I recently read Tony Blair's
speech to the Labour Party Conference. It is hard to deny that he is a superb communicator. Therefore, it was interesting to compare his latest speech and other recent speeches at the Labour Party Conference to his progressive supporters with
Senator Obama's speech to his supporters here today.
"Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate." (Obama)
It was these words from Senator Obama that crystallize for me most the difference between the currently out-of-power Democratic Party in the US, and the currently in-power Labour Party in the UK. In both countries, years of conservative government went hand-in-hand with an opposition who could not get their ideas to sound solidly appealing to the general public. However, what New Labour managed to do was:
"a fundamental re-casting of progressive politics so that the values we believed in, became relevant to the time we lived in. In the late 20th century the world had changed, the aspirations of the people had changed; we had to change. " (Blair, 2005)
The key being that the people's aspirations had changed. What appears to have changed was the realization in the common wisdom that while selfishness had brought short-term gain to some during conservative rule, the real long term and meaningful gains to the lives of the majority (e.g. in education, health, crime etc) really were only to be found by supporting public services and encouraging a forward-looking, modern society rather than trying to preserve an old-fashioned one.
In other words, they actually changed the public perception of selfish'!
"And I don't believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position. I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country. " (Obama)
Blair on how to get the public to perceive that a progressive majority is a good idea:
"Get rid of the false choice: principles or no principles. ... The time to trust a politician most is not when they're taking the easy option. Any politician can do the popular things. I know, I used to do a few of them. ...
I've never led this Party by calculation. Policy you calculate. Leadership comes by instinct. I believe the British people will forgive a government mistakes; will put the media onslaught in more perspective than we think; but what they won't forgive is cowardice in the face of a challenge."
(Blair, 2003).
"And remember when to be in favour of gay rights was to be a loony leftie, race relations was political correctness, and Red Ken frightened people even as brave as your own leadership? Now the parties compete for the gay vote, unite against the BNP and Ken has led and won the debate on congestion charging and community policing. So many things that used to divide our country bitterly, now unite it in healthy consensus. Who did it? The British people, by voting for change. ...
I have come to realise that caring in politics isn't really about "caring". It's about doing what you think is right and sticking to it." (Blair, 2004)
Obama on beating the Right:
"According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups ... in order to beat [the Right], it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era. I think this perspective misreads the American people." (Obama)
Blair on how to deal with fragmented advocacy, or, "it's your inferiority complex, stupid!":
"Up to now there has been a ritual to Labour Governments, Euphoria on victory. Hard slog in Government. Tough times. Party accuses leadership of betrayal. Leadership accuses Party of ingratitude. Disillusion. Defeat. Long period of Tory Government before next outbreak of euphoria. We've been far better at defeating ourselves than the Tories have ever been. Apart from 1974-79, which was fragile from the first, each Labour Government has been a spasmodic interval punctuating otherwise unbroken Conservative rule. For too many of our 100 years we have been a well-intentioned pressure group. We fight injustice. We argue our causes. But our psychology has been that of people who know, deep down, someone else is the governing party and we are the ones championing the grievance. So, after a time, after we have righted the most obvious wrongs of the Conservatives, we fold up. We return to our comfort zone. ... Then came New Labour. From the outset, our opponents hated and feared us. They believe the Tories have a divine right to rule Britain and we are usurpers. They look at their own Party and feel contempt. And they hate us even more because they think we're responsible. And in a sense we are. By occupying the centre ground, by modernizing, by reaching out beyond our activists, we helped turn the Tories into a replica of what we used to be. A narrow base. Obsessed about the wrong things. Old fashioned. In retreat." (Blair, 2003)
Note that the key here is
occupying the center ground. Not
yielding it to save face; because that is exactly what perpetuates the myth that the conservatives are the natural rulers. What Blair & Co. did so well was to crystallize a center-ground message of progressive values that the public could aspire to, and make that message clearly a Labour message, in contrast to the selfishness and corruption that had emanated from the conservatives for 18 years previously:
"New Labour was first and foremost about disentangling ends and means. Political parties love to tie themselves up in doctrine. They develop comfort zones. Policy becomes ideology, sometimes theology. To challenge it, is heresy. To agree it, is a sign you belong. But real people in the real world think instinctively, free from doctrine. Not free from values. But free to apply them differently in different times. ... The challenge we face is not in our values. It is how we put them into practice in a world fast forwarding to the future at unprecedented speed. Over these eight years we have won the battle of values. The age we live in is democratic not deferential. We believe in solidarity. We believe in social justice; in opportunity not for a privileged few but for all, whatever their start in life. We believe in tolerance and respect, in strong communities standing by and standing up for the weak, the sick, the helpless. So what is the challenge? It is that change is marching on again."(Blair, 2005)