On Johnson's Victory

We broke the deadlock, we ended the gridlock, we smashed the roadblock and in this glorious, glorious pre-breakfast moment, before a new dawn rises on a new day and a new government, I want first of all to pay tribute to good colleagues who lost their seats through no fault of their own in the election just gone by. And of course I want to congratulate absolutely everybody involved in securing the biggest Conservative majority since the 1980s. "Literally, literally - as I look around - literally before many of you were born....

[T]his election means that getting Brexit done is now the irrefutable, irresistible, unarguable decision of the British people. And with this election, I think we've put an end to all those miserable threats of a second referendum. I have a message to all those who voted for us yesterday, especially those who voted for us Conservatives, one-nation Conservatives for the first time. "You may only have lent us your vote and you may not think of yourself as a natural Tory. And as I think I said 11 years ago to the people of London when I was elected in what was thought of as a Labour city, your hand may have quivered over the ballot paper before you put your cross in the Conservative box and you may intend to return to Labour next time round. And if that is the case, I am humbled that you have put your trust in me, and that you have put your trust in us. And I, and we, will never take your support for granted.--Boris Johnson "Election victory speech"

Johnson's victory speech is extraordinary ungraceful and ungenerous toward Jeremy Corbyn: his only mention of his vanquished opponent, Jeremy Corbyn, is this remark, "You also voted to be Corbyn neutral by Christmas by the way and we'll do that too." Even President Trump, in a moment of humanity, managed to be a lot more generous to Hillary Clinton in his victory speech (against his audience's wishes). This cruel gesture does not bode well for the future of democratic norms in the United Kingdom under this man’s leadership.

Not unlike Trump, Johnson has been systematically underestimated by his opponents. But his willingness to drop his party’s Northern Irish allies ruthlessly in order to break the Brexit logjam and, thereby (recall), to retreat from more than a century of commitment to unity with northern Ireland, showed that he is willing to be a ruthless and opportunistic leader when he judges it in his interest. This signaled he was going to try to forge a new electoral alliance. He is lucky, too, because Jeremy Corbyn, who had the upper parliamentary hand, recklessly gave Johnson what he desperately needed– an early election – without getting anything meaningful in return.

Corbyn, who had showed impressive (and to my surprising) skill as a parliamentary tactician in opposition, misunderstood the nature of this election. This was always going to be a Brexit election. And while his desire to keep the traditional Labour coalition together a mixture of multicultural, cosmopolitan big city-folk and the more nationalist traditional (white) working class vote was understandable, it was a strategic mistake. Brexit is initiating, and itself an expression of, a realignment, as Stephen Davies and I have argued (recall). He never managed to unite the remain vote, and – given his clear ambivalence about Brexit – would never have done so. But without a reasonably unified remain vote, he could never hope to thwart a Johnson victory especially after Farage decided to capitulate.

Because Corbyn and his supporters believed that this was the best chance to reorient British political economy in a generation, they failed to pursue a parliamentary coalition to block Brexit when given the opportunity. The price for that was always clear: Corbyn had to step aside. Instead, he preferred the roll the dice in an election.*

And in that election he refused to defend unambiguously the open borders (supported by his own party membership) that are the most immediate way to help the poor and vulnerable everywhere. In so doing, Corbyn – and his lengthy constructive ambiguity about Brexit -- also retreated from the internationalism and solidarity that characterized the commitment to a pan-European project by European social democracy for several generations. In his unwillingness to defend the European dream of ever “closer union,” Corbyn both failed to mobilize his voting potential and, more amazingly yet, lost the moral high ground.  

If my post seems rancorous, I have to admit that I have been very disappointed in my well-meaning Labour leaning intellectual colleagues, who stuck with party come what may and never truly defended the principles of international solidarity and mostly hid behind obfuscation or tactful silence. (We liberals, even the most skeptical ones, have a shameful past, too, so I don't mean to suggest our silences are any more excusable!)

I have said nothing so far about Antisemitism. I truly and honestly deplore, what we may call, the weaponization of antisemitism (recall) (and indirectly here) by those who are callous about the rights and dignity of minorities, who deport people of color, and who promote detention centers to deter refugees and the despairing. I find the unprincipled alliance with Johnson’s Tories by my Zionist friends shortsighted and callous. (I have defended the legitimacy of Zionism, even in the context of its injustice.) Unlike other Zionists, I think Corbyn’s support for the Palestinian cause is nothing to be ashamed of. Humanity demands advocacy for the underdog and Israel is going to need genuine intermediaries to return from its present strategic cul-de-sac of open-ended low grade war. I never thought Corbyn has an unhealthy obsession with Jews (or even Zionism). But I have regretfully come to believe that he did have an insensitive attitude toward Zionism supporting Jews. (See, especially, the offensively tone-deaf remarks recorded and reported here.) On this point, too, Labour intellectuals did not cover themselves in glory.

In one sense the fate of Labour and its intellectuals is only of academic interest to me. But I also have come to believe that the renewal of a true liberalism, also requires the survival and so, thus, revival of social democracy. For liberalism needs rivals willing to advance liberal or parliamentary democracy. Johnson’s remarks reveal that he understands the slender basis of his current coalition. And his big-spending promises – “we will deliver a long-term NHS budget enshrined in law, 650 million pounds extra every week…record spending on schools…Colossal new investments in infrastructure, in science, using our incredible technological advantages to make this country the cleanest, greenest on earth with the most far-reaching environmental programme,” – suggests that the party of Thatcher has reinterpreted and stakes its future on its one nation roots in defense of a paternalistic hierarchy.

Together with Helen de Cruz (see here), I have treated Brexit as a political transformative expierience. I felt confident that it would accelerate a radical change in political landscape--one that would be hard to believe to people ahead of the vote. But it is increasingly becoming clear that since (as I wrote in my book) the “survival” of “liberal society cannot be presupposed even in its historical heartland.” The bravery of the people of Hong Kong reminds us daily that liberal ideas are still the natural refuge in the face of tyranny and repression of the police state. It is such moving images that inspire a modest hope that not all is lost.