Douglas Alexander's Democratic Convention diary

On stage, Obama spoke truth from power - the essential task of a political leader.

How to win friends....

I arrive on Wednesday afternoon by direct flight from Gatwick to Douglas International Airport (honestly, that's its name!) in Charlotte, NC, just as Air Force One lands at the nearby Air National Guard Base.

In the sweltering line for a taxi - it's 86 degrees - I hear that all flights out of Charlotte have been delayed to allow the President's plane to land ... I guess that's all part of the plan for building broader support in this vital swing state!

The Come Back Kid returns.

One man who is famous for making friends in the Democratic Party - or anywhere - is Bill Clinton. Back in 2000, I sat with Ed Miliband high in the Staples Centre in Los Angeles as Clinton transfixed the crowd at what was supposed to be Al Gore's Convention. He hasn't lost his touch and his speech on Wednesday night once again had the delegates in raptures.

Its central theme - "We're all in this together" - was not unfamiliar to British ears, so the next morning I sought out the man with whom I first associated with those words - Frank Luntz. Frank is now a commentator for both CBS and Fox News, but you might also remember him from the focus groups he ran for Newsnight. Back in the spring of 2008, he gave a presentation to Republican Congressional Candidates that recommended the use of the line "We're all in this together".

Over breakfast in a downtown grill, he tells me he arrived at the phrase after much testing when his research showed hard pressed voters didn't welcome a politician talking about sacrifice...as they felt they were already making enough sacrifices, thank you very much. Luntz is genuinely effusive in his praise of Clinton's performance the night before: "It's the most effective political deconstruction I have ever seen. And it will matter," he tells me."It's given every Democrat their talking points for the next 8 weeks." He goes on, "It wasn't really an endorsement of Barack Obama, but an incredible indictment of Mitt Romney. Bill Clinton's a one man war room."

E Pluribus Unum

It's to one of the veterans of the original War Room in Little Rock that I turn next. Simon Rosenberg is an old friend who runs the Washington based centre-left think-tank The New Democratic Network. He's also a leading expert on the demographic shifts transforming American politics.

The contrast between the all-white crowd in Tampa last week and the hugely diverse delegations here in Charlotte tells a powerful story. In a bar crowded with delegates, donors, lobbyists, and journalists, Simon shouts his explanation for this, "Barack Obama whose slogan is 'Forward' is the first President of the new emerging demographics of the twenty first century. He's a symbol of transition from a country dominated by white Europeans to a country that'll be majority non-white within 30 years."

And this matters deeply to US politics. As Simon goes on to explain, in the 1960s, America was 90% white and 10% black. Today, it is 65% white and 35% people of colour, and it's on track to be majority non-white by 2040. "Not only did America's economy become globalised in recent decades, but so did its people," shouts my ever hoarser friend. Little wonder the growing diversity of the Democratic Party is on such glorious display on the Convention stage - and the Convention floor.

Following in Family Footsteps

Talking about the 1960s reminds me that while it's my first visit to North Carolina, it turns out I'm following in family footsteps. Back in Easter 1960, my mum and dad, then fresh out of Glasgow University and studying for a year in New York, also made the journey south to attend a special conference. There they queued to hear a young Baptist - and were spat at by white passersby for their trouble. The conference was a gathering of the Southern Christian Leadership, bringing civil rights protesters together, and the young Baptist preacher was Martin Luther King.

Little could my parents have imagined that, fifty years later, their son would return to North Carolina to hear another young African American .... who also just happens to be the 44th President of the United States.

My Kingdom for a Pass

By Thursday afternoon, all minds are turning to the finale of the Convention, the President's acceptance of the party's nomination. All has not gone smoothly for the campaign officials planning the event. The speech was due to be made at the Bank of America Stadium - which is outdoor and has a capacity of over 70,000 - but on Wednesday the venue is suddenly changed to the Time Warner Cable Centre, where the rest of the Convention has been taking place. The explanation that's given is the risk of rain, but nobody seems very sure why the decision has changed when apparently the forecast hasn't.

Anyway, 70,000 just doesn't go in to 20,000, so it suddenly seems like everyone is cajoling, begging and pleading for a pass to get in for the big speech. Donna Brazille proves my saviour and I get there early. David Miliband is delayed at a dinner, and so has to queue during one of the temporary lock downs, which the Daily Mail gleefully show in a photo apparently taken on someone's mobile. Quite why anyone would care is beyond me.

