Why Labour are now borrowing more from the Bush campaign book than the Tories
James Forsyth 6:18pm
Vanity Fair has a long series of interviews looking back on the Bush presidency. A lot of the ground covered is familiar—9/11, torture, Iraq and Katrina—but this comment from Mark McKinnon, Bush’s chief adman during his presidential campaigns, touches on an aspect of Bush’s election victories that people don’t think about enough:
“The interesting thing about both Bush campaigns is that they strategically defied conventional wisdom and turned it on its head. In 1999, on the old “right track, wrong track” question, which we ask on every poll—the reason we ask it is because it determines whether or not it’s a change environment or a status-quo environment—in 1999, the “right track” was 65 percent or 70 percent, which under conventional wisdom would indicate that it was a great environment for the Democrats and for Al Gore. The strategic challenge we had was—we were in the position of trying to argue everything’s great, so it’s time for a change, right?Flash forward to 2004. It’s just the opposite. This time, the “wrong track” is like 65 or 70 percent. We’re in a very difficult war, uncertain economy, and so now we’re in the strategic position of saying, you know, everything’s all screwed up. Stay the course. We’re all f’d up. Stay the course.”
This means that the Bush machine has laid down templates for how to run two very different races. The 2000 campaign was about how a challenger can win in circumstances that are essentially benign. The Tories borrowed more than a couple of moves from this playbook at the beginning of Cameron’s leadership when they thought they would be fighting an election with the economic question essentially settled.
In 2004, the Bush team demonstrated how an incumbent can win when things are off track. Labour is now consciously or unconsciously aping several of the Bush campaign tactics. It is portraying itself as the do something party against the do nothing party, arguing that only its leader is strong enough to take the necessary decisions, attempting to energise its base with divisive measures—for Bush’s endorsement of a constitutional ban on gay marriage read Brown’s proposed 45p tax rate, and trying to portray its opponent as an elitist, out of touch, flip-flopper.
I don’t think Labour’s effort will work because the economic crisis has not forged the kind of bond between Brown and large parts of the country that 9/11 did with Bush and much of the American electorate. David Cameron is also a lot better politician than John Kerry and Gordon Brown is nowhere near as good a campaigner as George W. Bush.
PS The other point that isn’t made enough about the Bush presidency is just how much he has done for Africa. Just consider this section from the Vanity Fair article, which is generally extremely critical of Bush:
“May 27, 2003 Bush signs legislation authorizing the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). He visits Africa, a main focus of the legislation, soon thereafter. PEPFAR commits some $15 billion for AIDS prevention and treatment over a period of five years. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof concludes, “Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did.”Michael Merson, M.D., international AIDS researcher, who has evaluated the relief program: Look, PEPFAR is the largest commitment ever made by any nation for a global health activity that’s dedicated to a single disease. I mean, that’s just not disputable. It has a prevention component, a treatment component, and a care component, but treatment is the centerpiece. The last number I’ve seen is that this initiative has led to treatment of more than 1.7 million people, most of them in Africa. Now, that’s not all the people who need treatment, but it’s a huge amount. PEPFAR at least tripled our aid flow to Africa—I’m talking about total aid flow.”
PPS It we’re talking about the 2004 campaign it is worth watching this ad produced by a 527 which was probably the most important ad of the cycle It was blasted out across Ohio, the key swing state in ’04, in the final weekend of the campaign and is generally held to be responsible for Bush’s margin among white women, which was what propelled him to victory there.
Previous
Sally Chatterjee
December 29th, 2008 7:16pm Report this commentLabour have long aped the Karl Rove technique of relentless hounding and bullying any critics. Look how Brown plays the "with us or against us" card on the economy. Anyone daring to suggest all is not well on even trivial policies gets bullied. Even junior ministers get their private lives leaked if they stray off message. It's almost beyond Bush and into the realms of Mao.
As for Bush helping Africa, great. Hitler famously made the trains run on time but he'll not be remembered as a railway man. Bush already has a place in history as one of the worst Presidents in history, his face should be carved into Mount Rushmore as a warning to Americans.
Trumpeter Lanfried
December 29th, 2008 9:14pm Report this commentCan't see any member of the Great British Public warming to a hug from Gordon Brown.
Donna
December 29th, 2008 10:58pm Report this commentLike their ER to our Casualty, America's elections always seem so much glossier, don't they?
