Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Corbyn, Trump, and a New Kind of Politics
The Establishment is undone. The party’s “milquetoast defence of its economic record, its lack of direction … its bland, sputtering lack of passion” opened the door, and an utterly non-traditional politician walked through: outspoken, controversial, occasionally bizarre, willing to rip up long-held assumptions. Radical change has come – with 60 percent of the vote.
“I voted for a new kind of politics,” proclaimed Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters today as they made him leader of the British Labour Party. Corbyn’s appeal is anti-establishment, and leadership’s desperate pleas have gone completely unheeded. After the self-admitted folly of a few put him on the ballot, nearly every Labour MP opposed him. A drove of shadow cabinet members resigned today and say they will not serve under Corbyn. Tony Blair – the only Labour leader since the 1970s to actually win elections – urgently opposed him:
It’s a revolution but within a hermetically sealed bubble – not the Westminster one they despise, but one just as remote from actual reality … They’re making all those “in authority” feel their anger and their power. There is a sense of real change because of course the impact on politics is indeed real …
However, it doesn’t alter the “real” reality. It provides a refuge from it.
The once overwhelmingly popular leader begged the party to step back from the edge: If your “heart” is with Corbyn, Blair suggested, “get a transplant.” This didn’t work.
The far left and the unions are overjoyed. Sinn Fein is congratulatory. One of the few Labour politicians enthusiastic about Corbyn is the new Scottish Labour leader:
Today shows politics has changed. People are calling for radical change and straight talk … I’ve said I want my leadership to be about shaking up the establishment in Scotland, and Jeremy wants to do the same across the UK. What people want is real change – not just in their politics, but in their lives. Today offers the chance for that change.
She is right. People in the UK – and across the Atlantic – are desperate for straight talk and for change that really matters. But she is wrong, because the hope Corbyn is offering is a false promise.
What does this man want to do? He promotes a far-left wish list of socialist policies Labour abandoned years ago. Rent controls, printing money to “invest” in the economy, tax increases, ending what little private enterprise there is in healthcare, re-nationalization of whatever he can, maybe bringing back Clause IV, Labour’s pre-Blair commitment to public ownership of industry, and more. He wants to withdraw from NATO. He has not avoided anti-semitic associations, and has used the word “friends” of Hamas and Hezbollah. He wants unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Corbyn has a few flip-flops in his record and is decidedly fuzzy on EU membership: With a referendum looming, you’d think that would have been an important question in a leadership election, but at a certain fever-pitch of politics even matters of vital national importance are overlooked. He has a few other outside-the-box ideas: let’s consider all-female train cars!
Corbyn’s appeal is easy to see: He is no traditional Establishment politician. And, let it be perfectly clear, he fights.
The disenchantment that produced Corbyn is real, it transcends parties, and it exists on our side of the Atlantic. Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump are very different manifestations of the same phenomenon: a bitter disillusionment with established politics, a passionate rejection of old leadership, an enthusiastic embrace of something that seems new in pursuit of change. Their policies are of course different and their personal styles are not that alike, other than a certain curmudgeonly pleasure in shattering long-held presumptions. But both speak less to specific ideological issues than to a disconnect between the people and the ruling class. The only answer, of course, is true leadership, which Labour cannot provide. We are better off: We have conservatives who can — if they can communicate and will be heard and accepted.
There is nothing new under the sun. Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters think they voted for “a new kind of politics.” They did not. They voted for a barely repackaged set of old, dangerous, unpopular ideas.
I remember when Tony Blair was the fresh inspiring figure whose new kind of politics swept the nation before him. Today, Labour voters can see that he was a politician like any other. The bubble is burst; his triumph rings hollow. Someday in retrospect, the excitement swirling around Corbyn today will ring just as false and perhaps worse, the beginning of a greater disaster for party or country. Corbyn’s supporters forgot that any office-seeker, however different his style and promises, is another mere human politician. Very probably, they will face crushing electoral defeat and learn again why the Labour establishment and all those old tired politicians rejected outright socialism and fought Corbyn’s rise. If not – if, as is just possible, the Tories fail to hold their own coalition together – Britain will reap the whirlwind.
I can appreciate the despair of the Labour establishment; they deserved their loss. Corbyn and his “new” politics may inspire thousands and be fun to watch if not taken seriously. But he is now Britain’s Leader of the Opposition, and those who put him there will feel the effect, one way or another, of the false promises they believed and the things they did not think mattered.
