Michael Barone: Obama, Brown, and the ‘Third Way’ - The Left loses its way by abandoning the...

Left parties are in trouble in the Anglosphere. Here in America, Democrats are doing worse in the polls today than at any time in the last 50 years. In Britain, the Labour party is on the brink of finishing third, behind both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, in the election next Thursday.

All of which raises the question: What happened to the “third way” center-left movement that once seemed to sweep all before it?

Only a dozen years ago, in 1998, President Clinton enjoyed 70 percent job approval. Prime Minister Blair was basking in adulation in his first full year in office.

Bill Clinton’s “third way” New Democrats and Tony Blair’s “New Labour” party seemed to have a bright and long future ahead. Clinton’s designated successor, Al Gore, despite some ham-handed campaigning, came out ahead in the popular vote in 2000 and lost the presidency by only some hundreds of votes in Florida. With Blair at its head, Labour won an unprecedented series of three general-election victories, winning reelection in 2001 and 2005.

Now, less than a generation later, both New Democrats and New Labour seem defunct.

Both parties have moved well to the left. Barack Obama and Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown, head governments that are running budget deficits of 10 percent of gross domestic product. Both are promoting higher taxes and expansion of government programs.

The financial crisis is one reason for the large deficits. But it is undeniable that to varying extents both Obama and Brown have pursued more statist policies than their predecessors did a dozen years ago.

And it is undeniable, too, that both are in trouble with the voters.

In these circumstances, it is surprising that the pundit class is not chiding Obama and Brown for abandoning the politically successful policies of Clinton and Blair. The same pundit class is always ready to chide American Republicans and British Conservatives for not pursuing the courses that Rockefeller Republicans and pre-Thatcher “wet” Conservatives pursued with some political success a much longer time ago.

Rocky and the wets supported continuing the expansion of government and maintaining the power of labor unions. But a British party last won an election on that platform in 1974, 36 years ago, and no American president was elected on such a platform between 1964 and 2008. And with Democrats plunging in the polls, Obama’s election is beginning to look like an exception that proves the rule.

Americans may have voted for “hope and change,” but not in the form of the 2009 stimulus package and the 2010 health-care bill.

Looking back in history, the Rockefeller Republicans chose their course because they believed their party could not beat New Deal Democrats except by moving some distance toward their philosophy. In particular, they believed they could not beat Democrats in New York, which in the first half of the 20th century was both the nation’s largest state in terms of population and one of the politically most marginal.

But by the early 1960s, New York was no longer the nation’s largest state and was safely Democratic. And by the early 1970s, Americans were no longer voting for big government. The Rockefeller strategy was rendered obsolete.

It’s not clear that the Clinton New Democratic strategy is similarly obsolete. Clinton calculated that Democrats could not win except by making inroads in the South and by making big gains in the suburbs. That’s how he won twice, and Obama improved on his leads in the suburbs and carried three Southern states with Northern-accented suburbs (Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida).

But Obama ran well behind in eight Southern-accented and Mountain states that Clinton carried in 1992. And polling now shows Democrats weaker than Obama was in 2008 virtually everywhere except in university towns and the affluent precincts of metro New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.

Similarly in Britain, polling has shown Brown’s Labour party holding its traditional redoubts in declining industrial towns but getting shellacked in the affluent suburbs where Tony Blair’s New Labour thrived.

The left parties have reacted to their unpopularity by playing the race card. Democrats have tried to portray tea partiers as racist, and Brown called a lifelong Labour voter who questioned his policies a “bigoted woman.”

Blaming the voters is the last resort of a party in trouble. Old Labour and the Obama Democrats may not yet be finished. But they’re not doing as well as their “third way” predecessors.

— Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner. © 2010 Washington Examiner. Distributed by Creators.com.

Important article by Michael Barone. Third Way is essentially a remaking of liberal / communist economic ideas of governmental ownership of means of production into a fascist economic model where outright ownership is replaced by total control.

It's more efficient economically since it keeps certain incentives to work and get ahead in society while reducing level of corruption inherent in communist societies, and allows government to find scapegoats and blame "the greedy" and "someone else" for the problems actually caused by the system, e.g. Goldman Sachs and "fat cats on Wall Street" for mortgage crisis and financial system meltdown, while keeping CRA regulations, ruinous expansion of fiscal and taxation policies and Fannie, Freddie and FHA safely out of people's minds.

Fannie and Freddie, before their recent de facto nationalizing, were perfect examples of Third Way being GSEs - operations that allowed for private ownership and profits for the politically connected elite class, while advancing government policy ("Home Ownership Society) where the losses were guaranteed by the society at large. Fannie, Freddie and FHA now own or control 9 out of 10 mortgages in U.S. And we see the same thing in GM takeover and attempt to effectively nationalize the health insurance and financial industries.

