I argued in my post "Three Competing Views", that within the western democracies (and particularly the UK and USA), the major battle was now between "Regressives" on one side and "progressives" with "traditional conservatives" on the other.
In the two great electoral battles going on this year - the EU Referendum in the UK, and the Presidential Election (but let's not forget the Congressional; State & Local elections - also on November 8th) in the USA - we have seen the approach taken by "Regressives". It is bold, assertive & plays to fears and prejudice. While we might be appalled at that - these tactics work! As well as being active in campaigning - I am at heart an academic. I like to look at the "science" behind elections - and I'm afraid that what works may not be to our taste. I thoroughly recommend Sasha Issenberg's "The Victory Lab". It shows what techniques research has shown to be effective - and voter suppression; fear; guilt work.
Does this mean that we are condemned to ape the tactics so powerfully used by the "Regressives"? or consign ourselves to permanent defeat? I wish I could give a confident, easy answer - but it's complicated. Both the Democrats in the USA and the Labour Party in Britain have learned from, and used, what the "science" has shown to be effective. I would urge progressives to refuse to use unethical means of acquiring and holding on to power.
But I'm not advocating surrender. There have always been those who are prepared to use any means, however foul, to acquire and hold on to power. The twentieth Century is full of horrific examples - yet progressives have won power - and haven't had to sell their souls to do so.
I put forward some suggestions for discussions. Please do send me your comments - we need this debate.
First - we need to expose the grubby techniques that are being used. One of the most insidious aspects of the tactics of the "Regressives" is that they are done 'under the radar'. People can get angry when they see that trickery and deception is being used to try to deceive them. I always remember Bruce George (Labour MP for Walsall South 1974-2010) back in February 1974 using Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark" to illustrate these tactics - "What I tell you three times is true". George used it to draw attention to his prospective voters what his opponents were up to. We must not merely 'tut' when we read the "Fact-Checker" we must draw the lies to the attention of the public. We must expose the contradictions in arguments put forward. We must share with each other, and the electorate, what these people are up to.
Second we need to show that there is a better way. Trump and the Brexiters put a lot of emphasis on confrontation and aggressive competition. Yet people don't think that politics carried out in this way is working. We need to stress that the great lessons of history show that confrontation and intransigence achieve little of positive value (but much that can be VERY negative). We need to make a positive case for
- Discussion
- Negotiation and
- Cooperation.
The Labour Party Constitution (Clause IV) - which is printed and highlighted on every members' membership card - states that the Party "believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone". We need to be stressing that - and arguing that it is a better approach than division and conflict.
Thirdly we need to work on speaking WITH people - not at them. The current "wisdom" is that door knocking is not for attempting to PERSUADE people, but to get enough information in order to predict their likelihood of voting, and voting for us at forthcoming elections. Actually, we need a dialogue - we need to listen to peoples concerns (and to seek to understand - even if what we hear is unpleasant). This was central to the thinking of Saul Alinsky
and Paul Wellstone
Let US talk about how we can do that more effectively. (This Blog is always welcome to publish guest contributors - please send them directly to me.).
Fourthly, we need to draw attention to ideology. I know that worries some people. I'll be honest with you - I've steered clear of talking ideology with electors (the legacy of many wasted hours in the Young Socialists during the late 1970s). But do we need to put on an intense gaze as we talk in the language of obscure French theorists? We need to explain, in ordinary words, the implications of our beliefs and the ideology of the "regressives". Brexit makes perfect sense if you believe in extreme individualism and the superiority of unrestricted competition. People understand the good sense of Sam Rayburn's "If you want to get along, go along." - it applies in families and in work. The Trump approach is ultimately self-defeating. Progressive ideology makes sense to us - we have to learn how to share that with others. We believe that "regressive" ideology is destructive. Let's not think that attacking characters can substitute for explaining the ideological underpinning the differences that exist in politics.
Please do send me your comments. (Click on the highlighted text at the bottom of this post - on the same line as Posted by J David Morgan at 05:30 - if no one else has sent a comment it will say "No comment" or if they have, "x comments" (x being the number of comments made & published - in order to avoid "spam" posts - I read each comment before I publish them on the blog)
No comments:
Post a Comment