Published in General
I agree. I saw that too.
Sanders does well among white liberals, particularly men, students, and the elderly. There’s a lot of excitement that comes from his doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire, where his constituency is big.
Clinton does well with African Americans, Gays (note Barney Frank’s hostility to Sanders), women, unions, and the Democratic establishment.
Sanders will get a boost from any wins he gets in the first two states, but after that he has South Carolina, where Clinton leads him 54%-9% in the last poll (a couple of weeks ago). It turns out that it’s really hard to win a Democratic primary if you don’t have black support.
After that, they go to Nevada, which is a union state. Clinton also has massive leads in the last polls there, and those leads will be bigger on the day because the unions don’t just get people to poll right, they GOTV. It turns out it’s really hard to win a Democratic primary without labor support.
Then they go into Super Tuesday. Clinton is widely favored to win Arkansas, to put it mildly. She’s also likely to do well in the South generally, where the democratic primary electorate is more diverse than in Vermont and more conservative.
Even Virginia seems like an uphill battle for Bernie; there’s the 25% African American vote, and more importantly it’s a really big state that he doesn’t have time to campaign in much. It’s a state with a strong Democratic party, and there’s no prizes for guessing who Terry McAuliffe, Warner, Kaine, and pals have already endorsed and are campaigning for hard. Even Fairfax, which would probably be Bernie’s best shot at a good area other than colleges, has seen Rep. Connolly endorse. It turns out that it’s hard to win a Democratic primary when the party is against you.
In general with Super Tuesday, you need surrogates because you can’t be personally present in many places. So far as I can tell, Sanders doesn’t have a single surrogate or office holding or celebrity endorsement native to any Super Tuesday state. The alternative is to have a great air campaign, but it turns out it’s hard to win a primary election when you’re raising dramatically less money than your opponent.
He’ll obviously win Vermont, likely Massachusetts (despite the opposition of the party there) and he could win Minnesota (although Franken and Klobuchar have both endorsed Clinton) or Colorado (although all but one of the Colorado delegation has endorsed Clinton, and that one is Diana DeGette, who endorsed Clinton in 2008 and views abortion as her highest priority).
Along with the superdelegates, who make up 38% of the Democratic vote, Clinton seems likely to have achieved victory by the time the Super Tuesday votes have been counted. If she’s not there that day, she ought to be there soon after.
For what it’s worth, they see the comparison (or at least Corbyn and Sanders see themselves as being basically similar, and there isn’t a lot of substantive difference between Sanders and Trump).
I’ve said I would consider voting for Trump in a general election. I believe he would be less dangerous as president than a Democrat because at the least he would be held accountable by the media. His obliviousness on foreign policy is disturbing enough that if the Democrat seemed reasonable and responsible (maybe Lieberman), I would have an absolutely sick feeling questioning whether I ought to vote for him simply on national security grounds. Clinton spares me that internal debate.
I am concerned about the danger to conservatism. What concerns me most is the insistence that certain important things don’t matter. But on the other side, we’d find those things still mattered. I believe he is far more dangerous than any plausible Republican candidate, including Bush. I’ve argued that elsewhere; no need to get into it again here.
True, for many. But the conservatives King Prawn is debating who find themselves praising single-payer, the commentators who ignore Trump’s flagrant lack of conservatism on other issues except when pressed (and then blithely insist it doesn’t matter), anyone who is truly convinced that “I’ll be so good at the military it will make your head spin” or that Mexico will pay for a wall — that has a utopian strand.
Interesting. I would have said the opposite. Republicans didn’t really open it up until Reagan changed the game in the 80’s and then Gingrich did the same in the 90’s. Republicans lost in the early 90’s and 00’s when they sought to soften the message or broaden the base or slow roll their conservative goals.
On the other side, the Democrats (from Wilson to Roosevelt to Johnson to Obama) won big when they were hardlining it. Would Bill Clinton of 1992 or even of 1998 fit in today’s Democratic political landscape?
Trump doesn’t appear to be any kind of purist, but he does seem to have a charismatic touch that’s been missing from most candidates whatever side they’re on.
Wow. That’s good to read, James.
I will sleep better.
