josefoxblog-blog

[josefoxblog-blog]

Obama is to blame for the Democratic Party’s current predicament

Trump’s 2016 victory, a shortage of new talent in the Democratic primaries and a growing ideological divide encapsulate an Obama legacy problem. The resulting ideological battle is there for the left’s taking.

Barack Obama is a towering figure; his political achievements and rhetorical talent define his place in history. He will almost certainly be one of “those” presidents. His is a remarkable story, allowing the Democratic Party to define much of the US domestic and foreign policy agenda from 2008 to 2016.

Obama occupies a unique space, that of the ‘defining’ politician. In the UK; Churchill, Thatcher and Blair are often placed within this contemporary bracket. Larger-than-life personalities, usually seen to ‘define’ an era. Obama, as a personality, also meets this criterion. In an immediate sense, he commands the attention of any audience, dominates the political airwaves upon intervention and possesses the status of a ‘mega-celebrity’.

These traits lay the groundwork for the creation of a personal brand, utilised to further political goals and policy legitimisation. Eclipsing the purpose of the traditional political party.

In an era of mass media and celebrity culture, ‘defining’ politicians pay enormous dividends for the political party. For instance, Tony Blair and New Labour, Emmanuel Macron’s En Marche, Sebastian Kurz in Austria, rebranding the ÖVP in his image, and of course, Justin Trudeau; bouncing the Liberals from third party status to a landslide victory in 2015.

However, once these ‘defining’ politicians depart, the political party faces a dangerous set of circumstances. The party can wither, intellectually exhausted and rudderless. A consequence of heavy reliance on personal leadership, brand and personality. New Labour after Blair, UKIP after Farage, and, potentially the CDU after Merkel. Yet this is not an inevitable stage in the life of a political party, avoidance requires an ability to look at life succeeding the respective political project of the defining politician. The encouragement of new talent is the most obvious of factors which point toward a forward-thinking plan with the ability to lay the groundwork for tomorrow’s political success.

The view of those at the top of the Democratic Party during the Obama administration seemed to be defined by an ‘end of history’ approach to Democratic politics and US politics in general. Changing demographics, a broad electoral coalition and social media would result in the establishment of a hegemonic Democratic Party implementing a socially liberal political agenda.

This was a façade. One major factor for Trump’s 2016 victory, was the identity politics utilised by Hillary Clinton as a means to promote Obama-era social liberalism. Clinton’s heavy reliance on mainstream identity politics was a result of Obama’s failure to lay the groundwork for Democratic politics succeeding his administration. These failures culminated in an uninspired and rudderless Clinton campaign in 2016, an event which can be largely attributed to Obama’s failure to promote new talent.

The absence of a cohort of younger politicians, promoted through Obama’s administration is embodied by his appointments; Joe Biden as Vice President, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and her second term replacement, John Kerry. Each nearing the end of their respective shelf-life, weighed down by baggage, yet, occupying huge political space; historically and throughout the Obama years. These figures, familiar across the US and indeed the planet, squashed the hopes of upcoming senators, representatives and governors hoping to reach the top of Democratic politics.

This was a missed opportunity, Obama won on a ‘Hope and Change’ platform – new appointees at the top had a mandate. Of course, a conservative settlement across the spectrum of US politics, a Democratic Party, in some quarters still upset by the 2007 Obama-Clinton nomination fight, would have pushed Obama to seek these established figures. Yet Obama’s failure to build a Democratic political meritocracy demonstrates a failure to extend his forward-looking agenda into his management of the Democrats.

The post-Obama Democratic Party is evidence of how catastrophic this short-sightedness was. We’ve seen it first-hand; the birth of what I will call the Obama-legacy candidates. He resuscitated these figures back in 2008 and is responsible for their prolonged political life. Obama-legacy candidates; defined by Clinton and Biden rely on their time within Obama’s administration and articulate a defence of his agenda as a means of appealing to the Democratic base. These campaigns push nostalgia of a ‘morally superior’ liberal past in Trump’s US, a message failing to inspire those seeking a break from the growing partisanship of recent years.

