Apeing the Tories - a warning from history

[McKenzie]

As many of you will know the Labour Party in Britain was regarded as unelectable throughout the 1980's and into the early 1990's. I won't go into why; all I want to say, for the purpose of this discussion, is that the Labour Party abandoned many of its cherished principles because there was a view that only by doing so would they ever be elected again. So "Labour" became "New Labour" and we saw them sweep to power. (At which time Scotland kicked out every Tory - not ONE Tory MP was elected - please excuse my indulging in a bit of national pride). The reasons for New Labour trashing the Tories are attributable to the change in political direction allied to disgruntlement with the Tories after they had spent over a decade in power.

People thought this would lead to big changes and, in particular, a softening of the hardline policies pursued by the Tories. There were changes many of which we welcomed.

Earlier this week I read about the use of anti-terrorist (hello Echelon) legislation to suppress dissent. I also read about an 82 year old man ejected from the NL Party Conference for simply expressing dissent and, even worse, being prevented from going back into the venue afterwards. And, as we all know Blair supported the invasion of Iraq. This is symptomatic of how the New Labour Party has betrayed many of the principles of its founders simply to get into, and to hold onto, power. All of this is old hat and patently obvious to anyone who can generate a synapse between two brain cells. The worrying thing is how far the party has shifted to the right.

So what am I saying here? Well, it now seems most unlikely that New Labour can move back towards its original ethos. In occupying some of the ground that the Tories previously held New Labour has had to abandon a large part of its natural constituency; people who used to be generically termed "working class". NL no longer represents those people and there is not any alternative that the disenfranchised constituency can turn to, at least not one with clout.

Some might say that the gaining of power has been worth the sacrifice - the end justified the means. I'm not so sure. The Labour
Party (I hate the term "New Labour") has its roots in a working class/under priviliged constituency and that is what it grew out of. In abandoning its roots NL has effectively disenfranchised the electoral constituency that was responsible for its creation. Betrayal might be too strong a word but that is effectively what has happened. A large section of the British electorate has been left behind in the pursuit of power the corollary being they are now left without any real voice.

Why might this be relevant in the US? Well, I suspect the Democratic Party in the US is tempted to appeal to the middle classes in their efforts to win at the next election. In doing so it might be worth considering the longer term effect on the section of the democratic vote that might find itself in the same position as those who have effectively been abandoned by the NL Party in the UK. Having ascended to power, on the basis of appealing to Middle America, it might then be very difficult to promote an agenda that caters for that section of the Democratic vote that sits below Middle America. We have
seen it in happen in the UK. Blair now has to keep the middle classes happy to the point of apeing the Tories. Which would be all quite nice and fine if it didn't have a negative impact on the section of the population that gave birth to the party in the first place.

That same phenomenon might just come into play in the US if the Democratic Party tries to occupy some of the Republican Party's natural territory.

Difficult choices ahead. Abandon a section of the electorate who are instinctive Democratic voters in order to gain power then try to legislate for their needs later? Might work on the "crumbs from the table " theory. However, our experience in the UK suggests that once a party moves to the right, in the absence of there being an alternative party of the left, it becomes very difficult for that party to move back towards what used to be its natural constituency (see also paragraph three).

My interpretation of the term democracy is that it allows for equal representation for all regardless of race, income level etc. Moving to the right in the UK, in order to gain power, has had a negative effect on democracy as far as I can see: A large part of the British electorate no longer has a party that really represents its interests.

<edit> speling

[electropop]

1. New Labour = DLC

These parties formed a transatlantic alliance which helped both Clinton and Blair come to power. Worked OK for a while, but eventually, the harm to their bases has resulted in harm to the parties.

[mmonk]

2. I believe they call it the "third way"

I call it the "no way".

[welshTerrier2]

3. too many here say "we can't do anything until we get power"

you've phrased it perfectly ... their argument is an "end justifies the means" approach ... all some care about is winning; it doesn't matter what we win ...

this is what i see as "campaign driven" rather than "movement driven" ... it focusses on candidates and political manipulation rather than on fighting for a cause ...

and it disenfranchises the majority in the party who want the Democratic Party to stand for, and fight for, the things we believe in ... Democrats who adopt a "win at any cost" approach do a huge disservice to the country and will, in the end, not be politically successful as a result ... good policy and good politics go hand in hand ...

[acmejack]

4. You nasty people are risking being flamed!

We're supposed to love the DLC, after all they aren't Republicons. I see thread after thread castigating anyone who dares say anything negative about these traitors to Democratic principles.

imho, DLC = dino = R

[Apollo11]

5. Situation is not the same

I follow UK and US politics closely, and have done since the 1980s. In many ways Clinton was the model for New Labour.

Clinton in 1992 was all about appealing to middle-class Americans (most Americans consider themselves middle-class). The era of big government is over - said Clinton. The end of welfare as we know it. People need a hand-up not a hand-out. Very friendly to corporate interests, in favour of NAFTA and free trade.

When Blair became leader of the Labour Party in 1994 he decided to take his party down the Clinton path. New Labour is now the centre party in the UK, with the Conservative Party on the right, and the Liberal Democrats on the left (on issues like Iraq, healthcare, education, taxes ...)

The problem facing the Democrats is different and more complex. Don't forget Gore won the election in 2000, but Bush stole the White House with the help of his family members and close friends who were running Florida, FOX NEWS and the US Supreme Court. Kerry almost won in 2004, and we will never know if Bush could have won in Ohio if the election had been run in a clean and fair way.

So first of all - the key issue in the US is clean elections.

There are some Democrats who want to attract former Bush voters by being more moderate and centrist. Offering the voters a choice between "Bush" and "Bush Lite". But my perception is that there is a growing mood in favour of an alternative progressive strategy: motivating the Democrats base, attracting young and first-time voters, encouraging minorities to vote. Participation levels are very important in America - where it is rare that you get more than 50% turnout in elections. So reaching out to the swing (floating) voters is important, but so is firing-up your base and getting people out to vote (and making sure all those votes get counted!)

I am confident that there is a mood in America for Democratic candidates who will speak out against the Bush agenda, and this will continue up to the Presidential election in 2008. My guess is you will see the Democrats running a campaign that is positively progressive. The fact that Howard Dean is now chairing the DNC is already a sign that things are moving in the right direction (that is towards the left - relatively speaking).

I don't think Democrats will be looking for someone like Tony Blair - who has in effect become a spokesman for the Bu$h Administration - especially on the crucial issue of the situation in Iraq.

Personally - I am rooting for Al Gore. But that's another thread ...

[julianer]

6. My memory of the 80's

isn't so much that Labour was unelectable but that the party had been split from the right by Owen, Rodgers, Williams and Jenkins. The tories never had a majority and if the Labour right had not split away we would have had a Labour govt in 1983.

Let's not forget that Thatcher was lucky with the Falklands war and the SDP split, before those things she led a very unpopular govt.

Also, infuriatingly, between elections (and pre-election tax cuts) Labour always had opinion poll leads frequently in double figures.