But will more direct and genuine language really polarise or alienate the electorate? I think politicians underestimate the public's thirst for seeing the real side of their politicians, like how they talk when they get home and throw the pots and pans around the kitchen as opposed to their rehearsed selves. Everyone totally loved it when Bob Hawke called that guy in the shopping centre a stupid old bugger (I think, i wasn't actually born).
I suspect there is a lot of rewriting of history involved in the Hawke legacy and indeed that of any prime minister to win an election in the past seventy years whereby their success is attributed to their unorthodoxy. Far from delivering him victory, Hawke's occasional crudeness was an electoral hindrance.
Before talking about the cause of any prime ministers long term success one should examine the individual wins in isolation with a fine comb. In 1983 Bill Hayden was well positioned to win the next election before the last minute leadership change. Hayden was very much a labor leader in the Kevin Rudd mold, a cheerful, articulate and moderate Queenslander who was keen on disciplined campaigning and small targets when in opposition.
History has been cruel to Hayden, for the large party suggesting he lacked the political ability to actually defeat Fraser. In actual fact Hawke's landslide victory over Fraser in 1983 was a smaller win that what opinion polls had suggested Hayden would win throughout most of 1982, admittedly his polling dropped late in his leadership but this was amidst vicious attempts by Hawke's faction to remove him from the leadership. Obviously it is a very brave claim to state Hayden would have won a larger majority than Hawke but not so brave to suggest that a drovers dog could have won the 1983 election.
A quick glance over the history books and we will see that no prime minister in post war history and then some has lost his first re-election attempt which it should be noted saw Hawke's majority reduced. A closer glance at the 1987 election will show that John Howard demonstrated many of the Hawkish traits that you suspect were very popular, the straight talking, tell it like it is, cut through the bullshit was on display for all to see. Even if you think that was an asset of the opposition what certainly was not was the public denunciations of Howard's leadership by both Andrew Peacock and Joh-Bjelke Petersen, the latter would actually make a clumsy attempt to role Howard's leadership in the lead up to the election.
Those were the three big wins for the Hawke government which win his political abilities so much praise. The1990 election although a labor victory saw a large swing against labor and Hawke failed to win the popular vote. The legendary brutal honesty of Paul Keating didn't actually do him any great favors. The 1993 election result was a reflection on John Hewsons ill run campaign, Keating was not well liked by any stretch of the imagination. Footage of an incident when he told a protester to "go get a job" was actually one of the main themes of the liberal party campaigns and featured heavily on their televised commercials.
So I would say the "no bullshit" style of rhetoric which has been favored by some successful politicians could well have ended their careers in less favorable conditions.
When i mean PC, i mean just avoiding saying anything controversial, norm-breaking, not-party-approved, not necessarily everyone running around being like "kill all Asians".
Now that Tony Abbott is leader of the liberal party you can probably see a test run of a frank, straight talking leader of a major party and how it compares to a mild mannered vanilla bland Kevin Rudd in the polls. It will polarise and it will alienate just as it when Mark Latham tried to adopt it in 2004.
I don't really get what you're saying with your last point about the journalists, are you agreeing with me? Because I agree with your provided examples.
I thought you meant Jones and Crabbe's were exceptions and that for the large part you felt people in public life were afraid to be frank and open. If you were suggesting journalists do what politicians are afraid to do its because journalists are only required to interest people, politicians are required to win the trust of people. Not a "I believe you" kind of trust but a "I don't think you are going to do something irresponsible and jeopardize my lifestyle" kind of trust.