The elections just concluded in Britain were quite exciting, even for those of us not directly involved. It had much in common with our own 2008 elections.
For starters, apart from the sober political implications, it was a terrific horse race, with plenty of ups and downs and tactical surprises and new faces and embarrassing blunders—from MPs as well as the prime ministerial contenders. In part, that was due to the three-cornered nature of the struggle. Especially, that three-cornered struggle was exciting for including the meteoric rise of a charismatic but relatively unknown challenger, his rise made possible only thanks to widespread disgust with the party in office, coupled with a lingering distrust for the opposition. I can now understand the worldwide excitement at Obama’s presidential run much better.
But for me, it wasn’t the horse race that holds my attention so much as the lessons that could be taken for US politics, and the hopes of shaking up the cozy stability between our own two parties. We have our own conservatives actively savaging the country for the benefit of the very wealthy and liberals who content themselves with merely standing by while the wealthy do it for themselves. After a severe beating under Reagan, our liberals (in the form of the DLC) largely decided to sell out principle for a chance to compete on conservative terms; for Britain, it was Labour getting kicked around by Thatcher.
Unfortunately for the purposes of drawing comparisons, the timing is off. Our “throw the bums out†movement reacted to the conservative excesses of Bush; theirs to the liberal compromises of Blair. That kind of asymmetry makes any lesson drawn from the Liberal Democrats upset of the two sitting parties suspect. Too bad.
At least the back-room dealing that has followed in the wake of the hung Parliament gives me an excuse to dig out “Yes, Minister†and watch it again.
Post a Comment