Registered user login:

The lessons of Obama

David Lammy

Published 05 June 2008

His campaign has rewritten the political handbook and created a new politics of real involvement

So now we know. Either Barack Obama or John McCain will become the 44th president of the United States. Both were written off by the pundits, yet each emerged as the compelling candidate for his party. Why? And what is there to be learned from this extraordinary primary season?

The tendency is to draw the wrong lessons. Much has been made of the symbolism of the Democratic contest, seen as a choice between different ways of making history, rather than a battle of ideas. Yet those closer to the action see things very differently. In private, veterans of the Clinton White House describe Hillary's campaign as a last stand for the New Democrat formula, forged during Bill's time in office. Speak to Obama's team and you hear ambitions not just to win the race, but to redraw America's electoral map. The reality is that a new way of doing politics is emerging. I draw three big lessons.

First, 2008 has seen a decisive rejection of the "political class". Both McCain and Obama came from outside a political establishment rooted in the language and methods of the 1990s. McCain, whose tour bus is known as the Straight Talk Express, draws on both his life before politics and his outsider's perspective on Washington. Obama makes a virtue of his recent arrival on the national stage, something people once regarded as a weakness. Launching his campaign last year he declared: "I know I haven't been in Washington for long, but I've been there long enough to know it has to change." Both Obama and McCain are distinct from a political elite seen as aloof, managerial and distant from the people it represents. For Westminster, these are lessons indeed.

Everyday politics

Second, both nominees refuse to be bound by artificial ideas. McCain champions immigration reform and pushes the Republicans on climate change; Obama says he is prepared to open up a dialogue with Iran. This is not political cross-dressing, but its opposite. The American public is gravitating towards candidates who define themselves against the challenges they face - climate change, mass migration, a war-torn Middle East - and not the old adages about "tough on national security" for Democrats or "no-go areas" for Republicans. If politics in the 1990s was steeped in political positioning, the campaigns of 2008 seem much closer to people's everyday lives. People are wise to triangulation: they want to be listened to and involved, not managed.

Third, we are seeing new ways of creating a political movement. Yes, the soaring speeches and the well-crafted adverts remain, but there is much more here than meets the eye. Obama's campaign has raised more money from small donations than from large donors, giving it an air of popular authenticity and collective ownership. He has also spent his money differently - putting resources into grass-roots organisations, spurring countless young people to take part for the first time. And Obama's web strategy is premised on connecting activists and supporters to one another, not just pushing out tightly controlled messages from campaign HQ. Following the false start of Howard Dean's campaign, the internet has come of age. All this works because the principles are right. Obama's campaign has at once lowered the barriers to entry into politics and consistently raised the expectations of what can be achieved when people are willing to take part. A far cry from our political parties' reliance on membership and rigid structures.

Suddenly politics looks very different across the Atlantic. It involves different people, from the candidates themselves through to first-time volunteers. It relies on neither old dogmas nor the political handbooks of the past decade. And it is founded on new ways of bringing people together, whether in local organisations or through the web. Lessons from America cannot, of course, be glibly transposed on to a very different way of doing things over here. But if the primary season in America - and the intense interest it has provoked in Britain - prove anything, it is that the politics of the long 1990s is finally being consigned to history.

David Lammy is the minister for skills

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

8 comments from readers

vegasmomx3
05 June 2008 at 11:44

Great picture!! Love it! And love Obama!

proles
05 June 2008 at 21:09

Only someone thousands of miles away could believe such nonsense. This is part campaign PR and part fairy tale. And thousands of miles from the underlying reality of American machine politics. The easy journalistic cliches and snapshot photo go to create a false and distorted image of a "new politics of involvement" that has "rewritten the political handbook". But the evidence relies solely on these rhetorical flights of fancy. If there is allegedly a "new politics of involvement" why have two-thirds of the Amnerican electorate stayed away from the polls in the primaries? What sort of level of "involvement" does this connote? 2008 has been a decisive rejection, as in most past elections, of all the candidates of the nearly identical major parties. Both McCain and Obama attempt to cultivate a public personna of being outside the political establishment during the campaign charades, but depend upon ,and dutifully serve ,establishment interests while in office (check the record). By posing as ousiders, it enables them to better serve those interests by delimiting any more substantial change that might threaten vested interests. If the campaigns of 2008 seem much closer to peoples' everday lives, you'd never know it on the ground here in Americaland, unless a more enlightened observer from a foreign country told you so. And yes, the soaring speeches remain, just witness the craven performances of Obama and McCain at the AIPAC convention in Washington this week; and the crafty political adverts too remain, which is about as close as ordinary citizens here ever get to the campaigns in their everyday lives. Politics may look very different when you're looking at it from across the Atlantic through rose-tinted glasses but when're looking at it up close from this side, it looks very much like business as usual. If you're so enomored of our candidates, guvnor, we'd be more than happy to have you take them from us on permanent loan. The interest in the sham American primary season, and candidates, appears to have provoked far more intense interest in Britain than it has here!

sanrioscenario
06 June 2008 at 02:35

There's a really funny article that compares the different reactions to Obama's victory around the globe: http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/05/obama_victory_makes_world...

Afrasiab
06 June 2008 at 20:41

The US establishment will not allow a black person to become President.

Obama/Hillary_Supporter
06 June 2008 at 22:02

finally an optimistic writer for this website. I've been hoping to find a writer who accepts the good from both sides and both parties, and this one seems to be it.

Frank Fields
10 June 2008 at 11:12

The first thing about this I would like to say is this: neither Lammy nor Diane Abbot come anywhere close to Obama in terms of quality as a candidate for higher office. Both are bumbling and chaotic shambles. There is only one non-white person in the Labour orbit who has the level of presence to go to that higher ground: Baroness Amos.

student
10 June 2008 at 20:13

What i will say is this. Yes Obama is black, yes he is a competent figure for higher office and the fact he is of colour probably epitomises the latter. However a disparity like colour should not make us persimistic to the state of mind where we fail to support a worthy candidate. He is a 'quality' cadidate because of his political timing intertwined with his idea of change, which i agree is linked to his ethnicity. Let his supporters endorse him because of his policies first and act naive about his appearance. Nor should we make bold negative statements like the US establishment will not allow a black person to become President.

Pam
11 June 2008 at 23:02

This is a late post for (proles) June 5. Your perspective is different from mine and I too am an American. This political season has not only been fascinating but also involving to those who have never sought politics as anything interesting. There have been more Americans involved this Primary season than any. Volunteers at the grassroots level as well as the elevated level of funding to the candidates demonstrate that Americans have gotten involved. Americans are learning loads of information about issues, policies and process. Candidates are addressing or are proposing solutions through their web sites, town hall meetings or currently by touring the country to talk directly with citizens. I'm not sure where you get your data but your analysis of the 2/3 non poll visitors' rule is inaccurate. There are reasons that Americans don't show up but all historians will tell you that Democratic turnout was extremely higher this year because of the candidates and the internet. This is based on the accepted political analysis on voter turnout. You might ask yourself what would be acceptable of a candidate to suite the needs of this country. These candidates were selected by the people for the people and not just a select few.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Should Darling have been bolder with the 45% tax rate?