Aftershocks from UK election earthquake should rattle US Democrats

By Thomas Lifson, AMERICAN THINKER

Socialists, globalists, and Jew-haters were soundly rejected by British voters yesterday, and that has got to worry United States Democrats, many of whom have embraced these political positions.  Pollsters who had warned that the race was tightening were repudiated by voters who handed a historic landslide outcome to Boris Johnson’s Conservative party, which is now reckoned to end up with an 86 seat majority when all the results are tabulated.  Even more pointed for the Democrats is the fact that Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party has dipped below 200 seats for the first time in almost a century and has lost seats in the industrial Midlands and North that have been secure for it for over a century.

United Kingdom and the United States are not identical, so there are limits to the parallels that can be drawn, but there are plenty of reasons to believe that similar tectonic forces are at work in both nations. If you think this is mistaken conservative triumphalism, don’t take it from me, take it from lefty Jonathan Chait, writing in the New Yorker that “American Leftists Believed Corbyn’s Inevitable Victory Would Be Their Model.”

The British election results, like any election result, is the result of unique circumstances and multiple factors. It is also, however, a test of a widely articulated political theory that has important implications for American politics. That theory holds that Corbyn’s populist left-wing platform is both necessary and sufficient in order to defeat the rising nationalist right. Corbyn’s crushing defeat is a decisive refutation.

Many writers, not only on the left, detected parallels between the rise of Corbyn and the movement around Bernie Sanders. The latter is considerably more moderate and pragmatic than the former, and also not laden with the political baggage of Corbyn’s widely-derided openness to anti-Semitic allies. And yet many leftists have emphasized the similarities between the two, which are indeed evident. Both built youth-oriented movements led by cadres of radical activists who openly set out to destroy and remake their parties. Both lost in somewhat close fashion, Sanders in 2016 and Corbyn the next year. And fervent supporters of both men treated their narrow defeats as quasi-victories, proof of victory just around the corner.

Chait is ignoring the strain of Jew-hatred that has infected the Democrats but he does get it that socialism’s appeal has been greatly exaggerated.

Another factor that ought to give Democrats pause is the sheer frustration and anger that animated British voters over the delays in implementing the Brexit initiative that they passed two years ago. Mark Steyn:

…put crudely, historically Labour working-class constituencies in northern England that voted Leave and were then screwed over by the subversives of a Remainer Parliament abandoned century-old tribal loyalties to Labour and shifted to pro-Brexit parties.

Democrats have done their level best to stall and frustrate President Trump at every stage of his presidency. They have no positive program (except for the socialists who want to destroy the economy) and seem to waking up that going before the voters in 11 months with no accomplishments is a recipe for disaster, hence Nancy Pelosi’s sudden endorsement of a USMCA vote just an hour or so after announcing that the House would proceed with impeachment.

There are a lot of peculiarities in the British system, especially Scottish nationalism and the fate of Ulster after Brexit, that drained away support from Labour to local parties. But the Democrats could well face challenges themselves. Democrat Representatives and Senators who vote against impeachment or convection could well be primaried by the Justice Democrats that recruited and sponsored Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, for instance. If a Sanders or Warren gets the presidential nomination, non-socialist Dems could bolt either to Trump or to a third party nominee. Or if doddering Joe Biden is the nominee, lefties could well sponsor a third party candidate. They are animated by anger, after all, not by love of give and take compromise.

December 13, 2019 | 7 Comments »

Leave a Reply

7 Comments / 7 Comments

  2. In a first, Irish nationalists overtake unionists at UK election
    Sinn Fein’s John Finucane, the winning candidate in the Belfast North seat, speaks at the count centre, Titanic Quarter, Belfast, Northern Ireland December 13, 2019. REUTERS/Lorraine O’Sullivan
    BELFAST (Reuters) – Northern Ireland elected more Irish nationalists to Britain’s parliament than pro-British unionists for the first time on Friday, after the largest nationalist party Sinn Fein narrowly won the final of the region’s 18 seats.

    That meant Sinn Fein kept its seven seats and the resurgent fellow pro-Irish SDLP won two, combining to pass the Democratic Unionist Party, which fell from 10 seats to eight. The cross-community Alliance Party took the final seat, adding to the majority of anti-Brexit MPs after its share of the total vote rocketed by almost 10%.

    A first since the partition of Ireland in 1921, the result led to increased calls from Sinn Fein for a vote to split from the rest of the United Kingdom, as Prime Minister Boris Johnson won a resounding majority across the union.

    Reporting by Ian Graham, editing by Padraic Halpin and Jon Boyle

  3. This article, from the antisemitism.uk site, more or less answers my question about the position of the SNP and several other smaller Brit parties about antisemitism. The Scot Nats are less antisemitic than Labour, for example they have accepted the International Holocaust Remembrance League’s definition of antisemitism, which Labor has rejected. Still, the antisemitism.uk site finds their willingness to cooperate with Corbyn “disappointing.” Several other parties, including Plaid Cymru, would not even respond to the antisemitism site’s questions about their position about Jews. Not encouraging to say the least.

    SNP and Green Party leaders tell CAA they are ready to make Jeremy Corbyn PM despite antisemitism, Liberal Democrats ignore question
    29/10/2019

    A few weeks ago, Campaign Against Antisemitism wrote to all the Opposition parties in Parliament (other than Labour) asking whether they would rule out making the antisemite, Jeremy Corbyn, Prime Minister.