The two election processes are so vastly different, I'm not sure any truly meaningful parallels or lessons can be drawn from either side, by either side. However, even if they could, Bush, and now Obama's publicity machines blitz anything we could ever manage here, and it's not just because of the money involved. We just don't have that hollywood talent for getting showbiz into politics, which would be fine if only the masses hadn't grown so hopelessly addicted to 'entertainment'. Regardless, I can't think of a single front bencher on either side who can really ignite ANY public group in any comparable way - and that's a huge part of the problem.
Labour's effort won't work, but not because the economic crisis has not forged the kind of bond between Brown and large parts of the country (or not primarily), but because no party in this country really ever shows any signs nowadays of connecting with any sections of the country in any meaningful way, and haven't for the past decade.
This is why Tory polling is so dire (and considering the current economic fiasco, it IS dire): talk to almost anyone who's not affiliated with a party and they'll all say pretty much the same thing: all politicians are untrustworthy; none of them ever make any kind of difference (except, of course, when they manage to make something worse); they're only in it for the nice houses and large cars (which is why this second job issue is more problematic then they realise); and finally, the age old 'whoever you vote for, the government gets in'.
As a final anecdote: I bumped into an old friend, we got onto politics, I mentioned I was Tory. She looked at me aghast, and, in all seriousness asked "but don't you care about poor people?". Leave Labour to self combust, I say, let's concentrate on getting OUR message out there!
TGF UKIP
December 30th, 2008 12:11am Report this commentWOW, WOW, WOW, James, this is one of your best posts of the year and as for that Ohio ad a double WOW again.
There are many dimensions of the Bush presidency which history will treat a great deal more objectively and favourably than contemporary hacks and pundits, and Africa is but one of them.
It would be small wonder if Labour were not very consciously emulating some of the Bush campaign plays and it would be equally amazing if the daft and stupid Cameron Tories sought nothing more than to place the maximum distance between themselves and Bush on campaigning and every other subject.
Indeed, James, the post of yours I find the most peculiar is the recent one where ticking off pluses for the Tories, you count the return of Hilton as being one of the most positive.
Would it be possible on this earth to find anyone more distant from Ol' Turd Blossom in terms of political touch than the Shaven Headed One.
I guess I've long since accepted, though, that on the subject of Cameron, Osborne and Hilton the Speccie has permanently suspended any pretence at objectivity.
Conservative Cabbie
December 30th, 2008 8:34am Report this commentSally Chatterjee
You diminish your arguement somewhat when you get your facts wrong. It was Mussolini that made the trains run on time. As for AIDS and Maleria in Africa, Bush has done more than any previous President (or any other person in the history of the world) and yet you dismiss this with a comparison to fascists. Are you seriously expecting people to take you seriously?
Sally Chatterjee
December 30th, 2008 12:11pm Report this commentConservative Cabbie, my mistake on Mussolini. You incorrectly spell "malaria" but I can still take your point seriously.
Surely every President can claim some positive achievements? Yet Bush's achievements during eight years will be a footnote to his widespread and monstrous failures, too many to list. But think about the foreign policy, the struggling US economy, the clampdown on civil freedoms at home and abroad and witness a federal budget deficit that makes Britain look prudent.
Anan
December 30th, 2008 1:06pm Report this commentActually Bill Gates has done for malaria than Bush.
James Forsyth
December 30th, 2008 7:04pm Report this commentTGF, That's very kind. On the Hilton front it is worth noting that several of the key people on the Bush campaign--Dowd, McKinnon--were not traditional Republicans. In 2004, this combined with Rove's presence was a key reason why they could run two campaigns--one aimed at the base, one at swing voters--so effectively. You needed the two parts working together
TGF UKIP
December 30th, 2008 11:38pm Report this commentPoint taken, James, but on the other hand while Hilton & Co might be all well and good for appealing to The Waitrose Shopper, The Independent Reader and LibDems where on earth is the meat for the base and for all those small "c" conservative C1s C2s and DEs.
If you are going to draw any analogy with Bush 2004 then you would have to say that the Cameron Tories are like the Republicans without Carl Rove or any christian conservatives.
Conservative Cabbie
December 31st, 2008 5:05pm Report this commentSally
Point taken on 'malaria', Touche.
You talk about Bush's foreign policy. Is that the foreign policy that created two new democracies, defanged Libya and gave women in Afghanistan basic civil rights. I don't know about your values, but they seem to me to be fairly major achievements.
There are plenty of things about Bush that I'm not thrilled with (the bailouts in particular) but it is just hyperbole (or possibly hyperbull) to call him the worst President ever. One could make the arguement, that in the last forty years, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and even Clinton were worse than George Bush for one reason or another.
Back to top