DECEMBER 21, 2019
Conservative leader Boris
Johnson swept to power in the UK’s December 12 elections, winning 365 of a
possible 650 seats. Labour’s socialist leader Jeremy Corbyn announced his
resignation, after a bitterly disappointing night for his party.
Across the spectrum, corporate
media all came to the same conclusion regarding the election: Corbyn’s loss
spells the end for the US left and a “crushing defeat” (New York, 12/13/19)
of the discredited policies of socialism. The press was filled with variations
on the same reflexive warning to the Democrats: Don’t go left.
Indeed, CNN published
three near-identical articles with that message in one 24-hour span (12/12/19, 12/13/19, 12/13/19).
The first, written even as polling stations were still open, suggested that
“the Democratic Party may see a cautionary tale for the US 2020 presidential
race,” as Corbyn “promised revolutionary change, a fundamental overhaul of
society, heavy new taxes on the rich and a far bigger role for the state in the
economy. Sound familiar?” It claimed he “took his party way to the left,
leaving the more moderate ground where many voters feel most comfortable.”
Going on to attack Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders specifically, it
suggested that proposing a “state-run healthcare system” like Britain’s is a
“vote killer,” and that Corbyn’s imminent loss implies Joe Biden or Pete
Buttigieg would be a better candidate.
Only a few hours later, John
Avalon claimed (CNN, 12/13/19)
the election was a “fierce repudiation” of leftist politics, presenting a
“cautionary tale about the perils of polarization and the predictable dangers
of embracing a far-left leader” who would nationalize key industries. CNN editor-at-large
Chris Cillizza (12/13/19)
offered exactly the same opinion, claiming Johnson’s victory should “make 2020
Democrats nervous,” insinuating that embracing progressive politics and
Medicare for All was political suicide, and recommending a more “moderate” or
“pragmatic” candidate than Warren or Sanders.
The chorus did not stop
at CNN, however. In fact, surveying just 24 hours of headlines is enough
to understand the message corporate media appears so keen for you to hear:
“Corbyn’s UK Defeat Was Bad
News for Sanders, Warren and America’s Left” (NBC News, 12/13/19),
“Labour’s Crushing Loss in
Britain Adds to ‘Too Far Left?’ Debate in US” (New York Times, 12/13/19),
“Boris Johnson’s Win Should
Send a Message to AOC, Warren and Sanders” (Fox News, 12/13/19),
“Jeremy Corbyn’s Disastrous
Loss Should Be a Warning to US Leftists” (Washington Examiner, 12/13/19)
“Democrats Pick Over Labour
Loss in UK as Biden Warns of Moving ‘So Far’ Left” (Guardian, 12/13/19)
“In British Election, Lessons
for American Liberals: Jeremy Corbyn Was Loved by the Left, and He Just Got
Trounced” (Newser, 12/13/19),
“Blowback From UK Election
Burns Warren, Sanders: Centrists Warn Corbyn Defeat Highlights the Dangers of a
Progressive Nominee” (Politico, 12/13/19),
“Corbyn’s Loss Is a Warning to
Sanders, Warren and the Squad About the Limited Appeal of Socialism” (Hot Air, 12/13/19),
“Corbyn’s Bloodbath Defeat in
UK Election Sends ‘Catastrophic Warning’ to 2020 Dems” (Fox News, 12/13/19).
There are a number of serious
flaws with the reasoning, however. Few of these articles note that the UK’s
version of Medicare for All, the National Health Service (NHS), is exceptionally
popular, and the number
one source of national pride for Britons. The NHS is so beloved that
more people would countenance privatizing
the army before the hospitals. Yet CNN still suggests that
Corbyn’s support for the nationalized service contributed to his defeat.
Furthermore, Labour’s leader and its overwhelmingly
popular manifesto were virtually the same as in 2017, when Corbyn led
the party to its best
election result since World War II.
The only substantial
difference between now and 2017 (unacknowledged in reporting) was that, at the
demand of the “moderate” wing of his party, Corbyn had endorsed a second
referendum on leaving the European Union without taking a position on the
question, attempting to straddle the Brexit issue in a way that alienated both
Remain and Leave voters. Just like the Democrats in 2016, a move to the center
proved fatal.
Furthermore, none of the
articles mentioned that there was another party who adopted precisely this
“centrist,” “moderate,” “pragmatic”—or any other media code word (FAIR.org, 3/23/19, 8/21/19)
meaning “corporate-approved”—position, and they fared poorly as a result. Jo
Swinson, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, presented herself exactly as
such, and suffered the ignominy of losing her seat to a 27-year-old
rookie challenger from the Scottish National Party.
Nevertheless, there are
certainly lessons that American progressives could learn from Labour’s loss:
1. Get ready for a coordinated
media smear campaign.
