A charismatic liberal candidate convinces voters to reject the
center-right as “uncaring extremists,” and carries the election.
The conservatives are confused and demoralized. The party battles
internally about whether to blame the defeat on too much
ideological purity, or not enough.
This may sound familiar. But I’m referring to the British
Conservative Party in 2005, after the center-left Tony Blair
strolled to another victory (his third) in the UK’s general
election. Conservatives wondered if they’d ever win again, and some
despaired for the future of their country — with power seemingly
unobtainable. Yet five years later they were back in
government.
For American Republicans, there are some lessons here, and they
might shoot a glance or two across the pond and consider the three
main ways Britain’s Conservatives recovered from their own darkest
hour, their crushing defeat, and a rash of media obituaries.
First, in David Cameron, the British Conservatives finally found
themselves an articulate, charismatic, voter-friendly leader of
their own — a match for Tony Blair, and a vastly superior
political operator to Gordon Brown. This was the single most
important thing they did. The lesson they learned was to select
someone to run for the top job who is at least as warm, likeable,
impressive, cool, and gaffe-free as the opposing candidate. To do
otherwise is to have a death wish.
I was in Boston and New York two weeks before the presidential
election and was struck by the great likelihood of an Obama victory
— despite Republican commentators referring to a neck-and-neck
race. Romney, it seemed to my dispassionate, foreign eyes, was an
earnest, hard-working candidate, but not a great one. Not one who
could reach out to all levels of society. While he offered a
compelling narrative about economic dilemmas, I thought he lacked
the authenticity and capacity to unify and excite.
Second, on social issues, Britain’s Conservative Party stopped
trying to turn the clock back to a supposedly golden age of
God-fearing, two-parent families. Cameron made clear that his
Conservatives “love Britain the way it is now” — open, diverse,
accepting, individualistic, and multi-cultural. This made
Conservative supporters uncomfortable, but most understood it was
necessary. Romney never seemed to bridge this gap.
Cameron went on to frame the social debate to reflect
conservative compassion, not condemnation. To
huge effect, he spoke about mending those parts of the country
where society was “broken” (characterized by crime, drugs, truancy,
and generations living on welfare), just as Margaret Thatcher had
mended Britain’s broken economy in the 1980s. As a result, Cameron
started to lead, and even own, the social debate, which had
traditionally been his opponents’ territory.
Finally, the British Conservatives stopped talking so loudly
about issues that had obsessed them for decades yet were a turn-off
for many swing voters: immigration and Britain’s relationship with
the European Union. In contrast, Romney and his team had trouble
focusing on the right issues.
None of this message strategy was easy for Cameron. His
supporters had to be patient and determined in the run-up to the
election — recognizing that while the Conservative Party might be
out of fashion, Britain’s conservative instincts endure. And they
had to trust that throughout, he could be counted on to remain true
to his conservative principles.
Cameron’s Conservatives have proven far from perfect. Yet,
despite missteps along the way, Britain has had a Conservative
Prime Minister for the last two and a half years, and barring a
political catastrophe, will have one until at least 2015.
Britain’s experience suggests that U.S. Republicans might take
heart and have confidence that the next president could be one of
their own. In the meantime, for all their sadness and anger at
losing, they should be comforted that America’s soul isn’t going to
be changed any time soon, just as Britain’s withstood 13 years of a
Blair-Brown government more liberal than Obama’s.
The America I saw last month was the same country I’ve seen on
many occasions: clean, civilized, welcoming, generous, prosperous,
warm-hearted, creative, and bursting with potential.
The fundamentals don’t change, whoever occupies the White
House.
