Few now doubt the success of the Clinton Presidency. In his final weeks of office, far from being a lame duck, Bill Clinton is more popular than ever. It’s not difficult to work out why. When the Clinton Administration comes to an end in January, America will have seen the longest sustained period of economic growth in its history – 117 months. The federal budget deficit of $290 billion has been replaced by a surplus of $230 billion, 22.2 million jobs have been created, seven million people have moved out of poverty and the murder rate has fallen back to its 1967 level.
So why exactly is it that Al Gore, the Vice President through these extraordinary years, has had such a tough time in these elections? And what are the lessons for Labour, which can claim a similarly dazzling economic record?
The first is clearly that we need to spell out the link between Labour’s prudent management of the economy and the jobs and prosperity that benefit everyone. The electorate will not automatically make the link. Sustained economic growth can create a culture of complacency. Prosperity starts to feel assured.
But that’s not enough. There is, quite rightly, no such thing as a grateful electorate. Labour must also remind people of the Tory ‘boom and bust’ record, the risks that stem from their incompetence. Against this, we should talk about a Labour future of continued sound management and investment in public services.
This is obvious. However, it would have been an equally obvious strategy in Tennessee a year ago. Hence the importance of George W. Bush’s strategy and the need to be wise to the possible antics of William Hague. The economy became Bush’s first, and perhaps best, weapon when he hijacked Clinton’s success by promising huge tax cuts out of the projected surplus. The Tories have shown some signs that they will also try to appropriate the UK surplus for their promises. We must make it clear that Tory governments lead to debt and instability – not surpluses.
Bush’s strategy developed from tax cuts. In a time of great prosperity he opted not to run on a straight neoliberal programme. Instead, he talked of ‘prosperity with a purpose’ and ‘reviving’ America. George W. evoked Ronald Reagan’s sunny optimism, too. In his nomination acceptance speech, for instance, he spoke of Americans living ‘on the sunrise side of the mountain. The night is passing. And we are ready for the day to come.’ So, Bush started with a pre-emptive strike on tax and followed it by a series of gritty, hard messages mixing cynicism and hope.
Bush also promised to offer a new moral candour and strength in the White House (for which, read the Oval Office in particular). Amazingly, given the behind-the-scenes role which he played in his father’s administration, the Governor also managed to paint himself as a Washington outsider. Similarly, Hague, who read Hansard from the age of thirteen, is trying to present himself as a Westminster outsider.
Indeed, Hague’s attempts to mimic Republican strategy do not stop there. Bush talked throughout the campaign of his attachment to ‘compassionate conservatism’. He believes that the state, when it turns to welfare, does at least as much harm as good. It creates dependency in the recipient and eats away at the compassion of the taxpayer. Some of the people behind Bush want to remove government from welfare in the same way it was removed from business in the 1980s. Predictably, Hague has begun to talk about ‘denationalising compassion’.
For months, Hague and his team have been breathlessly excited about the potential of a Bush presidency – just as they were after the Danish referendum. However, the outcome is unlikely to make any real difference to the British electorate. Hague has already shown himself incapable of holding his party to a consistent agenda in the way Bush has. For instance, the Tory leader may believe in a low tax society, where churches and charities replace the state in caring for the poor and the sick, but can he hold the line? Remember the ‘tax guarantee’ and the ‘patients guarantee’?
But the American election might well hold a few lessons for the wider ‘forces of conservatism’. Bush’s incredible election war chest and the advocacy undertaken for him by the right-wing press show that conservatism is alive and well in the US. Despite Clinton’s successes, a Democratic presidency is still beyond the pale for some. Labour must be prepared for a similar offensive at the next General Election, from parts of the media and from interest groups eager to try the job that seems too big for William Hague.