Stay informed with free updates
Simply register at Policy myFT Digest – delivered straight to your inbox.
It might be helpful to start by restating Ganesh’s law. All political actors value “radicalism”, with the exception of those who decide elections. The commentators demand it. Without it, activists become agitated and mutinous. Politicians themselves aspire to this, so even their most cautious policies are presented as bold. When economic growth is strong, it is said that it is time to take risks. When this is not the case, big ideas are needed all the more to move things forward.
The honorable work of progressive reform, aimed at not making things worse, is not getting its due, except from influential voters. In the time I have been alive, no opposition has lost a general election in the UK for not deviating sufficiently from the status quo.
Sir Keir Starmer offers fewer diversions than some would like. Joe Biden leads the most radical Democratic administration since that of Lyndon Johnson, with a mandate closer to that of Bill Clinton. A man is about to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on his first try, which, given his starting point, would rank among the West’s outstanding electoral achievements this millennium. The second is to fight to keep an unpopular Donald Trump out of the White House.
Democrats should therefore reverse the habit of Labor politicians visiting them in Washington for advice. The parties face different contexts – a rampant economy and a stagnant economy, a demagogic opponent and a moderate conservative, four years in office and 14 years in opposition – but both will face the 2024 election. Labor has so much more likely to win than to demand. to study.
The main lesson? For swing voters, a leader who disappoints his own party East bold. Holding the line against internal dissent East proof of vision and virility. When Starmer abandons his pledge to spend £28 billion a year on the green transition and refuses to reopen the Brexit issue, politicians suspect weakness. The audience sees someone answering one of the central questions about an aspiring leader of a country: is he the master of his party, or its creature? Judging by his slowness in disavowing a parliamentary candidate in Rochdale over anti-Israel comments, he still has a long way to go.
Biden barely addressed the question of the master creature. Democrats are considering all sorts of explanations for his low ratings — an inadequate White House manipulation operation is a favorite — except that he gave them too much. Let’s leave aside the empirical question of whether his giant spending implicates him in the post-2020 inflation surge. Nor does it matter that the relaxation of some Trump-era immigration rules has exacerbated problems on the southern border. Just consider what these gestures look like to the undecided, nonpartisan voter. Outside of foreign affairs, where his support for Israel is upsetting an entire generation of progressives, there are few instances where President Biden has displeased liberal Democrats. (Unlike Senator Biden, who did it all the time.)
What did this median American want to conclude about Biden? Either this career centrist is a late convert to the left or, given his age, others are setting the course for this administration. I think criticizing the president’s mental and physical state wouldn’t work as well if he was running a middle-of-the-road government. His power comes from the idea that he is the unwitting instrument of forces more progressive than Americans could ever elect on their own terms.
Democrats have misinterpreted the 2020 election as a directive to transform America. The mandate – to eliminate Trump – was narrower than that. Starmer seems to understand the spirit of the times better. If the defining element of the popular mood in the West is distrust of the ruling class, this hardly implies great demand for or confidence in major reform projects. This is especially true in Britain, which is still recovering from the radicalism of leaving a colossal single market on its doorstep, and the radicalism of attempting unfunded tax cuts at a time of high public debt. But it holds up in most places.
It is Starmer’s eternal advantage that he is not steeped in politics. He did not hold elected office until he was in his fifties. He is not a regular at salons. In the run-up to the 1997 election, Labour’s last entry into government from opposition, much of the political-media world in London felt part of the moment. This is no longer true today: it is a reflection of a much more bitter national feeling, of course, but also of detachment from Starmer. He pays the price. Those for whom politics matters a lot underestimate it. But what he earns cannot be bought or learned. He is able to see politics as an undecided voter would: as a problem-solving exercise, a necessary evil, not a source of entertainment or even meaning in life.