Blair and Clintons, along with Chretien and others, were in forefront of Third Way, with their New Democrats and New Labour spend-and-pretend policies designed to give government more and stronger control over industries and means of production and service. That's the task for Republicans to properly explain to people - when the government has total control over private endeavor and means to profit, people are no longer free, it's not a "free country" anymore..

One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is this: Clinton, Blair and the other "new labour" types took power in the 1990's. They had the luxury of riding the post-Cold War economic boom. They did nothing to bring it about, but in a huge historical irony, they became the political beneficiaries. In a sense, it didn't matter who was in charge in the '90's; they were almost destined to succeed in some way. The old commercial beer-dog, Spuds McKenzie, or Felix the Cat could have won re-election in the US in '96. Governments had yet to "run out of other people's money," as Lady Thatcher put it. If all you cared about was economics, governing was easy in the '90's. You just had to get out of the way. To go down as a success, you only had to stay out of trouble (which is why Clinton's impeachment is such a black mark against him--how can you screw up your presidency when it's almost impossible to fail?)

Of course, the worm was already in the apple. Even though there was real growth and innovation taking place (there almost always is somewhere), indebtedness was growing, the Enron/Global-Crossing scams were percolating beneath the surface, outsourcing was a growing problem. These problems were probably remediable, but no one in power had the foresight to act.

And that's not to mention little things like the growing threat of terrorism and al-Quaida, but that's a different subject.

"...it is surprising that the pundit class is not chiding Obama and Brown for abandoning the politically successful policies of Clinton and Blair. The same pundit class is always ready to chide American Republicans and British Conservatives for not pursuing the courses that Rockefeller Republicans and pre-Thatcher “wet” Conservatives pursued with some political success a much longer time ago. "

H'mmm. Barone is missing the point. The "pundit class" is not legitimate journalism. They were taken over by communist radicals from Columbia's school of journalism decades ago...and they naturally are happy cheering on Obama's de facto communism, and always have given cover to their concealed advocates. And the unconcealed ones, such as Ayers or Rev. Wright, get kid-glove treatment.

They are on the verge of outing themselves, such that the "center" Independents of the U.S. are finally waking up...and realizing that maybe Joseph McCarthy and the JBS were right all along.

... in 2000, the recidivist, treasonous, lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering, co-serial-rapist, Cli’ton’s, designated successor, the poofter-ish and patently moronic second-generation traitor, Al-Fredo Gore-leone (and despite that he campaigned only ham-handedly) came out “ahead in the (Absolutely irrelevant) ‘popular vote’” in 2000 and lost the presidency by only some hundreds of votes in Florida.

Having only via the well-oiled machinery of the “Democratic” potty’s vast electoral fraud created the illusion for some and the delusion suffered by many that Herr Gore had even “come close.”

Take fraud from the “Democrats” election strategies and no member of that manifestation of evil could, except perhaps in Key west and in San Fran Freako, be elected to catch dogs.

At the forefront of the Third way (AKA “Modified Marxism” AKA Fascism) came its inventor, Mussolini — and its further modifier, Herr Hitler.

As I pointed out, the Third Way is but an insidious marketing device for "public-private partnership" (aka PPP, P3 or "mixed economy") which is just another name for fascist economic system.

Pelosi and Reid are not really intellectual practitioners of Third Way marketing, they are just cogs in the machine, tools in advancing and codifying the system into law. That's the reason for Obama rushing with all his "reforms". Dems remember how much time Clintons have lost on HillaryCare before it all blew up in November of 1994.

neverdem, thanks for posting the article. Third Way and marketing of public-private partnership that in theory sounds so plausible and reasonable to many people until they have to live with the results (e.g., recent mortgage and financial crises), is seldom identified as [leading to] a fascist economic system and doesn't get enough exposure, even in the conservative media.

They did nothing to bring it about, but in a huge historical irony, they became the political beneficiaries.

Exactly. Clinton also benefited from Republicans taking over Congress in 1994. With the help of the compliant media he took credit for most of Contract with America successes, while fighting them tooth and nail and blaming Gingrich and Republicans for all the [perceived] problems.

(which is why Clinton's impeachment is such a black mark against him -- how can you screw up your presidency when it's almost impossible to fail?)

Well put. I was saying at the time that Blair was a Clinton's political clone without a sex scandal. At least the impeachment process likely prevented us from having President Gore... just barely.

And that's not to mention little things like the growing threat of terrorism and al-Quaida, but that's a different subject.

Probably more due to incompetence, with a very weak foreign policy team, and disinterest in foreign affairs except for pomp and circumstance (i.e., (kicking the can down the road) rather than deliberately... but that is a different subject.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.