I always forget the fact that southern Democrats are not communists and socialists, not by a long shot.
Okay.
Fears allayed.
Thank you. :)
I’m not so sure. Corbyn appears to be a purist choice. Trump is not a purist. Rather Trump appears to be a “he’s better than the other side and more electable than anything on our side” choice.
James – I’m just not sure the black vote is truly Clinton’s firewall. They have to show up. And in the primaries that’s never a given.
Corbyn is purist, but that’s only part of his appeal. He’s an outside-the-box kind of guy who throws out wacky ideas about all-female train cars, appears rather unkempt, has never been in government. If you read Rosie Fletcher’s article, for instance, she’s obviously a leftist who liked Miliband about as much as Republicans like Boehner — but her argument for Corbyn isn’t really policy-based, and she even acknowledges that there are legitimate concerns:
By his “less savoury associations” she basically means terrorists, by the way. But she likes Blair less.
You are right that there is a difference, though — I certainly don’t claim otherwise. That difference is why I do not believe Trump will ultimately be the nominee. Both have the appeal of a protest against traditional politics, but Corbyn could combine that with an ideological appeal where Trump is on many issues a glaring ideological mismatch.
I am having a hard time seeing the black vote turning out enthusiastically for Clinton. That said, I don’t see Sanders winning in the South, either.
I just hope the Democratic primary is competitive enough to ensure Democrats vote in it and not in ours. Whatever the race looks like when it comes down to it, I want Republicans deciding it, not Democrats.
Trump seems more dangerous than Clinton. Assuming the nominee is not Trump, Clinton would still face a Republican Congress and couldn’t get much of her domestic agenda through. The polls are pretty clear that if Single Payer is a Republican idea, it gets Republican support, so Trump could pass it through reconciliation if he found a revenue source that exceeded the price tag; a wealth tax would do it. If Boehner or someone as effective as Boehner is still Speaker, amnesty wouldn’t pass, but without a supermajority, big enforcement laws wouldn’t either.
Trump seems likely appoint his sister to the Court. Clinton would nominate someone similar. Where they would be different is in foreign policy, where Clinton has often been competent and is less protectionist than Trump. If Clinton had gotten her way, fewer Americans would have heard of ISIS than would now be able to identify Boko Haram.
Clinton would bring shame on America through narcissism, dishonesty, bizarre beliefs, and frequent incompetence. I think I can skip this next sentence.
For what it’s worth, they see the comparison (or at least Corbyn and Sanders see themselves as being basically similar, and there isn’t a lot of substantive difference between Sanders and Trump).
So did Tony Blair, whom I want to be done agreeing with — that usually means something bad is happening in the world.
So do other people I’ve talked to, and surely others I’ve read. I can’t think instantly of any other conservative columnist drawing the comparison, but I’m sure I have.
Since Trump didn’t recognize who Corbyn was, I doubt he’s aware of any comparison.
Right. My argument was that Sanders and Corbyn see the comparison, and if they’re similar then Trump is, by the transitive property.
Well, they have to be paid, yes, but my understanding is that the Clintons have a very well established network of experienced guys for the distribution of walking around money, and they have the cash to burn. That combined with a pre-existing preference seems like enough. I agree that it depends on her having an excellent campaign, but the parts of being a great politician that can be purchased with money or long term institutional loyalty are the bits that Clinton is best at.
In 2004, the SC Primary vote was 47% African American. Clinton is much better positioned than any of those guys. It seems unlikely that she’ll be less of a draw.
The really hopeful thing is Corbyn apparently targeting the UKIP leftist votes. If he can suck out that part of the party to any appreciable extent (and he should be able to; he’s precisely what they want, for the most part), that would make absorption easier. It seems hopeful that the last election’s decisive election might be helpful.
If not, the constant criticism of Carswell from Farage backers might be enough to persuade Carswell to re-rat back to the Conservative party. Having him move, particularly if he can get Helmer to re-rat with him, and a couple of other defections from UKIP MEPs who will certainly lose their seats at the next election if they don’t defect, combined with the referendum, may mean that UKIP is simply marginalized for a while.
Thank you.
What would be wrong with that? Maryanne Trump has consistently defined herself as a Republican.