    The scenario could arise prior to an election or in the event of a hung Parliament after one if the Opposition parties agree to enter into a coalition led by Mr Corbyn.

    The responses and lack of responses from Party leaders were disappointing.

    The Liberal Democrats, Change UK, the Democratic Unionist Party and Plaid Cymru did not respond to our letter at all.

    Although the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Jo Swinson, has repeatedly ruled out working with Mr Corbyn because of his views on Brexit and his handling of the antisemitism crisis, this position has been repeatedly weakened by the addendum that Mr Corbyn also could not command the requisite numbers in Parliament, which regrettably dilutes the principled anti-racism approach with political pragmatism, which is not reassuring.

    The Rt Hon. Ian Blackford MP provided the SNP’s detailed response, in which he wrote: “I want to make it clear that the SNP abhors antisemitism in the strongest possible way. We believe that the recent political events show that now more than ever politicians should be responsible with their actions and use language with care. The SNP is absolutely opposed to racism and antisemitism in all its forms.”

    However, the SNP did not rule out backing Mr Corbyn, albeit it noted our concerns: “Noting your concerns, I want to be clear that we do not have a preference for any particular individual and our support for any caretaker Prime Minister would only be for as long as is necessary to secure the extension, with an election held immediately afterwards. Our priority is to stop a No Deal Brexit…and remove the current government. The SNP would not offer support to any individual or party for any longer than is strictly necessary.”

    Mr Blackford ended by saying: “I want to ensure you [sic] that the SNP will continue to support and engage with [the] Jewish community in Scotland and the UK.”

    The Green Party’s response, from Caroline Lucas MP and the two leaders and deputy leader of the Green Party, was even more disappointing. The letter, which we appreciate receiving, began by reassuring us that “the Green Party deplores racism and antisemitism” and that “we very much agree with the importance of confronting antisemitism wherever it occurs, including in political parties, and reaffirm our commitment to standing up against racism. We would expect the leaders of all political parties to do the same and believe this is an issue above party politics.”

    Nevertheless, the letter went on to clarify that although “there is the very real possibility that Jeremy Corbyn would not command a majority in Parliament to lead a caretaker government [h]owever, it is only right that he is given the opportunity to try to form a short term government…as he is official leader of the biggest opposition party. We would therefore support him in this, and would also support attempts to unite behind a different caretaker Prime Minister, with the express and only purpose of securing either a People’s Vote or, if Parliament does not back a confirmatory referendum, an early General Election.”

    Joe Glasman, Head of Political and Government Investigations at Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: “It is clear that for some Parties, it is a question of politics and not principle as to whether or not an antisemite resides in Downing Street. The Greens and the SNP were at least honest with us about their intentions, whereas the Liberal Democrats and others chose to ignore our inconvenient question altogether. The darkest chapters in the history of antisemitism took place under antisemitic leaders — leaders who were supported not always because of what they stood for but just as often because bystanders had different priorities and were unwilling to put up a fight. Zero tolerance for racism means taking a principled stand and recognising that no political objective legitimises supporting a racist leader.”

    On 28th May, the Equality and Human Rights Commission launched a full statutory investigation following a formal referral and detailed legal representations from Campaign Against Antisemitism, which is the complainant.

    In recent months, thirteen MPs and three peers have resigned from the Labour Party over antisemitism, along with a large number of MEPs, councillors and members.

    Over 57,000 people have now signed our petition denouncing Jeremy Corbyn as an antisemite and declaring him “unfit to hold any public office.”

  4. It is often overlooked that Britain’s Liberal-Democratic party is every bit as anti-Israel and antisemitic as Labour, and has done even less to remove antisemitism from its ranks. The combined vote for Labour and LDP was nearly equal to the more-or-less nonantisemitic Tory and Brexit parties. And when you add the fervently antisemitic and anti-Israel Sinn Fein party in Northern Ireland to the vote count, antisemitic parties may well have received more votes than the nonantisemitic ones.

    Does anyone know what the position of the Scot Nats and Plaid Cymru is on Israel and Jews? If their positions are similar to Labour, then the antisemitic parties have an overwhelming majority in Britain as a whole.

  5. Everywhere in the world, leftist ideologs still idolize Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao in spite of their well known abuses!

  6. “Socialists, globalists, and Jew-haters were soundly rejected by British voters yesterday,”

    More correctly, the Brexit Party took away so many Labor voters, that the Conservatives managed a stunning win. In actual vote count, the Tories only got about as many votes as they usually get.

    The Brexiteers were not motivated by anti-Socialism, pro-Zionism, nor anything of the sort. They were motivated by wanting to get the Remainers out of Parliament and the UK out of the EU.

  7. Writing from Bury in Lancashire : Corbyn lost because the British being as nationalist as any wanted foreign policy Brexit above their usual home politics. Next time there will not be a Brexit diversion and all the egg for the foul ups, austerity and grinding the faces of the poor since 2010 will clearly be egg on Tory faces.
    Bury is the largest provincial Jewish community in Britain 20k and 10 k in South Manchester and the 2 Bury seats went Tory on 100 and 400 votes that could have been Jews NOT voting for Corbyn’s good friends.