Donal Blaney: Lessons for Britain from the American conservative movement

Taken from Donal's speech at the ConservativeHome Awards

Why is it that at the same time our conservative cousins have been so successful across the wider Anglosphere – most notably in the United States, Australia & Canada – the British Conservative Party has languished in the polls and lost three successive general elections. 

Even when the Republicans lose control of the House and Senate, the Democrats can only seize power by running conservative candidates who back gun ownership, oppose abortion and extol the virtues of lower taxes. 

Rather than focusing on the merits or otherwise of tax cuts, A-Lists, modernization and so on, I want to focus in these remarks on the lessons for British conservatives to learn particularly from the American Conservative Movement.

What is the American Conservative Movement? It is more than just the Republican Party. It comprises:

• think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute;
• generic pressure groups such as the Club for Growth, and members of the broader Christian Coalition;
• issue-based pressure groups such as the National Rifle Association and Americans for Tax Reform;
• activist training organizations such as the Leadership Institute and GOPAC;
• activist mobilization groups such as RightMarch.com;
• campaign service providers such as direct mail consultants, campaign management consultants, opposition research consultants and so on;
• conservative academics, lecturers and professors;
• bloggers and websites, perhaps personified by the Drudge Report;
• mainstream print and broadcast journalists such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter;
• publications such as Human Events and National Review;
• Fox News; and
• monitoring organizations such as Accuracy in Academia and Accuracy in Media.

Thinking through those various categories – components of a conservative revolution that saw Reagan’s victories in 1980 and 1984, the capture of Congress in 1994 and President Bush’s narrow victories in 2000 and 2004 – it is plain to see that we have little by way of comparison - yet. 

Our opponents on the left, of course, are well-resourced and better organized than those of us on the right. 

Yet rather than relying on the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats to advance their agenda, they pursue their self-styled progressive agenda in the media and among voters and opinion formers with discipline, vigour and an unrelenting resolve. 

That was no different to late-1960s/early 1970s America. The American Conservative Movement lay supposedly in ruins after the crushing defeat suffered by Barry Goldwater in 1964. 

And yet within a dozen years, the conservative Ronald Reagan came within a whisker of capturing the Republican Party’s nomination for President. How did this happen?

The key to the success of the American Conservative Movement – and despite last week’s results in the Congressional elections, the American Conservative Movement is still to be regarded as an ongoing success and a model to be followed – is a fusion between:

• organizational entrepreneurs,
• reliable and substantial income streams from benefactors and, crucially, individuals,
• a non-dictatorial central party machine that truly tolerates debate and divergence of views,
• a movement whose members co-operate with each other willingly and where petty jealousies are less prevalent than is the case in Britain, and
• the primacy of a principled core philosophy that underpins policy development, campaigning and – ultimately – legislative action.

So what are the specific lessons for British conservatives to learn from our American cousins?

• The successes of centre-right parties are not just a product of the Party machine – they rely on a thriving conservative movement that is independent of the party machine but broadly supportive of the Party itself;
• The arrogation of power to the centre is not desirable as it breeds suspicion and demotivates life-long activists: given that for over 100 years the Conservative Party was nothing more than a collection of 600 or so independent conservative associations, this should not be too hard a concept to be grasped;
• There are a host of areas where the Conservative Party will not – and indeed cannot – act. For example in the area of youth campaigning, the Party’s youth wing, Conservative Future, cannot in today’s media age be critical of the Party itself in the way that its predecessors, such as the FCS, could.
• Members of the broader conservative coalition should speak to floating voters who share their outlook – there is little point in having a libertarian canvass a traditionalist Christian and yet both strands of “conservatism” need to be mobilized to ensure victory at the polls;
• Donors, large and small, can get more bang for their buck by supporting groups within the broader conservative movement rather than by simply donating to the Party machine itself;
• On policy, the victories of our cousins in the US, Canada and Australia were built upon the foundations of a core small-state philosophy, standing up for the little guy who is continually being beaten on the head by a state and a bureaucracy that is controlled by the so-called progressive left and which is hell bent on advancing a politically correct agenda wholly at variance to the values and beliefs of most voters.

Britain mastered the concept of a think-tankocracy in the 1970s when the Centre for Policy Studies, IEA and Adam Smith Institute undertook the philosophical re-education of the political classes. In recent years new think-tanks, such as Reform, have developed. 

We have also seen issue-based groups such as the Taxpayers’ Alliance, Migration Watch and the Globalization Institute come to the fore, along with powerful and respected blogs such as ConservativeHome.com, Iain Dale’s Diary and the legendary Guido Fawkes. 

The birth of 18 Doughty Street gives conservative views a presence in the broadcast media while other doughty organizations continue to bang the conservative drum in the print media, foremost among which are the Telegraph, Mail and Spectator. 

And yet so much more needs to be done until we can sit back and enjoy power again. 

In commending the model of the American Conservative Movement as the basis for the recovery of the broader British Conservative Movement – and while recognizing the important differences between British and American conservatives and voters – I would like to finish by commending a list of 49 Laws of the Public Policy Process produced by Morton Blackwell, the President of the Leadership Institute – and the man who trained Karl Rove. 

If you take nothing else from these remarks and learn no other lesson from across the Pond, please take a time to read these 49 gems. They are rules and guidance that you will find invaluable and, if adhered to, I have little doubt that they will help bring you and the broader conservative movement the successes we all so desperately hope and pray for. 

I close with words of wisdom from Ronald Reagan – this is the sign he had on his desk in the Oval Office:

“There’s no limit to what can be achieved if you don’t care who takes the credit”. 

