The Inclusive technique
The politician directs his appeal to groups held together already by common ties，ties of nationality，religion，race，sex，vocation.Thus propagandists campaigning for or against a program will appeal to us as Catholics，Protestants，or Jews...as farmers or as schoolteachers；as housewives or as miners.With the aid of all the other propaganda devices，all of the artifices of flattery are used to harness the fears and hatreds，prejudices and biases，convictions and ideals common to a group.Thus is emotion made to push and pull us as members of a group onto a Band Wagon（Propaganda Analysis）.［1］
The above description of the politician illustrates perfectly the technique employed by the three politicians during the 1998 federal election.A targeting strategy directed towards particular sections of the community was adopted by all parties.Politicians attempt to convince their audience that both themselves and their ideas are“of the people”.The main function of this inclusive or“plain-folks”technique is to assimilate the speaker himself/herself into a group or groups，and to then win the support of the members of these groups.From the three speeches we can see that the respective party leaders all used this technique in the process of merging themselves into their target groups.The plain-folks technique is also used in other countries such as America.Though recent American presidents have been men of great personal wealth，they have still gone to great lengths to present themselves as ordinary citizens to the voting public.We can witness this phenomenon on our TVs all the time：Bill Clinton eats at McDonald's and reads trashy spy novels.George Bush hated broccoli and loved to fish.Ronald Reagan was often photographed chopping wood，while Jimmy Carter presented himself as a humble peanut farmer from Georgia.In the Australian context，however，leaders such as John，Kim and Pauline choose to not only present themselves as“humble farmers”and“wood choppers”to the viewing public，but also use inclusive techniques to pretend that they are ordinary Australians.
One significant difference that can be found between American and Australian politicians is that Australian politicians use more delicate techniques for assimilating themselves into the targeted communal group.They elevate the group（s）history，traditions and contributions to the creation of the nation.These tactics help politicians to“disarm”such groups，and to ultimately sway them in favour of support for the politician's policies.For instance，in his speech Beazley praises all ethnic groups for their roles in the founding of Australia：
Nearly 100 years ago，our forbearers created a new nation on this continent——a land to which people from all over the world could come to make a contribution...Can we come together，and put petty rivalries and differences aside，and build a new nation for a new century？（Emphasis added）...The Labor Party has listened to the millions in our community who feel betrayed by a Government that has divided Australian again Australian，boss against worker，‘haves’against‘have-nots’.
From the above passage we can see that Beazley attributes the formation of the Australian nation to all ethnic groups.He praises them for their equal contribution in the process of nation building.In the last section of the passage，he opens fire at the current Government's incompetence in handling the race debate issue，and criticises the Government for its role in pitting Australian against Australian.By doing this he clearly seeks to include himself as a member of every ethnic and economic group in the country.
In his speech，John Howard sings the praises of Anglo-Saxon and European traditions，and glorifies the history of western civilisation.
There is no nation on the earth that has been gifted with the special combination of such assets.We are in every sense of the word a projection of western civilisation in this part of the world.We have taken the good things from Europe，the Liberal political traditions，and the civility of our public life and thankfully we have rejected the bad things of Europe.The stultifying class divisions built on tribal prejudice（emphasis added）.
There is clearly no need for John Howard to remind the country's Anglo-Saxon and European communities where their origins lie.The sole aim of Mr Howard in invoking the glories of Western civilisation is to emphasise the role played by these groups in the process of nation formation，and to voice his recognition of the contribution made by these groups.In addition，here Howard seeks to rebuff the claim made by the Labor Party and certain ethnic groups that Australia is part of Asia.This claim is widely rejected by supporters of the Coalition，and stands in complete contradistinction to three decades of Coalition policy.
Turning now to Ms Hanson's speech in which she describes herself as an ordinary small fish and chip owner：
I come here not as a polished politician，but a woman who has had her fair share of life's knocks...mother of four children，a sole parent and businesswoman running a fish and chip shop.
Hanson's speech assimilates herself with special interest groups who insist that the country should be compromised of only those inhabitants that are descended from European stock.She goes to even greater lengths than the Liberal and National Parties to exclude certain ethnic groups from her speeches.In this way，Hanson is deliberately attempting to stir up anti-multicultural sentiment for her own political gain.
A truly multicultural country can NEVER be strong or united and the world is full of failed and tragic examples，ranging from Ireland to Bosnia，to Africa and closer to home，Papua New Guinea.America and Great Britain are currently paying the price.
From Hanson's speech we are able to infer that for One Nation，any given society，be it Australian，American，or African，should only be comprised of the one race.Immigration and multiculturalism are anathema to such an attitude，and should therefore be abolished.As for the indigenous peoples of Australia，however，Hanson fails to offer any feasible solutions as to how they may be dealt with or excluded by mainstream society，in order to successfully achieve the“strong or united”nation that she so desires.
In all three speeches，the speakers also use similar phrases by which to address the Australian public.For example，Beazley employs the phrase“the Australian people”，Howard uses“my fellow Australians”，while Hanson adopts the phrase“all Australians”.By invoking peoples'sense of national identity，these three politicians are in fact deploying the so-called“transfer”device［2］to garner public support.Since democracies are based on majority opinion，those who claim to represent the will of the majority increase the probability of gaining public support.This is because：
Transfer is a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority，sanction，and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept.For example，most of us respect and revere our church and our nation.If the propagandist succeeds in getting church or nation to approve a campaign in behalf of some program，he thereby transfers its authority，sanction，and prestige to that program.Thus，we may accept something which otherwise we might reject.［3］
Though they all deploy the“transfer”device in their speeches，the three leaders apply the device within different contexts.Take for instance，the way in which Howard uses the“transfer”device to launch his party's GST package.Or the way that Hanson invokes the image of the nation to call for the abolishment of multiculturalism，to set up tariffs，and to withdraw funding for indigenous peoples.
It is interesting to note that while Howard and Beazley link themselves to their constituents in a manner that is both indirect and implicit，Hanson seeks to identify herself with supporters in a direct and explicit way.The approach adopted by Howard and Beazley is not only a politically sophisticated and effective one，but also reflects the social status of both leaders and the parties that they represent.The method utilised by Hanson，on the other hand，reveals her social background and lack of political maturity.