When the United States were hit by riots in the 1960s, the political consequences for the Democrats were felt for decades to come. Labour can avoid a similar fate if it learns from history
Addressing the House of Commons’ emergency sitting in the aftermath of the riots, Ed Miliband struck a suitably prime ministerial pose: strongly condemning the perpetrators of the violence that had beset a number of England’s biggest cities, offering the government bipartisan support for its efforts to bring the disturbances under control while peppering David Cameron with a number of forensic questions about how it intended to do so.
As is Westminster’s way, that bipartisan consensus soon began to fray. While the prime minister opted for the John Major strategy of condemning a little more, and understanding a little less, Labour’s leader attempted a delicate pivot: keeping the condemnation coming, while bringing on a little more understanding.
In policy terms, Miliband is surely correct, recognising, as he put it, that ‘to explain is not to excuse’. His rejection of the ‘false choice’ between ‘opportunity and culture’ was the right one. Politically, however, this balancing act is a fine one, as any ageing American liberal can testify.
The roots of the riots that swept America’s cities in the mid-1960s are very different from those which occurred this summer in England. And so, hopefully, are their extent: the disturbances, which began in Watts in 1965, spread to Chicago, Cleveland and 41 other cities in 1966, to 164 cities in 1967, and, in the aftermath of Martin Luther King’s assassination in April 1968, to almost every city in America. For Lyndon Johnson, they were a vindication of the need for Great Society programme of domestic reform: ‘The only genuine, long-range solution lies in attack – mounted at every level – upon the conditions that breed violence and despair … ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs.’ The Kerner commission, which the president appointed to investigate the causes of the disturbances, broadly endorsed this approach when it reported in 1968.
While the causes of the riots were complicated, and were themselves part of the onset of a wider ‘culture war’ from which American politics has still not fully freed itself, their political consequences were anything but. In the 1966 midterm elections, sweeping gains by conservatives effectively put an end to Johnson’s already waning ‘war on poverty’ ambitions. In 1968, with images of America’s burning cities dominating his TV advertisements and promises to bring ‘law and order’ to the streets, Richard Nixon was elected president. ‘Law and order’ would be a recurrent – and powerful – theme of Republican campaigns in subsequent presidential campaigns, driving a wedge into the Democrat coalition and causing the defection of many of the party’s traditionally loyal white working-class supporters.
Indeed, as David Kusnet, a speechwriter for Democrats in the 1980s and 1990s, wrote in his book Speaking American, law and order would spark a chain reaction: ‘Defending national security and defending personal security’ came to occupy ‘adjoining areas in the public mind’, while the perception that you ‘can’t trust Democrats to defend you’ would harden into a view that ‘you can’t trust Democrats to run things’. The political effect was devastating: in the 40 years after 1968 the Democrats would win only four presidential elections, the Republicans seven.
But while the presidential aspirations of George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis crashed and burned, other Democrats managed to show they understood, as a former New York mayor put it, ‘where to draw the line’. The conclusion, political analyst William Schneider, suggested in 1988 following the Democrats’ third consecutive defeat in 1988, was that ‘tough liberals win, soft liberals lose’.
This is the key to what Miliband has thus far got right and must continue to do. In his first major speech after the riots, Labour’s leader linked his response to the theme of responsibility – and the need for more of it at both the top and bottom of society – that he began to develop before the summer recess. It was the willingness of Bill Clinton – the epitome of ‘tough liberalism’ – to link responsibility to opportunity that helped the Democrats break their losing streak in 1992. And it will be the key to whether Miliband can maintain the delicate balancing act he has so far performed.
—————————————————————————————
Robert Philpot is director of Progress
—————————————————————————————
He can as long as he relies on people in his Shadow cabinet and PLP who the public will listen to and who have credibility and authenticity. Because of the importance of the subject ,atter retaining credibility as the author of this article concludes is essential.
Lets make this clear we know what the final catalyst was that ensured that the weaker members of different groups of society went out and did what they did, even infront of CCTV Cameras with full defiance to the Law, with no respect for the Law and in a final assault upon the Law and their own communities as a result.
It is absolutely essential to remember that many other people from all sorts of backgrounds, the vast majority and including people from poor and deprived backgrounds did NOT take part.
They respected the Law and they should be recognised.
Until we ensure that the Rule of Law is once again respected for what it is, an essential component of a representative democracy then we will not have a representative democracy. And our democracy will be in danger.
The warning signs were clear and there are NO, absolutely no excuses.
Polticians who claim to be serving their communities had best start doing so because we are now beginning to enter the age of austerity and we have not strengthened our democracy and the respect and fear of the Law in the way that we should have done so to ensure we come through in the best possible way.
We know the Far Right are sitting in the wings, our Mps elevated Nick Griffin and the Labour Movement pounded him and his allies in Barking and Dagenham.
