The Labour Party vs The Democratic Party; the courage of our convictions and what we stand for.

“If [the party] can’t articulate what Labour stands for, voters will lose interest.”, says Jenni Russell in a recent article; and the sentiment here seems to be one that is shared by much of the electorate. Why is it such a struggle for Labour, and Ed, to say what we stand for? I spent the past month-and-a-bit working on a Congressional and Senate campaign in the US. Of course my experience was of one campaign in one state, but during that experience something that struck me was that the Democrats knew what they stood for, and the voters I spoke to knew what they stood for. This is a party with far less party unity, where candidates do not all communicate the same “message” and quite openly have differing views on certain issue; but there was a far clearer sense of what made them Democrats, and what they stood for and were fighting for, than, I think, there currently is in the Labour Party.

Of course, it is easier when you’re in government; it is far easier to have a concrete policy agenda when it consists is what you’ve done, from which point it is easier to say what you will do. And it helps that there is a massive divide on social issues; to be socially liberal becomes a far more defining feature than it ever would be in the UK. But these factors don’t go the whole way towards explaining why the Democrats seem so much more successful at communicating, as well as fully understanding themselves, what they stand for, than the Labour Party.

Firstly, they have a coherent economic plan. Now, on one hand, so do we; the fundamental divide between Labour and the Tories; stimulus vs austerity; is clear. But the Democrats have a far clearer vision on what money will be spent where, which taxes will be cut and where that moneys going to come from. Of course, this is easier when you’re in government; and it’s easier when the election is in site, and the economic circumstances in which you will take power are (relatively) clear. Of course Labour can only say, “this is the plan; but that may change as the circumstances change”. But we can still form more of a plan; VAT cut, house building, jobs for young people…what else? What other, concrete things will Labour do? And in forming our economic plan, it may take the courage of our convictions, when it comes to where the money will come from, to say, “some will be raised through taxes, but some will come later; when the economy is growing and we are generating more income. And we can afford to wait for that to really tackle the deficit”.

The courage of their convictions is something the Democrats are displaying in spades, right now. And that is something that has alot of weight, politically. Trying to be all things to all people, or seeming to be apologising for yourselves, makes you look weak. The Democrats were guilty of this in 2010; Obamacare being treated as this shameful issue of which they must not speak. By contrast, the at the Democratic National Convention, Obamacare was celebrated; even if you did not like the policy, you could not doubt that Bill Clinton, or Michelle Obama, or Stacey Lihn, the mother of a child she feared would die without Obamacare, or Barack Obama himself, liked the policy. Labour has its moments of conviction and self-belief, but all too often it can seem to be trying to appeal to everyone. We need to courage to say “this is our policy; this is why it’s right”.

And the Democrats, without a doubt, have values. As does the Labour Party. But the power in the values the Democrats communicate, and in the rhetoric they use, is that they relate it back to people. Very specific examples of how this college grant helped his person succeed, or this healthcare expansion saved this person’s life; be they hypothetical or real people. And if I were to summarise the values that the Democrats stand for; it would be enabling people to be able. Empowering people to be as limitless as they can be; not letting circumstances get in the way of their potential. And beyond this, the Democratic Party has been broadly pragmatic; to achieve this goal, they approach individual issues not as ideologues but as problem solvers. This puts them in stark contrast with a Republican Party that is, currently, fiercely and stubbornly ideological.

The Labour Party could so easily paint ourselves in the same way; the Tory’s economic policies are horribly, stubbornly and idiotically ideological. But it is tempting to try and counter this with a grand vision of our own. But no one knows what will happen while you’re in government. And portraying a Labour government that tackles each knew problem, with values, but also with pragmatism; and looking at, fundamentally, how decisions will really affect individuals and communities, is a strong message.

A lot of this is about conviction and coherence. There are times when we have alternative policies, but we attack the Tories rather than express them; times when we could develop more policies but shy away because we do not know what’s coming; times when we could paint a picture of ourselves as the competent problem solvers of British Politics, and instead we attack the Tories. In an ideal world, the Labour Party would get Bill Clinton to explain to the electorate who we are, what we stand for, what we will do in government and the attitudes with which we would do it. But, since that is unlikely to be a realistic option any time soon, we should probably work out how to do it ourselves. 

