When I started this series, I had hoped to use the British general election to extract some lessons for us radical, progressive Americans. Different electoral systems and all that notwithstanding, I was convinced that a watershed election in one nation could provide valuable insight into another country’s vote. The fact is that there really isn’t as much to learn as I had hoped. There are some lessons, but by and large, my ambition here hasn’t panned out. I consider it a failure despite some of the kind words and comments those of you have sent about understanding the British system -- it's a failure because the premise was wrong, not because we (I) did anything to undermine it.
That said, here’s what I think can be salvaged: we need to look at how direct exposure to the public can change perceptions; we need to manage our horse races (if the polls say a candidate can win, it becomes more likely that the candidate does win); we need to acknowledge that coalitions (either before or after the election) are awkward; and we need to focus on turnout.
On the first point, the Liberal Democrats, and before them the Liberals, in the UK were never really taken seriously by the press or the political pundits as a possible governing party. OK, when I say never, I exaggerate. Gladstone was PM three times and he was a Liberal (he also died in 1898). Since the Second World War, the Liberals have been a protest vote. The hard left in the UK referred (and for all I know, still refers) to the Liberals as Capitalism’s Second Eleven (in American, that’s "Capitalism’s Junior Varsity). That all changed when Nick Clegg walked onto the stage on April 15.
Standing next to Her Majesty’s Prime Minister and the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, he immediately shattered the belief that Liberals were goofy nut cases who believe vegetarian rights and wearing sandals (especially in British weather) make one morally superior. Hand in his pocket, he spoke clearly and rationally to the British electorate about real issues and his party’s solutions. No one was standing between him and the voters, and they could judge him and his party for themselves.
In other words, media exposure can make an incredible candidate credible. As we saw on Dr. Rachel Maddow’s (yeah, she’s a doctor – Rhodes Scholar, Oxford, I do so love smart people), it can also make a credible candidate incredible as Dr. Rand Paul kept digging himself a hole this week. So, in short, media exposure is a two-edged sword. We lefties have more trouble being taken seriously, however, so we tend to have the Clegg issue rather than the Rand Paul issue.
Closely related to this is the need to manage our horse races. Sadly, opinion polls, sports journalism and a news reporter ethic that fails to focus on ideas rather than personalities, America has an attitude to politics that annoys me. Briefly put, "I really like Candidate X, but I don’t think she can win. So, I am voting for Candidate Y." It’s sort of like walking into a restaurant and saying, "I don’t think the chef knows how to make a decent porterhouse, so I am ordering the hot dog." To combat that, we activists need to manage the horse race in the media. "Yeah, our candidate is a long shot to win, but did you see the poll where our number 1 issue got support from 59% of the electorate. Why aren’t you running with that story – most voters back crackpot!" To sell this, we need to cultivate relationships within the media and give them access. Unlike the British media, most American reporters are glorified stenographers (don’t believe me? Try watching Jeremy Paxton rip a UK pol a new one). We can use that to our advantage. Nothing a reporter likes more than 15 column inches before lunch – the rest of the day can be spent in the bar.
Because conflict sells papers, we need to look at the nature of coalitions. As we have seen in the UK, it is difficult to get two political parties to cooperate. The fact is that the left wing of the LibDems and the right wing of the Conservatives have very little in common and keeping them together is going to take some very creative diplomacy. In America, however, we form our coalitions before the vote rather than after. The Democratic Party is a coalition of various interests: unions, feminists, environmentalists, ethnic minorities to name but a few. There are times when the interests of one (say workers in the oil patch) clash with those of another (environmentalists who want clean energy). If we come down on one side or the other, "sell-out!" is the shriek of horror. You see the same thing in the LibCon coalition in the UK. Arch Tories maintain that a free vote on fox hunting (a Cameron pledge) is the least the government can do. Yet, the Prime Minister and his Deputy have a lot of other issues on their plates. Is it a sell-out? Yes, probably. Is there a greater good that demands that this issue go to the back of the line. Yes, definitely.
The challenge is to keep the coalition intact. How does one do that? Beats me. All I can see is the need to keep communications open and to explain when a decision goes against an interest group why it happened. Understanding that we are operating in a coalition is the first step in dealing with this.
Finally, when it comes to elections, turn out is probably the most important factor – not pre-election polling. Going into the May 6 election, the LibDems were flying high, looking at 80, 90, even 100 seats. And in the end, they lost a few seats with about 500,000 more votes than in the previous election. The Tories didn’t win a majority, but they outpolled Labour by 2 million votes. What does that say? It says that the single most important thing you can do is get the vote out. Imagine if the LibDems had simply settled for matching their absolute vote total from the previous general election – they would have been shelled. And had the Tories not scored an extra 2 million, Labour would still be in office. In short, and this is painfully obvious I would have thought, nothing matters beyond getting the voters to the polls. Everything else is hypothetical.
So, there it is, a fun ride that doesn’t really get us anywhere. Still, we had a good time, and there were a few things to learn. Your criticisms will probably cast more light on this that what I have written here, so knock yourselves out.