The 2001 UK general election campaign lasted for five weeks and was considered unreasonably long. Yet as I write, five weeks before election day in the US, both campaigns have long since hit full throttle. Even as the President delivered his inaugural address on 20 January 2001, his re-election campaign was getting underway behind the scenes. Politics in the US is as relentless as it is brutal. We have a lot to learn from their example – not least what to avoid.
The US presidential election might be an ugly, loud and sentimental phenomenon, but in political terms it is the greatest show on earth and the 2004 campaign has proved no exception. The candidates are sticking to the golden rules of US campaigning: simplify your message and destroy your opponent. This is not a lead that the UK should aspire to follow.
The key factor in the US system – which the UK has to a large extent resisted – is money. Bush and Kerry have already spent a quarter of a billion dollars each and have now hit legal spending limits. Central funding remains available, however, and the campaigns continue on the ground by proxy through formally independent organisations known as ‘527s’. In a bold twist on this proxy campaigning theme, Republicans are now funding Ralph Nader’s candidacy in numerous key states. If history repeats itself and Bush sneaks back into the White House with the Democrats losing a few thousand key votes to Nader, should Labour party backers consider funding UKIP in 2005?
Money, fear, over-simplification, legal wrangling, four-year campaigns, slander and vitriol are just a few aspects of US elections that we would do well not to emulate here. As it stands, Karl Rove would be at a loss as to how to run a campaign in the UK. Let’s keep it that way.
On the other hand, campaigns in the UK are amateurish, old-fashioned and all too often downright tedious. We have a lot of positive things to learn from the US, showmanship aside, in terms of campaign strategy on the ground.
The Republican Get Out The Vote strategy has been rapidly developed in recent years and is now a key weapon in the President’s arsenal. The party has spent its time since 2001 formalising its local campaign structures, hiring campaign chairs and staff-members, registering voters and training GOTV activists. They have also developed the ruthlessly efficient ‘72-Hour Task Forces’ to be deployed in key areas in the final days before the vote. The 2002 midterms demonstrated that when targeted in the right areas, these formidable campaigning teams are capable of winning elections. In the UK, with our falling turnouts, lacklustre organisation and antiquated voter ID, we should look to follow the Republican example sooner rather than later.
The lessons of Howard Dean’s primary campaign are well documented. Led by Joe Trippi, the campaign reached out to millions of disenchanted voters through the internet to encourage supporters to establish their own local campaign operation. It proved a startlingly effective tactic and led to a groundswell of grassroots support. Dean failed to deliver on this potential but succeeded in providing a positive indication of how future campaigns might be run.
Finally, and more broadly, the UK should learn the lesson of Kansas. As documented by Thomas Franks, poor rural communities in Kansas have in recent years turned their backs on the Democrats to become overwhelmingly Republican. They are choosing to vote for tax cuts for the wealthy and against entitlements. In key states the Democrats have lost touch with their core constituency. This is a lesson well-learned and oft-ignored.
There is clearly much value in observing the US if we look in the right areas. The huge popularity of The West Wing among decision-makers in Westminster village – not least the Prime Minister – suggests that we are looking. Whether or not we are learning, only time will tell.