Democrats for Ron Paul?

Romney limps to a hollow victory, Santorum gets his anti-Romney surge, Bachman is gone and Perry might as well be, Gingrich cancelled his result watching party and some silly person voted for Cain. But among the many shenanigans at the Iowa caucus, we saw the strange phenomenon of normally Democrat voters registering Republican to vote for Ron Paul.

Although his final result was perhaps a disappointment compared to the indications of the initial exit poll, Paul still came third with 21 percent. Now, a lot of the (often incredibly zealous) support for Paul is hardly surprising; clearly for any Libertarian Paul is something of a dream come true.

But Democrats? People who support Obama in ’08? Going from voting for a man who was proposing an economic stimulus to a man who believes so much in the power of the free market he’d like to do away with loans for students and have universities operate purely on market mechanisms?

Paul won’t win the Republican nomination (It’s gonna be Romney. It was always going to be Romney. By the time he gets the nomination he’s going to look incredibly weak, but it’s still gonna be Romney). But it’s interesting to examine why people we would presume are progressive are lending their support to the Libertarian (and, potentially, what this says about their perceptions of and opinions on the Obama administration).

His any-war message is a big deal to a lot of his supporters; Obama being seen as pro-war because of his intervention in Libya (which I personally think was brilliant, but anyway…), as is his emphasis on freedom and civil liberties (while Obama signed an extension of the patriot act). This perception of him at the candidate of none intervention and freedom is one that understandably appeals to progressive voters.

And there’s no denying of his personal appeal; he seems to be a man of genuine belief and integrity (though I may not agree with his beliefs I would concede that he seems to be a good person who believes in the principles he preaches). This goes hand in hand with the perception of him as the candidate “not in the pocket of wall street”; exactly what this means to different people, and in what way Obama is in the “pocket of wall street” varies; but it has become a concept with significant weight and significant appeal to many, including the anti-banking and big business thinking of some on the left.

It should also be noted that his belief in states rights go someway to undermine some of his more socially liberal policies; he may believe in gay marriage or a more liberal policy on drugs, but as his belief would be that he, as president, should stay out of those issues, his presidency would not make such laws more likely. And his reputation as the incorruptable defender of liberty and peace is not entirely water-tight.

This, though, does not change the perception of him as the socially liberal and incorruptible alternative to Obama, whatever the flaws in this perception may be.

But what happened to “it’s the economy, stupid”? Is that not the key issue on which voters make their choice, in the majority of the cases? And in that case, why would Democrats make such a dramatic shift? Are we to assume that former Obama supporters supported him over social issues but were economically right wing, and now Ron Paul gives them a candidate who fuses those two values?

This still seems problematic in the implication that their support for the Democrats in ’08, then, was based not on the economy but on social issues.

So then, what? Perhaps it is that, though people’s primary reason for voting is on the economy, it is not on economic principles. Swing voters are most likely to vote for the incumbent if the economy is doing well, and for the opposition if it is not. And perhaps Ron Paul brings enough personal appeal while not being the often true stereotype of the crazy anti-gay, anti-contraception, creationist Republican to entice less ardent (and maybe less economically knowledgeable) Democrats to do the same.

This is just speculative; I still find it close to un-understandable that a supporter of the occupy movement would also support Paul. But I do not think support for Paul from progressives is a mark that they are suddenly opposed to medicare or anti-discrimination laws or really want the free market to rule supreme (of course, many of Paul's supports would like that, but I would argue this isn't true of those who normally support the democrats). This speaks more of a dissatisfaction with Obama's record on civil liberties (which I would argue is over hyped and largely ridiculous; getting rid of don't ask, don't tell anyone?) and a generalised feeling of a need for a change of direction in the economy, rather than actual support for the change Ron Paul would like to see.

And I still maintain that the real winner of the Iowa caucus was Obama; very little could have helped him more than the entire farce that has been the race for the Republican nomination so far. But the support from liberals for Ron Paul is still an interesting phenomenon, that may prove useful study for both the Democratic and Republican parties.