New Labour, Newer Democrats?
By John Aho
What can Democrats learn from New Labour? Not what you'd expect.
Plymouth is a seaport town of about 200,000 in Southwestern England, and the location to which my job took me several weeks ago. After the privatization of its docks under Margaret Thatcher, the town’s economy fell apart. Abandoned buildings still are a common sight, along with a significant unemployment problem. I visited the town as a part of my internship, since I work for the Labour Minister of Parlaiment (MP) representing urban Plymouth. Something was changing at the time of my visit, however. “The Cranes are back!” Linda, the MP I work for, exclaimed on our arrival. “People are telling me that these are the first cranes they’ve seen since after the war.” It was true, in the center of town several new apartment buildings were going up. I asked if all of the building activity was a new development, and was informed that the money behind the development was a part of Labour’s “New Deal for Communities” program.
American Liberals seem to have written off the Labour Party lately. When Tony Blair was first elected as Prime Minister in 1997 he was widely cheered on many American liberals as a British Bill Clinton. However, since Blair offered his support to the Bush Administration in its decision to invade Iraq American liberals have – and rightly to some extent – dismissed Blair and New Labour as tools of the Bush administration. However, the focus on Blair’s role in the run up to the war in Iraq has obscured useful lessons in both electoral politics and progressive governance. When New Labour became the dominant policy agenda within the Labour Party in 1997 it was seen by many as a British version of the American “New Democratic” movement. The New Democrats have always been loosely distinguished by their combination of centrist economic policies and liberal social policies.
The Labour Party circa 1983 ran on a platform supporting the massive nationalization of industry and dismantling of British nuclear weapons. The 1983 Labour platform was so unpopular with voters that it became known as “the longest suicide note in history.” In the 1980s phrases like “class struggle” were actually used in Labour meetings and conferences, something you don’t even hear coming from the mouth of Dennis Kucinich. New Labour has outlasted the New Democratic movement simply because New Labour has radically changed the dominant ideology of the party. “Old Democrats” such as Walter Mondale or Dick Gephardt can’t be compared with Old Labour politicians in any meaningful way. After all, I can’t recall Walter Mondale ever proposing to enact “500 points of government control” over the economy. The point is that while the New Democratic movement was distinctly different from politicians like Mondale and Gephardt in their acceptance of globalization and being far more prone to agree with the GOP on tax issues, the New Democrats never had the task of converting a party as out of the mainstream as Labour. New Labour needed the extremism of the past to take control of the Labour party, while across the pond the New Democrats have never had such an impetus to encourage their ascendance to power.
Furthermore, what counts as a centrist agenda in the UK looks mysteriously like a liberal agenda in an American context. New Labour has introduced (and repeatedly raised) a national minimum wage, almost doubled the budget for the National Health Service (NHS), launched the aforementioned urban development program known as the “New Deal,” and led the charge on issues of global warming and poverty. By any real measure, this is a liberal agenda. But then, what lessons can the Democratic Party learn from Blair and New Labour?
First, Democrats can learn the importance of breaking partisan stereotypes. In John Kerry seemed to embody the “limousine liberal” Democratic stereotype, while Blair transcended British perceptions of what a Labour politician could look like. Before the 1997 general election Labour was tagged as the party of nationalization, narrow class based interests and economic recession. Blair’s personality offered an effective rebuttal to all of these Labour stereotypes. Blair’s intelligent and articulate speaking style persuaded middle class British voters that he was not one of the class warriors of old. Instead of talking in class based language Blair used the inclusive language of expanding opportunity to all. Blair spoke about fiscal restraint, but also advocated polices which were undoubtedly progressive. New Labour did move the Labour Party back to the center in terms of policy, but even more importantly it moved the party away from the negative “old Labour” mold rhetorically. Blair didn’t look or sound like what people expected from a Labour politician, making the Tory criticisms of Labour look increasingly shrill and dated.
Second, Democrats can learn the importance of a clear and articulate agenda. If you read any Labour campaign materials or visit their website you will find it very easy to figure out what they are proposing. From issues which range from crime to health care, Labour made their proposals easy to understand and national in focus. Of course, this is the standard for parties in the Great Britain since the UK has no federal structure. However, U.S. electoral history does not evidence political parties running on a single, easily understood agenda (the 1994 Contract for America is a good example). Without bold proposals like reducing the carbon emissions in the UK by 20 percent or doubling investment in the NHS, the Left wing charges that Tony Blair was a “closet Tory” would have stuck. Democrats need not adopt a far left wing agenda to make themselves boldly contrast with Republicans. If the Democrats combine a few ambitious but popular agenda items, such as universal health care coverage, with other items to illustrate that they are the party of competent administration – such as specific targets for reducing the deficit- they can achieve the same kind success with their agenda as New Labour has had with its own.
Tony Blair’s time as Prime Minister is coming to a close. The British Press daily speculates on his possible declaration of a resignation date (in order for Blair to allow time for his successor, Gordon Brown to establish himself as Prime Minister). What the Blair legacy will be is not yet apparent. Most British people seem to have mixed feelings on the question, which I mostly attribute to the unpopular invasion of Iraq. For the Democratic Party though, the Blair legacy should be clear. The way to grab the political center is not to split the difference with the Republicans as too many New Democrats seem to attempt. Instead the party ought to follow the example of New Labour and find a combination of popular, progressive proposals to excite liberals as well as centrist proposals which assure moderates that Democrats are the party of responsible government. Unfortunately elections are decided on personality as much as they are on policy; thus Democrats need to find candidates who break the mold Republicans attempt to pour them into. Only by emulating New Labour in these two important ways can the Democrats hope to challenge the electoral dominance of the GOP. 
John Aho is a junior political science major from Chaska, Minnesota.