@ James – I would not rule out Bernie Sanders by a long shot. I agree that Clinton has a better starting point to bring in minorities but aside from a lone teacher union the many unions in the USA under the CFL-AIO and Commissar Comrade Trumpka are waiting for their marching orders on who to support. Considering the unions I would argue that Sanders is more likely to win them over because while in congress he was completely backed by only union PACs (and they probably constitute the bulk of his 15,000,000 dollars in small donations through members; that’s only counting the first quarter).
Also consider the fact that Hillary fought that BLM group on tape viciously (whereas Sanders has backed down before, thus showing “tolerance” to minorities), so she has alienated that wing of the party. Also consider that Iowa is more or less agrarian conservative like the south and Sanders is tied with Hillary right now in that state (leading by one percent). Then add in the fact that we have 5 months till the Iowa Caucus starts plus the low name recognition Sanders had starting and Sanders has a long time to win over other areas and has already demonstrated that he can win over states that hardly knew him.
Sanders is far from done and Hillary is suffering heavily thanks to her scandals. If the trends continue Sanders is the most likely candidate to win the ticket by far.
One detail I’d overlooked on Corbyn: he doesn’t have a university degree. Here I’d been thinking that if Scott Walker were to become the nominee — let alone president — the British press would have an absolute field day with us crazy Americans. Inarticulate Texans, uneducated Midwesterners… Never mind.
Much, much more seriously, meet the new Shadow Chancellor:
If by any chance that’s not absolutely clear to Americans, this is explicit praise for terrorism.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the second most important position in British government.
My favorite fun Corbyn fact: “The veteran socialist signed the controversial motion, attacking people as ‘obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal’, after it emerged MI5 were planning to use pigeons as flying bombs in combat.Mr Corbyn is a long-term campaigner against ‘pigeon prejudice’ – and has insisted the birds are ‘intelligent and gentle creatures’ which are cleaner than cats and dogs.In 2003 Mr Corbyn signed a motion attacking the ‘lack of gratitude’ for carrier pigeons during the Second World War.”
He is even kookier than Bernie.
Just because we are disatisfied/disillusioned with established politicians doesn’t mean the answer are nut jobs. In both these cases the electorate has lost their collective minds.
The labor party has no one to blame but themselves. They created the election which you could register pay your fee and vote. They made some changes but they made it really easy to commit fraud with how the elections were done. I heard Tories telling people to register and vote for this guy to further destroy the labor party. The other parties don’t elect their leader this way.
If Labor MP’s have any sense after learning their lesson, they would a year or two before the next election change the party leadership elections rules back to what they were before. I don’t want them to do that because I want the labor party to loss even worse and there be more defectors two UKIP.
I really wish they were not talking about voting reform in having a national ballet but election reform were if you don’t get a majority of the votes there is a run off between the two highest parties in each district. That way all these nationalistic parties would go away for the most part. They are only in power because the system does not force you to get a majority of the vote. UKIP would also do very good better than the Dems did 5 years ago.
Hear, hear!
Double hear, hear!
The first thing every socialist must accept is that there is nothing wrong with socialism that cannot be fixed by more socialism. Britain’s Cold War socialists simply didn’t do enough.
I’ve heard this sentiment put more succinctly; it was “Hope and Change” if I remember correctly.
Well, sure, that’s how she defines herself, but Roe is something of a threshold question for Republican judges. If you support Roe, it’s hard to argue against other liberal cases that similarly make up law. If you expand Roe further than any other judge currently sitting, as Trump did, later to have the Supreme Court clarify that you went way too far, then you probably aren’t in line with Republicans on originalism and key conservative judicial priorities.
Do you want the 5th potential vote to restrict the president’s unlawful exercise of his power to be his sister?
Doesn’t seem as if that would matter; Kennedy and Roberts aren’t related to Obama at all. (And yes, after the ruling on Obamacare, I consider Roberts a second 5th vote.)
But each of those guys has been on the opposite side from Obama from time to time. Remember that Kennedy didn’t side with Obama on Obamacare, and Roberts didn’t side with the liberals on Obergefell. You decrease the chances of going against the president when a justice is his sister.
As a thought experiment, imagine Obama replacing Ginsburg with Michelle Obama.
I agree with your paragraph #1 but I don’t like surprises so neither of those Supremes stands in my good graces. Give me Scalia, Thomas and Alito 8 days a week.
As to your second point, we already have her. Her name is Sonia Sotomayor.