Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
An English lesson for Republicans
November 13, 2008
A good piece by Jonathan Freedland about the years of Tory misery that followed Blair’s landslide election victory in 1997, and what the Republicans might learn from them. Three different leaders; two more election defeats…
Only then, staring oblivion in the face, did the slow stirrings of recovery begin. A senior Conservative official, Theresa May, had already warned that the Tories had to shed their image as “the nasty party” with few women or members of ethnic minorities in Parliament. Now, at last, that message began to be heard. A younger, fresher face emerged and overtook more established rivals for the leadership: David Cameron.
Mr. Cameron’s candidacy was built on a simple premise: modernize or die. He told the Tories they had to look as if they actually liked the country they sought to govern, rather than wishing they could turn back time. They could not hope to form a winning coalition without appealing to the Britons whom Mr. Blair had made his own: women, suburbanites, the highly educated. Relying on angry old white men was never going to get the Conservatives much beyond 33 percent.
To that end, Mr. Cameron set about decontaminating the Tory brand. Central to that mission were forays into two areas of political terrain previously deemed forbidden zones. First, he signaled comfort with gay rights, ditching the party’s previous support for laws restricting sexual equality. Second, he championed environmentalism. He may have endured news media mockery when he took a dogsled ride to inspect a Norwegian glacier in 2006, but it did the trick, confirming that the Tories were changing.
Mr. Cameron’s efforts have paid off: recent polls suggest a Conservative victory at the next election. Of course, the lessons of one society can never fully apply to another. But the Tory experience suggests that a defeated party of the right has to move toward the center, abandon divisive social issues and elect a leader who looks as if he or she actually belongs in the 21st century. With Arnold Schwarzenegger ineligible for the presidency and no other accommodating figure on the horizon, the Republicans might have a bumpy decade ahead.
The Tory revival surely owes more to exhaustion with “New Labour” than to Cameron’s rebranding, but Freedland is right that the Tories had to embrace moderation and centrism to become electable again. (The same was true of Labour, of course. After Margaret Thatcher’s victory in 1979, they were out of power for 18 years, choosing leaders true to the soul of the party, with far too little appeal to the centre. Then came Blair.)
Shame about Schwarzenegger.
Message from a liberal American:
How about a ‘good manners’ lessons from a Brit too. The Republicans got awful nasty and mean-spirited during their reign.
Posted by: craig anderson | November 13th, 2008 at 8:33 pm | Report this commentOr a Palinesque ego splits off a “Family Values”, (anti)”Christian party” from the centre-right technocrats.
Posted by: Anarchocynicalist | November 14th, 2008 at 1:41 am | Report this commentThe centre-right party gets the largest vote.
Then has to sell-out to the religious fascists who hold the balance of power to form a majority.
eg Howard Liberals + Family First in Australia.
Yuk !
Unfortunately for them, circumstances have changed and the Tories now look too ‘wet’ IMO.
Posted by: Rodchenko | November 14th, 2008 at 8:41 am | Report this commentsuch a very british reading of the republican party. the republican party needs to go back to the basics. rechampion small government, states rights, and fiscal responsibility.
it is true that nearly 1/3 of americans are non-white. but it does not automatically follow that none of them vote republican.
the party got into a problem with latino-americans due to the meanspiritedness of the illegal immigration dispute. but it was ronald reagan who provided amnesty to all illegal aliens in the 1980s. which brought more latinos into the fold. and jeb bush was quite liked by the latino community in florida due to his wife being originally from mexico and his being fluent in spanish. and this had a knock-on affect for the entire party. but the debate about immigration in 2006 - 2007 has caused the party huge problems.
in terms of african americans. we forget that martin luther king, jr. was a republican. and a sizeable portion of african-americans voted for richard nixon, who is was the architect of attaching specific laws to the mere policies that the democrats had set out regarding affirmative action. he instituted minority hiring quotas for both men and women. (americans tend to forget that affirmative action and civisl rights were geared toward both ethnic minorities and women).
but as we saw with the passing of the protection of marriage amendments last week around the u.s., that although non-white minorities in the u.s. tend to vote overwhelmingly for democrats, socially, the majority of the individuals in each group tend to be religious and socially conservative (anti-abortion, protection of marriage). so this leaves an opening for the republican party.
the RNC will not make any gains within such communities by pandering. they will need people with more of a temperment like mike huckabee, who while governor of arkansas was able to garner around 30% of the black vote.
but these similar questions arose during the early 90s when bush the elder lost to billary clinton. and two years later the republican party took back congress, including the house of representatives wwhich i believe the democrats had controlled for over 50 years at the time. and then the republican party made steady gains until they blew it in 2006. but that’s quite a run there.
power corrupted. and the party needs to return to it’s roots.
Posted by: Michelle | November 16th, 2008 at 1:27 pm | Report this comment“they will need people with more of a temperment like mike huckabee”
Huckabee comes across as very likeable and in an authentic way. Plus he has at least one (probably more) policy interest in education regarding the value of the arts which varies from the Republican norm - which is concentrated on readin’, ‘ritin’ ‘n’ ‘rithmetic (along with bible-thumping of course).
His earlier life as a preacher also serves him well in his public speaking.
Unfortunately he has the same nutcase views on most other topics including science that other extreme right, Christian fundamentalists have.
The quotation cited by Mr. Crook is valid. The USA Republican Party current center is so far to the extreme right in every way that it limits its appeal largely to know-nothing, mostly rural mostly poorly educated white males.
The plutocratic wing of the Party is happy to let its politicians pander for votes from that group so long as the ultimate policies enacted favor its sole interests of favored access to the federal Treasury, low income taxation and preclusion of any policies that favor the masses of the citizenry as opposed to their own special interests.
Most people of color (more accurate appellation that black or something else) or those of Hispanic origin do not fit in either category.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | November 16th, 2008 at 5:43 pm | Report this commentHey, I’m a rather well-educated woman with common sense, and have remained a staunch conservative throughout my five decades. No Phony Blair ever deceived me, though I was shocked by the arrogance of our Ministers before the 1997 election. I knew they could but lose, and deservedly so. Alas, what we got instead spelt the end of Great Britain, as the dreaded New Labour set about dismantling its great institutions. The writing was on the wall the moment Cherie moved into N° 10 and had the henchmen do away with the resident Cat.
Posted by: elizabeth schumann | November 16th, 2008 at 7:31 pm | Report this commentTo all who care, I recommend Ryan Lizza’s impeccable accounts of Obama’s ruthless rise to power in the July and present issues of The New-Yorker magazine.
Elizabeth, thanks for the recommendation.
Posted by: Michelle | November 17th, 2008 at 5:28 pm | Report this commenti don’t think the New Yorker piece shows a remotely ruthless side of the obama campaign team. it’s a total congratulatory fluffy touchie-feelie article.
Posted by: Michelle | November 17th, 2008 at 5:55 pm | Report this comment