The Obama-legacy candidates failed to fill the Obama shaped hole after his presidency, creating the power vacuum we witness today. This vacuum was first displayed during the 2016 primaries. Initially, a coronation for Clinton seemed inevitable. Yet, the vacuum allowed for a surge in support for Sanders and his politics, a vision traditionally found outside the Democratic Party. The 2016 defeat of an Obama-legacy candidate and victory for Trump cemented the vacuum and highlighted how the Democratic mainstream had intellectually imploded post-Obama.

The record-sized field in 2019, vying for the 2020 nomination, represents a Party seeking direction. From six candidates in 2016 to twenty-seven in 2019. Candidates from more traditional and mainstream wings of the Democratic Party are attempting to make a name for themselves when mainstream Democratic political oxygen is being used up by Joe Biden.

The line-up demonstrates how Obama’s failure to nurture young talent impacts on the field today. Young Democrats with a promising future were not provided the springboard of holding prominent positions in Obama’s administration. Pete Buttigieg, for instance, is coming to be regarded as a first-tier candidate, yet politically, he’s a lightweight, merely a Mayor from South Bend (side-lining Trump’s rise for one moment). Julian Castro is one Obama figure to have emerged, yet this only further demonstrates the good which would have come from Obama seriously seeking to nurture young talent for the Democratic future. But the reality is that donors, high profile support and media attention are taken up by Biden, the ‘official’ Obama-legacy candidate this time around.

Obama allowed ageing politicians to both benefit from the limelight and relaunch their political careers, resulting in a drought of new talent for the Democratic mainstream. The reality facing the Democratic Party today, is only the Democratic left are now coalescing around candidates offering an intellectually appetising offer for the Democratic base. The inevitable battle for the soul of Democratic politics risks both Party unity and its electoral chances in 2020.

[josefoxblog-blog]

The opposition have fallen into a trap – we are on the road to a Cummings-manufactured Johnson victory.

A Johnson majority, a hard-Brexit deal early next year and a radical reshaping of Whitehall are more probable than many realise. The opposition need to wake up and navigate the new political terrain with a clear and united message.

This article is one of two posts on Cummings’ strategy to reshape British politics. This piece focuses on Cummings’ approach to defeating Johnson’s parliamentary opposition. The following post will look at the reshaping of the Conservative Party. The two posts are wholly based on Cummings’ favoured performance-based strategic models.

Every victory for the remain/second referendum/anti-no deal parliamentary opposition has been two steps behind the Johnson government. With a majority of minus 43, and the subsequent paralysis, it is increasingly unclear for pundits, and those inside parliament to predict the future of Brexit and the resilience of parliamentary convention. This has also led to many of us believing that the governments ‘reckless short-sightedness’ is misguided. They are risking everything; Brexit, power and Britain seems to be on the cusp of an alternative government, possibly a Corbyn-led Labour administration.

But this prediction fails to understand the strategy deployed by the Prime Minister’s Special Political Adviser. It is also, the exact prediction, many on the opposition benches, including those opponents still on the Tory benches, are making.

There is a reason why the opposition are two steps behind the government at every turn. Every victory, whether it be the passing of the Benn Act, the supreme court ruling, or even the government’s (supposed) blunder in expelling 21 of its own MPs, is a victory on the government’s own terms. When the opposition mobilise, they are slow, and constantly reacting to events, rather than taking the initiative.

This is because those opposing Johnson’s strategy are unaware of the new political terrain dictated by Dominic Cummings. But how is Cummings shaping this new terrain? That is explained through his admiration for the OODA loop theory; Observe, Orientate, Decide, Act. The OODA loop is integral to the disorientation of the opposition: funnelling chaos in its direction, increasing its inability to set its own agenda.

The OODA loop relies on a lack of awareness among opposition forces that it has been deployed. Cummings posted his views on the OODA loop back in 2018and clearly stated that he didn’t believe opposing forces to this strategy would bother to acknowledge it, let alone interact with it, citing Vote Leave’s surprise victory in 2016. (Cummings explains the Remain campaign’s inability to understand the features of the OODA loop in this lecture – link below).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDbRxH9Kiy4

‘Not one in a thousand will read a 10,000 word blog on the intersection of management and technology and the few who do will dismiss it as the babbling of a deluded fool, they won’t learn any more than they learned from the 2004 referendum or from Vote Leave. And if I’m wrong? Great. Things will improve fast and a second referendum based on both sides applying lessons from Bret Victor[computer scientist] would be dynamite.’ (Dominic Cummings’s Blog)

What’s interesting – in usual Cummings fashion – is that he states his hope that opposing forces in Whitehall and Parliament will engage with this strategy. This also highlights his belief that the opposition are unable to remove themselves from years old convention and institutionalised decision-making. This belief was central to his time at the Department of Education and his wholescale scepticism of Whitehall machinery. It also explains Cummings’ lack of respect for the old Tory order stating “Tory MPs largely do not care about these poorer people. They don’t care about the NHS. And the public has kind of cottoned on to that.”