In the hall, John Kerry tears into the Republicans on foreign policy. The biggest cheers he get from delegates - given the difficulty Democrats have had since Tampa in answering Ronald Reagan's old question - is when he asks "Is Osama Bin Laden better off than he was 4 years ago?"

Earlier in the day, I'd grabbed a cup of coffee with Madeleine Albright - Clinton's Secretary of State - and still well connected and wise in the arena of foreign policy. What she tells me convinces me that the new Secretary of State, if Obama wins (a contest widely thought, here in Charlotte, to be between John Kerry and UN Ambassador Susan Rice), will not have an empty inbox on day one.

Speaking to America

Obama takes to the stage timed precisely around the networks' coverage. There are 20,000 of us packed into the hall, but his real audience are the TV viewers scattered across battleground states like Iowa, Colorado, Ohio and Virginia. It is undecided voters in these states that will ultimately decide the outcome of a race that's been tight ever since Romney secured the Republican nomination in April

During the day, I'd chatted with Philip Kent, the chairman and chief executive of Turner Broadcasting, who own CNN. He's the man who brought Piers Morgan to the states and he tells me that the Convention should boost ratings for the network. For as well as the dial metering and the instant polling the other number the campaign staff will be studying anxiously will be the TV viewing figures.

Those figures weren't good for Romney and the Republicans last week in Tampa as his speech was watched by only 30.3million over eleven TV networks.....down from the 40milion over seven TV networks that watched John McCain deliver his acceptance speech four years ago.

A Speech....

In retrospect, it's clear that there was a powerful logic and a clear plan behind the main speeches here in Charlotte. Michelle's task was to defend Obama's character. Clinton's task was to defend Obama's record. And Obama's task was to set out his plan for America's future.

And that's exactly what he did. On stage, he wasn't just Commander-in-Chief; he was Educator-In-Chief, as he set out his vision for America's future success. It was a different and more sober speech than his acceptance address four years ago in a vast Denver Stadium - when his soaring rhetoric matched the mood of hope that would carry him all the way to the White House.

The main theme of the President's powerful speech was an effort to turn the focus of his re-election bid on the rebuilding of the economy. At a time of massive challenge for western economies and societies, he spoke truth from power - the essential task of a political leader.

By any measure, it has proved a strong Convention for the Democrats here in North Carolina. The speeches were strong and their messages clear. Today, as the delegates started their long trek home, they are, in the phrase Obama made famous four years ago, "Fired Up. Ready to Go!"

And a Taxi Ride...

When I look back on this week in Charlotte, however, I'll remember more than just the speeches and the schmaltz. I'll also remember Ephron, the taxi driver who gave me a ride back to my motel late one night after the speeches had finished. His family came originally from Ethiopia. He's 36 and has two kids almost the same age as mine. He works all week driving the cab, but he last saw a doctor three years ago. That's because he doesn't have any health insurance. And with quiet determination he told me "That's why I'm voting for Barack Obama".

Douglas Alexander is the shadow foreign secretary.

Barack Obama with Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina. Photograph: Getty Images.

Douglas Alexander is the shadow foreign secretary and Labour MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South.

Getty
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn's fans must learn the art of compromise

On both sides of the Atlantic, democracy is threatened by a post-truth world. 

Twenty years ago, as a new and enthusiastic Labour MP, I wrote an article for The Observer in praise of spin. I argued that if citizens are to be properly informed and engaged in their democracy, politicians - and in particular governments - have a duty to craft their messages carefully and communicate them cogently. It was a controversial notion then but less so now that we have entered the era of post-truth politics. In the old days, we used to "manage" the truth. Now we have abandoned it. 

We’ve probably come further than we think, for when truth is discarded, reason generally follows. Without a general acceptance of the broad "facts" of any matter, there can be little basis for rational debate nor, therefore, for either the consensus or the respectful disagreement which should emerge from it. Without a commitment to truth, we are free to choose and believe in our own facts and to despise the facts of others. We are free too to place our faith in leaders who make the impossible seem possible. 

