Gerard Henderson usually puts forward historical arguments that are at least plausible. But his claim that Whitlam and Chifley were exponents of the small-target strategy is (literally) incredible.

Labor has had only four prime ministers since the end of World War II – Ben Chifley, Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. Each won his inaugural election – in 1946, 1972, 1983 and 1993 respectively – on what today would be called a small target strategy.

Chifley, Whitlam and Keating subsequently threw the political switch to the big picture – and lost in 1949, 1975 and 1996 respectively. Hawke, ever the pragmatist, was not defeated in an election.

Whitlam’s It’s Time program was one of the most detailed and ambitious ever put forward by an Opposition and, contrary to Henderson’s claim, his government was in full retreat in 1975, following the Hayden Budget. Chifley was campaigning on the basis of, among other things, the White Paper on Full Employment which, for the first time, committed governments to maintaining full employment. More importantly, considering the whole period of the Curtin-Chifley government it was one which managed a radical transformation of the role of government. Hawke ran on the basis of the Accord which was a radical (though not radical left) approach to macroeconomic policy.

It’s only the 1993 and 1996 election that give real credence to small-target theory. Even here, it’s strange to focus on Keating who simply took the line that seemed most likely to deliver a win in the face of huge resentment arising from ‘the recession we had to have’. It was Hewson who failed with a big target (Fightback!) and Howard who succeeded with a small one.

In fairness, I suppose 1949 also counts as a defeat for big-picture politics, but there were quite a few factors working against Labor by then.

Update I’ve been wondering what on earth Henderson could have been thinking in imputing a ‘small target’ strategy to Whitlam and I think it must be the fact that Whitlam was a moderate on issues like Vietnam and state aid to private schools, compared to the dogmatic purism of, for example, the Victorian branch. But this reasoning excludes any possibility of serious political debate or of a substantial political program that takes political reality into account. Whitlam fought on the issues, but he focused on the issues that were winners for Labor. By contrast, Beazley ducked anything that would create any sort of trouble.