The OODA loop is defined by its ability to control the agenda and the subsequent ease at incorporating opposing forces into said agenda. This allows the agenda setters to remain two steps ahead of opposing forces by dictating the moves the opposition can or cannot take.

‘decision-making occurs in a recurring cycle of observe-orient-decide-act. An entity (whether an individual or an organisation) that can process this cycle quickly, observing and reacting to unfolding events more rapidly than an opponent, can thereby “get inside” the opponent’s decision cycle and gain the advantage.’ (Dominic Cummings’s Blog)

As mentioned earlier, since Johnson became prime minister, events point toward this strategy in action. The government are busy manufacturing a chaotic environment, but one which is increasingly squeezing the opposition into a tight corner with limited options.

The inconsistencies around the ‘31stOctober deadline’ point toward the government utilising the date as a facade aiming to force the opposition into deciding the next step on Brexit. The government are controlling the opposition’s decision-making through setting a rigid timeframe. It is increasingly clear that the government cannot simultaneously honour its pledge to obey the law and leave the EU ‘do or die’ on the 31stand that is because it knows the opposition will make the decision instead. It will be forced to.

This is a ploy to either set a convincing narrative around parliamentary obstruction, by forcing Johnson to seek an extension, or to push opposition parties into a caretaker arrangement.

It’s not difficult to see how both these outcomes could backfire on the opposition. Johnson, naturally gifted as an opposition politician, could rail against a divided and disorganised temporary government, seeking to prolong the Brexit process (however factually inaccurate this may be).

The strategy also speeds up the process of seeking an early general election defined by Brexit, an election looking increasingly positive for Johnson.

Most concerning for those hoping for the demise of Brexit and/or the Johnson government, is the veneer of opposition victories. A constant trickle of bait, keeping the opposition firmly stuck in the OODA loop cycle.

‘To “get inside” the opponent’s decision cycle and gain the advantage.’ (Dominic Cummings’s Blog)

Opposition victories; the expulsion of Tory rebels and defections (discussed in the next piece), the Benn Act, supreme court ruling and the possible success of forming a caretaker arrangement, are all victories operating within Cummings’ wider OODA loop strategy.

Explaining the inconsistent position of the government when it comes to the 31stdeadline, we all know in this case they cannot simultaneously obey the law, yet continually say it will not be broken. It’s because the date is merely a way of tempting the opposition into further action. Cummings wants the government to fall. He wants an early general election defined by Brexit.

The culmination of the OODA loop can be seen as an early general election defined by Brexit.

It could therefore be seen that the inevitable extension and Brexit election, along with the extra factor of a possible caretaker government, has been Cummings’ plan all along. The series of chaotic events in recent months and the dramatic acceleration of this process with the catalyst of Cummings in Downing Street, has pushed us ever closer to the collapse of the Conservative government.

The OODA loop aims to force us toward a Brexit election. Labour may have found a logical position, which could work with a pragmatic uniting of the vote opposed to Brexit. But imagine this complex policy, difficult to communicate, on top of the prospect of a caretaker government, with Johnson as leader of the opposition (a role he would most likely excel in). The message of the ‘alliance’, especially The Labour Party and its complex (yet strategically triangulated) positioning, would shatter when up against the ensuing Cummings narrative of events, nicely packaged within the ‘Get Brexit Done’ message.

Either opposition voices forcing Johnson into an extension or the formation of a caretaker government, it’s difficult to see a better outcome for Johnson than a Brexit election on these terms. The opposition have been pushed into this tight spot by Cummings’ OODA loop strategy. A united opposition, with a clear plan and bold, emotive messaging could counter Cummings’ OODA loop, but time is running out.