Thats a tie not an outright victory, but it ensured he would not be able to take advanatage of the current mess again as easily as before.
The two main parties have a simple choice, restore a sense of justice and faith for the people of the UK to believe that politicians and the law are on their side or suffer the consequences.
Politics is not a career, it is not an office job to be offered to ones relatives, it is not a cash in-option for people with questionable psychological states of mind who believe themselves to be 2elite2 whilst totally messing up in almost every policy area because they have absolutely no idea about the very area they are placed in charge of because they have never had a professional job and given the professional skills to understand the field they are blundering into.
Politics is a vocation, its about ensuring as many groups in a society are represented as possible to avoid bloodshed, they did not just paint those lines in the House of commons for fun to prevent people stabbing each other with their swords.
Take it away, take away the communiction and representation and you take away the politics and one only has to listen to the vacuous and strange language emanating from the House of Commons to realise the mess we really are in.
To see Mps crowding in when their wages are mentioned and see them heading our disrespectfully when the dead servicemens names are mentioned as they did last year.
Its thoroughly disgusting.
Its as far away from elite as you can possibly get.
Yet it is still being promoted even now, the bullying arrogance of psychos in suits. Of platforms like Demos. Which if anything is a prime example of the utter mess our democracy is in and how little faith even our so-called betters have in the jobs market that they themselves fear so much and yet are more than happy to force on our most vulnerable people when they are badly disabled.
No justice just the blame society by the spoilt stupid brats in Parliament. The same Rot Dishonourable rabble who steal Government tax payer owned property without hesitation, that have no sense of balance in their views veering from from extreme unpalatable pile of garbage to the other leaving the public with a sense of bewilderment and disgusted further to see the same old discredited faces on their TV shows, utterly frustrated that there is not a means to be rid of them not through a failure in the voting system that will always be a combination of voters being swayed or traditional towards party or policy, but because the very individuals in question simply refuse to take responsibility for their actions and stand down.
Public service is clearly the very last thing on their minds.
Some of them even get promoted.
And the corruption simply continues, with dodgy Dave Cameron ruthlessly passing over any substantive responsibility as he binds his loyalty to his masters in a flwed and dangerously liable banking sector and poiting the finger of balme to all else around him because he is bloody coward of the highest order.
Ed? Well at least he had sense, he showed his mettle in the expense scandal and has an incredible opportunity, he showed what he could do with cretins like Murdoch. if he could only ground himself and identify with real people and take the opportunity to ensure the people he has working for him are not pathetic relics of a failed age.
In any case the prize is there and if we fail to seize it, if we fail to show the public we can be trusted with economic policy and not be blinded by greed and stupidity and make the wrong calls when dealing with the corporate sector.
Only an incentive based society can do this but it has to be created in a manner that is realistic and ensures we blame NOBODY in society, but we can only begin this if we understand what is happening around us and start leading by example and make the necessary changes to clean up our act because we are starting from the position of historic disgrace and political ineptitude and are a laughing stock when compared to many other walks of life.
Thats it from me, sorry i tough on Hazel on the other article, had to be said. I actually like the woman but she has to understand where she stands in the public view at a very sensitive time.
Goodbye progress!
Are you really comapring the riots of the Civil rights marches agisnt the Police in teh Deep south being connected to the KKK, to a bunchof theives who communicated through their blackberries so they could break into designer clthes shops and pick up a pair of designer trainers and try them on for size until they go the ones they wanted,
This is excellent stuff and just what Labour needs. It is a firm riposte to some the of material that is appearing in the comment columns and letters pages of the Guardian.
Re John Reid – of course, the writer isn’t making that as an exact comparison but a comparison near enough regarding urban disturbances and how left wing and right wing parties react and what the consequences can be for the left to play this wrongly (as some are).
It’s a bit worrying that when a sensible writer makes a point worth pondering we get the knee-jerk reaction which Reid offers. Labour’s not in such great shape that we can afford such self-indulgence and not consider SERIOUSLY what anyone has to say!
I think Ed has got it right and I know right wing people who agree.
I do not believe that the people of this country will believe in “moral breakdown ” or Twitter (whatever that is) is responsible for the riots.
Irresponsibility, Criminality, crowd following yes but why?
When I came out of the Navy after the war (the big one) knowing nothing of commercial value and having a wife and child it was possible to get out of the pit by hard work and study.Previous history of academic failure was wiped out, you could start with a clean sheet and there was such a pent up need for people who would do things that no one was too bothered about qualifications.
I would not like to be in the same situation today,and I shudder to think how I might have ended up.
“Ask not for whome the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”
(John Donne)
Just to back up what i have been saying, though its more than just the ridiculous politicians, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/riots-stoked-by-mistrust-of-politicians-says-report-2345856.html