Democrats Could Profit From Blair's Labor

Blairism, as it is called here, may not be the perfect model for the Democrats. It may no longer even by the perfect model for the Labor Party, given dissatisfaction here with some of Blair's efforts at triangulation between the old Labor Party and the Conservatives. The public distrusted Blair on more than the war. Labor's spin-doctoring was seen as government by insincerity and took its toll.

Few strategists believe a simple return to Clinton's centrist New Democrat formulation of the 1990s by itself will get the Democrats out of the doldrums. The world today is different, and the politics of the country have shifted. But the records of Blair and Clinton suggest that an opposition party must recognize its weaknesses and do something about them and know its strengths and never abandon them.

In 2000, Democrats surrendered their advantage on the economy when Al Gore decided not to make the economic record of the Clinton administration the central theme of his campaign for president. Democratic strategists believe that Bush's economic record, particularly on fiscal matters, provides an opening to make the Democrats once again the party of stability, growth and fiscal discipline. But party leaders have yet to do so.

The resurgence of the liberal wing of the party in 2004, born of anger at Bush over Iraq and other issues, has led some Democratic leaders to conclude that the route back may be through an energized, progressive, grass-roots army. A number of strategists rightly see this as one of the party's great strengths. But the U.S. and British elections suggest that is only a partial answer. Labor won this week with a divided base; the Conservatives lost with a united base, just as the Democrats lost last fall with their base united.

"Democrats can take a lesson from [the campaign run by Conservative leader Michael] Howard -- not to isolate yourself and not just motivate your base," said Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster who was an adviser to Blair during the campaign here.

Where Blair, Brown and Labor cannot help the Democrats is on the social issues or the intersection of religion and politics. There is nothing comparable in British politics. Howard tried to make abortion an issue at one point but quickly abandoned it under pressure from all parts of the spectrum. When Blair proposed using the words "God bless" in a speech before the Iraq war, his advisers hooted him down, according to Peter Stothard's book "Thirty Days." Democrats will have to find their own way in these areas.

The same may be true for national security, a debate that continues to rage among Democrats. It is not clear what lesson Democrats can or should draw from Blair, given the firestorm over Iraq here. One Democratic strategist, after watching what Blair went through, said he believes that those who suggested the Democrats would have been better off in 2004 by being unreservedly in favor of the war are plain wrong. Others say Democrats could benefit by studying the conviction Blair demonstrated in the face of rebellion in his own ranks.

With this week's British elections, Democrats have been reminded that politics is a process of renewal and rejuvenation, even for a party in power. The task is even more urgent for a party out of power. The process requires strong leadership, clear principles, tough decisions and some compromises, all with a clear goal in mind. As King put it, "The aim of this exercise is to win elections."