In the wake of the Democrat’s loss this year the party looks like a drowned rat. They’ve been squashed by an opponent that was easily beatable and are pulling in too many directions too fast. The extreme Mooreian left has too much power and the Democrats are looking at a world in which the principles and policies that so effortlessly synergized with former days are helpless and inapplicable. Even with a much hated incumbent and massive groundswell support from their party faithful, the Democrats couldn’t cross the finishing line in any position other than 2nd.
Sound familiar?
To me the parallels between the Democrats today and Labour under John Smith and Neil Kinnock are astounding. It is for this reason that I prescribe the best cure possible: Tony Blair.
Blair’s rise to power in the Labour party has been the subject of many books, debates, documentaries and Islington dinner-table conversations. Ultimately, Blairite New Labour was the rejuvenation of the Labour party and its saving grace. Much to the ire of many back benchers who begrudgingly owe their seats to Mr Blair.
Although many others could write in more detail on this topic I’ll simply outline the matters of importance:
For the Democrats to win they need to do the following:
Ostracize the extreme element of their party.
Listen to what people want instead of assuming their policies are precisely the desired cup of tea.
Enunciate to the nation exactly what they want to do for it and what they can do for it.
The first objective is bloody easy to fulfill. Unlike Labour there is never going to be the fear of the extreme element pulling their votes from the party. America has a 2 party system and the last time anyone was bold enough to try and break it Bush was elected. This process under Blair involved the removal of ‘Red Ken’ which is rightly lauded as the smartest thing Tony Blair ever did and the most foolish thing he’s ever undone (for which I am rightly to blame, being naive enough to actually approve his Labour candidacy in the London mayoral elections). In America its parallel is clearly the extraction of the parasitic Michael Moore from the party body. Moore’s pissed off with Nader so he isn’t going to do anything other than support the Democrats, unless he starts his own “Mooreian” party (the phonetics of that word have a certain ring of truth to them when spoken just right) which would provide no end of entertainment in an election year.
The second is already being grasped by many Democrat supporters. Security is a big issue now and the Democrats fielded a candidate who’s position on security was ripe for Republican criticism, Kerry to his credit understood this and fought tooth and nail to get McCain on board with his campaign. Next election the candidate needs to have a strong foreign policy and a defense team lined up with sufficient bite - Joe Lieberman style. I don’t think that the Democrats ought to have relented on many of their social issues and I think that they could have won without having to do so - much of the talk of culture wars and the importance of moral considerations has been the result of exit polls and we all know how accurate those are. The only people who fill out exit polls are the people with an earnest desire to show others how and why they voted, those who got out to oppose gay marriage fall heavily into that category, being so intent upon ‘making a stand’.
Finally onto the last point. The Democrats this election, from the campaign footage I’ve seen, spent so much time talking about their plans in an abstract manner that they didn’t seem to be able to inform the electorate of exactly what they’d do. The deficit halving was an example of something the Democrats got right - they made it clear to the nation that this was their objective and they explained how they’d restrict spending in order to reach it. That unfortunately was the only time in the election that they were suitably robust in their assertions. Sure I had been told that Kerry was going to bring on board new allies and rejuvenate existing alliances, be tough on terrorists and increase aid for the poorest members of society but unlike Bush’s policies which had 4 years of practice to illustrate themselves, Kerry’s were newborn. Kerry expected people to vote on headlines, but you need to give them the whole story. The burden of proof lies heavily with the challenger and Tony Blair understood that in 1997.
Anyhow, that’s just my 2p. The Democrats are free to decide their course of action for the next election. Whether it’s Obama, Hillary or even Edwards who runs, they ought to bear Blair’s New Labour strategy in mind - its effectiveness is well documented by Labour’s longest ever stretch in power.
Later
John
Posted by John Swaine at November 5, 2004 03:18 AM | TrackBack