Woke Democrat Fragility: A Warning From Britain

People walk past a giant inflatable representation of Prime Minister Boris Johnson outside the Mill House Leisure Center where the count process for the Parliamentary by-election is taking place in Hartlepool, England, on May 7, 2021. Ian Forsyth/Getty Images

Commentary

After every election, pundits see the result as evidence of the terminal decline of the losing party. This is certainly the case in Britain, where the Labour Party suffered a catastrophic defeat in the recent local elections and the by-election in Hartlepool, a solidly Labour seat that the Tories won.

There have been many columns arguing that Labour has lost its core constituency and has little hope of commanding a parliamentary majority ever in the future. In the United States, such predictions routinely accompany Republican defeats in the polls, and this year is no exception.

What makes this year different is that we see diagnoses of a bleak future facing the Democrats, the winners who now control the presidency and both houses of Congress. Their supporters also dominate the commanding heights of the culture and economy, of the media, entertainment, education at all levels, Big Tech, Big Sport, Big Business, and Wall Street.

Is the triumph of American progressives built on sand? Is the Democrat glee at divisions in the GOP premature? Is the fate of the Labour Party in the UK a warning for the Democrats? The two parties are often compared in terms of their direction and demographics. Both have undergone profound shifts in ideology and base of support in recent years.

Is the Labour Party Dying?

Parties fade and die, sometimes unexpectedly and comprehensively. The Federalist Party in the United States faded quickly in the 19th century; Britain’s Liberal Party went into a sudden and comprehensive decline a century later. One of the reasons George Dangerfield cited for this collapse in his 1935 classic “The Strange Death of Liberal England” was the rise of the labor movement and a major political party based on it.

In the 20th century, the Labour Party gained the overwhelming support of industrial workers and their unions. Important working-class leaders rose through the ranks. But in recent years, the party has gone through some demographic shifts. The leadership is all university-educated, the industrial union members are outnumbered by public sector unions, and government employees are a large part of the party and its financing.

In the biggest vote in British history, that of the Brexit referendum of 2016, and the rift between the governing elites—the media, big business, the financial sector, education, and entertainment—and the majority of the working class, the Labour Party sided with the elites and their characterization of those who voted for sovereignty and independence as uneducated and xenophobic.

In the recent by-election in the northern city of Hartlepool, a traditional Labour stronghold that had voted overwhelmingly for Brexit in 2016, Labour ran as its candidate for Member of Parliament (MP) a Remainer, a supporter of the UK’s remaining in the European Union. He lost.

In response to Labour’s demographic and political shifts, culminating in the party’s massive defeat in the Hartlepool by-election and in local elections, Khalid Mahmood, a leader of the party and Parliament’s first Muslim MP, resigned from his ministerial position. He had this to say about what had gone wrong with his party:

“My view is simple: in the past decade, Labour has lost touch with ordinary British people. A London-based bourgeoisie, with the support of brigades of woke social media warriors, has effectively captured the party. They mean well, of course, but their politics—obsessed with identity, division and even tech utopianism—have more in common with those of Californian high society than the kind of people who voted in Hartlepool yesterday. The loudest voices in the Labour movement over the past year in particular have focused more on pulling down Churchill’s statue than they have on helping people pull themselves up in the world. No wonder it is doing better among rich urban liberals and young university graduates than it is amongst the most important part of its traditional electoral coalition, the working-class.”

Does this sound familiar?

A Warning for the Democrats

In his recent article in the New Statesman, Britain’s most successful left-of-center politician, Tony Blair (prime minister 1997–2007), argued that the steep decline of the Labour Party is typical of what’s happening to center and center-left parties all over Europe, including the French Socialist Party, the German SPD, and of the Spanish and Swedish left.

The Democrats are in a much stronger position. Or so it seems. They won control over both houses of Congress and the presidency. But, Blair argues, “the Biden victory was a heavy reaction not so much against the policies as the comportment of Trump. And in Biden, the Democrats nominated possibly the only potential leader who could have won.” Unlike Barack Obama in 2008, Joe Biden had no coattails and the party did poorly in state-level votes. The Democrats’ success in the 2020 election, however modest and whatever its causes, was the exception to the precipitous decline of such parties in the West.