British media managed to turn
Corbyn, an elderly, vegetarian, anti-war pacifist, into a figure
of hate, presenting him as a terrorist
sympathizer, a Communist
spy and a national
security threat. One academic
study of media coverage included an entire section entitled
“Delegitimization through Ridicule, Scorn and Personal Attacks,” finding that
75% of articles misrepresented Corbyn or his views. And a
report from Loughborough University found a relentless and overwhelming
anti-Labour and pro-Conservative message across the British media in the
election run up. Progressives who intend to challenge power can expect similar
coordinated attacks from power’s mouthpieces.
2. The antisemitism smears are
coming.
Jeremy Corbyn faced a torrent
of trumped-up antisemitism charges (Mail, 7/29/19).
Media managed to convince much
of the British public that the lifelong anti-racism
activist is a secret Jew-hater. British historian Mark Curtis noted
there had been 1,450
articles in national newspapers linking Corbyn to antisemitism in the
past three months alone. The reason for the allegations, as the Washington
Post noted in a since-deleted
tweet, was “because of [his] strong statements on Palestinian rights.”
The barrage succeeded. When
media researchers asked the
public what percentage of Labour members faced official complaints over
antisemitism, the average guess was 34%. The actual answer is 0.1%.
When questioned why they were off by such a massive factor, respondents replied
that they chose a number that seemed commensurate with the media coverage.
This tactic will be far more
difficult to stick on somebody like Sanders who speaks with such a stereotypical
New York Jewish accent. Yet media, seeing how effective it was in
discrediting a progressive in the UK, have already begun attempting to smear
those around him (e.g., Spectator, 12/5/19; Commentary, 12/13/19).
Of particular note is a Washington
Examiner article (12/13/19)
claiming Sanders’ campaign is “the most antisemitic in decades.” Its author,
Tiana Lowe, calls infamous fascist troll Milo Yiannopoulos “awesome”
and regularly
boasts of her pride in her Nazi collaborator grandfather, whose
organization participated in the Holocaust that killed Sanders’ close
relatives. Nevertheless, the attacks, if not the substance of the allegations,
must be taken seriously.
3. Solidarity with developing
countries will not be tolerated.
Corbyn, like Sanders,
immediately condemned the US-backed coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia, an
action that drew the ire of an outraged pro-coup
media (London Independent, 11/11/19; Daily
Express, 11/11/19),
who accused him of putting “Marxist solidarity ahead of democracy”
(London Times, 11/12/19).
Both men have been denounced for their connections, imaginary or otherwise, to
Venezuela (FAIR.org, 3/5/19).
Sanders’ history of
solidarity with Nicaragua in the 1980s will be presented as support for a
dictatorship. The left will have to have a response.
4. Building a movement to
reach elderly voters will be crucial.
Chart: Lord Ashcroft Polling (12/13/19)
(AB–DE represent socioeconomic classes–from managerial to unskilled labor.)
The Labour movement has
managed to build an impressive network of alternative and social media
countering the corporate press, reaching millions of young people, who voted
3 to 1 in favor of Corbyn. However, there was little concerted effort
to reach elderly voters, who still largely rely on traditional media for news,
information and opinion. This contributed to only
18% of those over 65 voting Labour, and the retired vote proved to be
the backbone of the Tory victory. A similar
phenomenon is happening in the US, where Sanders is the runaway
favorite among the under-50s, but polls at just 5% among elderly voters,
despite his commitment to the kind of social safety net programs they depend
upon. Connecting with Boomers and Generation X, who use the Internet and social
media for news far less than
younger Americans, will require a specially geared effort.
5. Don’t unquestioningly
accept advice from centrists.
Chart: Lord Ashcroft Polling (12/13/19)
Under enormous pressure from
the “centrist” wing of his party and the media, Corbyn took a “on the one
hand/on the other hand” approach to Brexit, the dominant issue of the
campaign. Rather than arguing that leaving the European Union was a necessary
response to undemocratic, austerity-loving Eurocrats—or, contrariwise, that
Brexit must be opposed as a xenophobic scapegoating of immigrants, the British
equivalent of “build the wall”—Labour was induced to split the difference,
promising to renegotiate a break with the EU and then asking voters once again
whether they wanted to leave or not, while Corbyn professed neutrality on the
question. Following the media’s insistent advice that the safe path is always
somewhere in the middle, the position called to mind the line attributed to
Groucho Marx: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I
have others.”
Virtually every seat Labour
lost was a “Leave” constituency, suggesting that Corbyn was hurt by Labour’s
attempts to “moderate.” Turnout also declined from 2017 to 2019, and there are
indications that the decline was greater in constituencies with more young
voters—by far the most pro-Labour demographic group. All of the centrist
defectors from the Conservatives and Labour lost their seats, as did
the pro-EU, stop-Brexit-at-any-cost Liberal Democrat leader Jo
Swinson—illustrating that the media center and the public center are not always
the same.
***
While there certainly are many
things that progressives can learn from Labour’s defeat, the herd of
independent minds in the corporate press can see only one lesson, the same one
they have been sending the left for decades (see Extra!, 9/92, 1–2/95, 6/04, 7–8/06, 1–2/07; FAIR.org, 11/7/08, 3/16/10, 8/21/19),
suggesting the advice may not be entirely in good faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment