condition. A party that proposes ''a strong economy'' as a vision for Australia, or ''opportunity for all'', is a party unable to communicate a powerful sense of purpose. Back at the news conference given while floods continued to wreak havoc, a separate question was prefaced with an almost apologetic explanation: ''because the budget is so central to the government's objectives''. History awaits a party willing to put an end to this unfortunate tendency.
In Australian politics, it is apparently no longer enough to argue for a particular policy because it is the right thing to do, because it will strengthen our communities or save our planet from irreparable damage. Policy cannot merely be justified because it will strengthen our families and give our children the best chance to realise their full potential, or because it is needed to protect the most vulnerable members of our community. Public policy must do more, it seems, than merely enhance our culture and well-being or protect our way of life. Universal quality and accessibility of education and health services can no longer be justified because it is the only rational and dignified approach for a modern democracy to take.
The economy has a critical role to play in politics, of course, but it should never be considered an end in itself. It must be managed responsibly, as a means of achieving the best outcomes for our nation. Members of cabinet, at the least, should be literate in economics and fluent in prose. Such gifts are not innate, nor are they cultivated by accident. Politicians develop economic literacy because they see it as professional development; a necessary qualification for personal advancement. Before the moral pulse of the nation is lost, sound economic management must be complemented by a vision driven by imagination, founded on a set of values agreed within the party, and argued honestly and accurately.
Is it possible for modern political parties to engage effectively in a contest of values, given the abject state of political discourse? Orwell's classic essay ''Politics and the English language'' is as relevant today as it was when it was first penned. Orwell was scornful of dying metaphors, pretentious diction and meaningless words. But if such habits were removed from contemporary political language, what would remain? Our governments rely heavily on pretentious diction, with announcements regularly heralding policies described as the ''greatest'', ''biggest'' or ''most significant''. Sound bites are frequently littered with abstract phrases rather than a simple, honest speech. Words not chosen for their meaning renders words meaningless. Dying metaphors are similarly abused. Last year, shadow education minister Christopher Pyne managed in a brief interview to use the ''faceless men'' metaphor half a dozen times.
So how would a commitment to good prose - written to be read or spoken to be understood - engender a vision for the nation that embodies values and aspirations worthy of future generations? The potential of a party that allowed the imagination of its membership to soar would be limitless, yet any narrative seems to be prisoner to the imposition of a narrow focus on the state of the economy. Given the opportunity, it is unlikely that members of a progressive party would see the economy as anything other than a driver of social policy. To paraphrase F.Scott Fitzgerald, these boats against the current are no doubt pulled into line by those with more powerful positions in the party structure, borne back ceaselessly to a dry economic landscape that offers the public little idea of what the nation's future holds. Some policies demand a contest of values not limited by a reliance on economic language. A vision for the future must resist such inertia.
.gif)