We see in the United States a similar rift as in the UK and Europe between the main center-left or progressive party and its working-class supporters. Of the party’s program of Big State, tax, and spend, only the spending part is popular, and it’s what the Republicans also did under Trump. Its approach of expanding state regulation and control is unattractive. It’s an old-fashioned non-response to the fundamental economic transformation of our time, in internet technology, quantum computing, AI, financial payments, and defense.

This old-fashioned leftism, Blair argues, “is combined with a new-fashioned social/cultural message around extreme identity and anti-police politics which, for large swathes of people, is voter-repellent. ‘Defund the police’ may be the left’s most damaging political slogan since ’the dictatorship of the proletariat.' It leaves the right with an economic message which seems more practical, and a powerful cultural message around defending flag, family, and fireside traditional values. To top it off, the right evinces a pride in their nation, while parts of the left seem embarrassed by the very notion.”

The unions on which these parties rely for financing and political activity are in long-term decline. In the United States, public-sector union membership rates are more than five times higher than those in the private sector, where only 6.3 percent of workers were union members in 2020.

Race and Class

The Democrats have felt safe in neglecting areas of industrial decline ravaged by opioid addiction, high unemployment, and collapse of civil society in all its forms—voluntary associations, church, schools, and family. Such areas are predominantly white and working-class, seen as a declining demographic group. The numbers of racial and ethnic minorities rise through legal and illegal immigration while whites suffer declining fertility.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump tapped into the anger and despair of the white working class. Republicans and conservatives such as J.D. Vance and Tucker Carlson brought widespread attention to their plight. Trump, for all the nonstop attacks on him from the liberal propaganda machine that the legacy media inflicted, did better than had more tactful and moderate Republicans such as John McCain and Mitt Romney. In Democratic primaries, blacks preferred the reclusive Biden in the primaries to either Kamala Harris or Cory Booker.

The scorn and neglect on the part of urban progressive elites was reinforced by the intensely divisive woke ideology that saw race rather than class everywhere, denounced the country and its whole history as endemically racist, and regarded all criticism of its ever more anti-American, anti-family, anti-Christian ideology as the work of white supremacists.

The left has long had a patriotism problem that divides its intellectual vanguard from its working-class base. Writers and scholars, from George Orwell’s classic 1941 pamphlet to those who denounce critical race theory (CRT)—as a neo-racist, segregationist ideology that ascribes agency to whites and more or less a complete lack of it to blacks—have condemned the blindness of progressives to the oppressed people they champion in principle.

“Antiracism” of the CRT kind is an ideology of affluent woke white liberals. It appeals, argues scholar Shelby Steele, to the guilt or vulnerability of educated whites, focusing as it does on their feelings (including self-loathing and fear of being thought racist). It does nothing for blacks, beyond enriching leaders who receive large sums from corporations and the wealthy. Linguistics professor John McWhorter sees the current “antiracism” as a new religion, one that’s “actually harming his fellow Black Americans by infantilizing Black people, setting Black students up for failure, and passing policies that disproportionately damage Black communities.”

Are Democrats Desperate?

When Obama won the presidency and controlled both houses of Congress, he did so under the rules of the game. He didn’t seek to pack the Supreme Court or end the filibuster or add small Democratic strongholds to the list of states, each gaining two senators, or abolish the Electoral College, or talk about abolishing the Constitution and moving to a centralized one-person, one-vote system with no regard to regional representation—the approach that works so badly as in some Latin American countries.

If the Democrats and their supporters were confident that they could win without limiting free speech, canceling and deplatforming their adversaries, packing the Supreme Court, adding states, and eliminating the filibuster, they wouldn’t be eager to resort to such measures.

They know that many of their projects and policies—like defunding the police, criminalizing “misuse” of pronouns, or allowing irreversible experimental medical practices even for children, while banning other professional treatment approaches to treating gender dysphoria—are widely regarded as insane. They know parents strongly oppose, even if they dare not say so, the inclusion of transgender ideology in school curricula, requirements to admit biological males to women’s facilities and sporting competition, and the inculcation in their children of shame and guilt about their parents and their country.

On all these issues, there’s a wide gulf between the Democratic Party and affluent urban elites, and the mass of ordinary working people the party once relied on as a solid base of support.

The similarities between Britain’s Labour Party (as well as the European center-left parties) and the current American experience are striking. They make the Democrats’ current success look like an anomaly rather than the wave of the future.

Paul Adams writes on ethics, marriage and family, and social policy. He is professor emeritus of social work at the University of Hawaii. He has also taught at Case Western University and the University of Texas.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.