Progressive politics generally is attributed to parties who either portray a progressive platform or work to enact progressive policies, such as the Labor/Labour parties of Australia and the UK, or the Democrats in the USA. In the last three years, these three parties either were ousted or lost elections where they seemed to have a large chance of winning by their primary opponents. Contrast that to New Zealand and Canada, where Arden’s Labour and Trudeau’s Liberals have managed to keep a tight hold on their positions. So what is different here? Is it the presence of the Murdoch Media, as many are quick to suggest, is it a lack of Charisma and ability of certain candidates, or is it something more?
THE MURDOCH MEDIA
Often times, the first thing to be suggested as the reason for the downfall of progressive parties in the UK and Australia, as well as the USA though to a lesser degree, is the presence of the Murdoch Media. The term ‘Murdoch Media’ generally describes media outlets and newspapers owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch. Such outlets and newspapers often place a heavy emphasis on criticising more left-wing/progressive candidates, and as such, the negative press given to such candidates is often cited as a reason for poor public appeal. While this may be a factor to some extent, with Murdoch’s words likely having a large influence on older voting bases, there is just as likely a reason that it does not play as significant impact on elections as portrayed. And that is due to the Murdoch media’s main form of communication, that being newspapers. While as previously stated, the Murdoch media may have a large hand in influencing older voting bases, younger voting bases who more often than not learn news from online sources and social media, would not be affected by such a factor, or atleast far less affected. Additionally, while there may be a case that the negative press got through to younger peoples by sharing of said news, a counter-point that can be made is one of Trump. While Hillary got her fair share of negative press, much of that was via online/social media, where as more conventional media sources sent a media hailstorm over Trump all throughout the election campaign, and despite this, he managed to clench a victory. If the Murdoch media plays such a big part in bringing down Progressive Candidates, how did Trump manage to succeed despite a similar media firestorm?
A CANDIDATE’S CHARISMA/CONFIDENCE
Another topic that comes up is a candidate’s charisma and confidence when interviewed or during debates. Looking back at the Trump argument, his ability and confidence to just bulldoze through any controversy gave a sharp upper hand in dealing with any Media backlash that gradually piled over him. Looking at Arden and Trudeau, both are quick and decisive to act as well as effective in dealing with controversies. This is contrasted to Hillary, Corbyn, and Shorten. While all three aren’t incapable of speaking well and speaking effectively, they would often bumble or muddle where their opponents would be quick to speak, no matter the consequence of what was said. They lacked decisiveness in their actions, and seemed unable to continually put their opponent against the wall for any slipups they committed, something which all three were subjected to by their respective opponents. Basically, these three lacked the ability to fireback at their opponents in a fast and decisive manner, likely giving many voters the impression that either the controversies were true or that the candidates were indecisive, something no one wants in a leadership candidate. However, while this personality issue is certainly a reason for the downfall of these parties, both the UK and Australia deal with far more than one candidate in their party and as such, atleast for these countries, it cannot be stated as the be all and end all factor.
AN INABILITY TO WORK TOGETHER
Looking past individuals and their effect on the parties standings, one begins to look at how these progressive parties worked with other parties to secure votes. And it is blindingly clear how much the Labour parties in Australia and the UK failed to achieve this, and how their opposition managed to succeed. Within Australia, despite informally being together to take down the Liberal party, the Greens and Labor had no formal alliance on voting preferences, and considering many of the comments made towards the Greens by senior Labor MPs such as Anthony Albanese, there likely was a great many Green voters who did not second preference Labour. This meant that seats where the two progressive parties were in saw infighting between progressive voters and allowed Coalition candidates to grab wins. Additionally, the case was not helped by the Coalition forming their own voting preference alliance with One Nation and the United Australian party, a choice that while originally laughed at managed to gain the party many additional seats. This is seen in the UK general election as well, where tactical voting alliances were not planned between Labour and the Lib Dems/SNP. This lack of tactical voting meant all three parties could and did face off with eachother, bringing down voters who had to choose between one of the three and giving the Tories a chance of an easier win. And again, the Conservatives had their own alliance, with a large amount of Brexit party members not running in areas where the Tory’s needed wins, thereby giving the Tories more votes. As such, this lack of progressive co-operation in the face of Conservative co-operation likely stifled the chances of progressive victories in many places, however, this may still not be the full story.
‘PRAGMATIC’, IN THE SHORT TERM
The last issue which may have caused the downfall of Progressive parties in Australia, the USA and the UK is their inability to campaign short-term pragmatic ideas. The democrats campaigned an idea of the status quo, what had been for 8 years would be similar moving on, the Australian Labor campaigned a hard left platform talking about long-term issues, and the UK Labour largely ignored Brexit in favour of internal issues. On the otherhand, the opposition of all three parties did the opposite, focusing on the issue most obviously in the forefront on the people’s mind, and attacking it with vigor and intensity. Rather than utilising policies and platforms, the conservative parties used slogans and short-term ‘pragmatic’ issues to quickly and easily bring over voters, be it talking about change (no matter what that means), current economic ‘fears’, or Brexit. While there is a time and a place to discuss and describe policies and platforms in-depth, Progressive parties and candidates within the Anglosphere need to learn that sometimes a slogan about a pertinent issue will go much further in convincing a crowd.
CONCLUSION
The failure of the Progressive parties to properly address each of these issues caused their downfall in their respective countries. In the Anglosphere nations where progressive parties are still in charge, they have developed methods and ways of dealing with all four of these issues. For the Labor party of Australia, the UK Labour party and the US Democrats, there needs to be a serious moment of consideration on not only how to fight the Murdoch Media and choose confident and decisive candidates, but moreso on how they can far better co-operate with other parties, and how they can tackle the more basic issues in an effective way to better persuade more voters.
If you believe our articles are of high enough quality, please checkout our Patreon and consider donating:https://www.patreon.com/PoliticsBuff. Otherwise, please like and share the article should you enjoy it.
PoliticsBuff 