Comments

[Sarkis Zeronian]

"...the victories of our cousins in the US, Canada and Australia were built upon the foundations of a core small-state philosophy, standing up for the little guy who is continually being beaten on the head by a state and a bureaucracy that is controlled by the so-called progressive left..."

Quite right, Blaney, and that's why the American electorate recently dumped on the Republicans for rejecting that and going for big government. That rejection may, unfortunately, represent the final nail in the coffin of the American conservative coalition begun by Goldwater.

For an interesting take on this see Ryan Sager's "The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party" (http://www.rhsager.com/).

[The Orator]

Well said, Don. I gleaned two things from your piece. Firstly and most obviously,
Conservatives need an intellectual foundation and need to articulate that well. This intellectual foundation has been up to now an economic one, and it gains the support of the well-off and well-educated libertarians in the electorate.

Secondly, Conservatives need to recognise the power of social conservatism and the lobby groups (you mention the NRA, Christian Coalition etc) that represent it. In the UK it is perceived as tasteless to deal with people like this. DC does not lose his cool very often but happily flies into tirades against UKIP as closet racists.

Whilst economic and social conservatives may appear to be completely different bunches of people there is one thing that unites them: balls. Whilst I see this as a positive quality alot of well-off people consider touchy-feely morality to be the source of their superiority. They would like to vote for lower taxes but cant bring themselves to associate with hard-headed conservatives.

In order to combat this, we need an intellectual movement toward social, or cultural, conservatism. There's gotta be a better word for it but essentially there are really great arguments in favour of hard-headedness. Everybody benefits when the BS and sympathy trading abates (well maybe not everybody, but everybody who should benefit does).

I also agree that conservatives should donate to more than just the party machine. If someone wants to donate to me I'll happily start work on the intellectual foundation for cultural conservatism.

I'm not kidding. Click URL to get in touch ;)

[Richard]

I think what helps conservatism in America is that the country is several steps to the Right of us in general.

[Adam]

Interesting point about being a broad church and allowing dissenting opinion - that cuts both ways. Dissent can from the Centre part of Centre-Right as well as the Right part of Centre-Right.

[matt wright]

I think there are some very useful points here. Chiefly that it is no good just having a party machine, it has to be rooted in a philosophical base. Some practical understanding of what we are standing for has to filter down to ordinary people and inspire them. The media play a key role though and their perceptions affect how they present our messages. Going back to the issue of the party machine though, that also needs to be sharp and upto date. In many associations, a lot of average members are absolutely clueless about modern campaigns and sometimes hostile to doing things differently,

Matt

[Dave Bartlett]

"Donors, large and small, can get more bang for their buck by supporting groups within the broader conservative movement rather than by simply donating to the Party machine itself;"

Think tanks.

I've just read "The Retreat of Reason - political correctness and the corruption of public debate in modern Britain", published by Civitas (The Institute for the Study of Civil Society).

http://www.civitas.org.uk/

I'm not sure if Civitas is a conservative think tank or not, but their publication list looks on-topic to me.

subscription: £25
membership: £50

[SimonNewman]

"I've just read "The Retreat of Reason"

My copy arrived yesterday - it does look well worth every Conservative getting a copy.

[SimonNewman]

"Dissent can from the Centre part of Centre-Right as well as the Right part of Centre-Right."

Well, currently the party is led very much by the Centre, so one would expect most dissent to be from the Right. I disagree with Cameron that the Centre is always the best place to be; the centrist consensus often stifles necessary change. Thatcher's reforms were only achieved by taking a strong stance to the 'right' of current opinion in the country, and eventually taking the country with her.

[Peter Berrow]

I think what most people forget about in terms of the House result is that with 7 seats still to be decided the Republicans have held onto at least 20 of the 52 seats they gained in 94 which after 6 years in the white house is very good. Also they had virually no loses in the south as well.
With the above it was a defeat but nothing like our loss in 97?

[Daniel Hannan]

Donal is bang on. The Republicans were successful because they were part of a wider conservative movement. The GOP was surrounded by an aureole of allied associations: evangelical churches, home school associations, gun clubs, Right-wing radio stations etc. Plainly not all these bodies have British equivalents but, if the Tories here are to succeed, some of the intellectual heavy lifting has to be done for them by friendly outfits: the Taxpayers' Alliance, Open Europe, the Countryside Alliance etc. Donal's own organisation, the Young Britons Foundation, is a perfect example of the kind of thing we need.

Commentators often ask "Why can't the Tories get their message across on [delete as appropriate] tax cuts/immigration controls/school vouchers/health insurance/private pensions?" Answer: because voters are not much disposed to listen to any political party on these issues: they understandably believe that anything a politician says is self-interested. We are expecting too much of a political party if we ask it simultaneously to create a demand for something and to position itself as the beneficiary of that demand. Labour did not shift the debate away from the market in the 1990s. This was done on its behalf by Oxfam, Greenpeace, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Rowntree Trust, etc etc. We need our equivalents. Donal is providing one of them.

[PATRICK BLANEY]

The far-right movement in America can count among its latest "worst yet" achievements, to be the undermining of our constitution. According to Mr. Bush he can do anything he wishes with our freedoms.

As regards his appeal to the American people, there was no grand coalition. He simply lied and appealed to their fear.

The American People, in general, are good and honest. Mr.Bush's behavior was unexpected and beyond that thought possible by an american president.

They thought that Mr. Bush, as President, surely had the nations best interest at heart.

They forgave the ocassional lapse in judgment. They did not believe his policies were designed "only" for the rich and powerful. Surely he believed in the middle class.

He was, after all, one of them. Eveyone makes mistakes. They expected him to get it right in the end.

He never got it right. He never intended to get it right.