We condemn the dictatorships which deny their citizens the right to informed and open debate. But in our own societies, unreasoned and often irrational politics are entering the mainstream. 

The politics of unreason

In the UK, the Leave campaign blithely wedded brazen falsehood to the fantasy that Brexit would cure all ills – and millions of voters enthusiastically suspended their disbelief.  “We want our country back” was a potent slogan - but no less vacuous than the pledge to “make America great again” on which Donald Trump has founded his election campaign. On both sides of the Atlantic, people want to take back control they know they never had nor ever will.

Both campaigns have deliberately bypassed rational argument. They play instead to the emotional response of angry people for whom reason no longer makes sense. Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, democracy’s critics have warned of the ease with which reason can be subverted and citizens seduced by the false oratory of charismatic leaders. Trump is just the latest in a long line of the demagogues they feared. He may not make it to the White House, but he has come a long way on unreasoning rhetoric - and where he leads, millions faithfully follow. He has boasted that he could commit murder on Fifth Avenue without losing votes and he may well be right.

But if Trump is extreme, he is not exceptional. He is a phenomenon of a populism of both right and left which has once more begun to challenge the principles of parliamentary democracy.

Democracy in decline

All over Europe and the United States, consumer-citizens are exasperated by democracy’s failure to meet their demands as fully and as fast as they expect. If the market can guarantee next day delivery, why can’t government? The low esteem in which elected politicians are held is only partly the consequence of their failings and failures. It is also evidence of a growing disenchantment with representative democracy itself. We do not trust our politicians to reflect our priorities. Perhaps we never did. But now we’re no longer prepared to acknowledge their unenviable duty to arbitrate between competing political, social and economic imperatives, nor ours to accept the compromises they reach - at least until the next election.

We have become protesters against rather than participants in our politics and, emboldened by hearing our chosen facts and beliefs reverberating around cyber space, have become increasingly polarised and uncompromising in our protest. 

The Trumpy Corbynites

Which brings us to Labour. Despite the obvious political differences between Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump, there are striking similarities in the movements which have coalesced around them. For many of their supporters, they can simply do no wrong; each criticism provides further evidence of a corrupt establishment’s conspiracy against them; rivals, including those who share many of their beliefs, are anathematised; unbelievers are pursued across the internet; inconvenient facts are reinterpreted or ignored; rational, civil debate is shut down or drowned out. 

There are other similarities in these insurgencies: both mistake slogans for policies and mass rallies for popular support; both are overwhelming and quite possibly destroying their own parties – and both, ultimately, are movements without practical purpose.

Trump may give vivid expression to his followers’ grievances but, other than building a wall along the Mexican border, his plans for government are obscure. Similarly, while Corbyn and his supporters know what they’re against, they have not yet articulated a clear vision of what they’re for, much less how it can be achieved. For many of them, it is enough to be "anti-Blairite". 

But in disassociating themselves from a Labour prime minister’s mistakes, they are also dismissing their party’s achievements under his leadership. Their refusal to acknowledge the need for compromise may well enable them to avoid the pitfalls of government. But government’s potential to bring about at least some of the change they want does not come without pitfalls. In wanting it all, they are likely to end up with nothing.

The art of compromise

Democracy cannot be sustained simply by what passionate people oppose. And though movements such as Momentum have important roles to play in influencing political parties, they cannot replace them. Their supporters want to be right - and they often are. But they are rarely prepared to test their principles against the practical business of government. The members of political parties want, or should want, to govern and are prepared, albeit reluctantly, to compromise – with each other, with those they seek to represent, with events -  in order to do so. Parties should listen to movements. But movements, if they are to have any practical purpose, must acknowledge that, for all its limitations, the point of politics is power.

We have to trust that the majority of American voters will reject Donald Trump. But closer to home, if Labour is to have a future as a political force, Corbyn’s supporters must learn to respect the historic purpose of the Labour party at least as much as they admire the high  principles of its current leader. There isn’t long for that realisation to take hold.

In the UK as in the US and elsewhere, we need to rediscover the importance of common cause and the art of compromise in forging it. The alternative is a form of politics which is not only post-truth, post-reason and post-purpose, but also post-democratic. 

Peter Bradley is a former MP and director of Speakers' Corner Trust, a UK charity which promotes free speech, public debate and active citizenship.