Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

Jump to main navigationJump to main content


Entry archive:

British Conservative Leader David Cameron delivers his election manifesto to an audience in Prestatyn, Wales, on April 16, 2010. (OLI SCARFF)
British Conservative Leader David Cameron delivers his election manifesto to an audience in Prestatyn, Wales, on April 16, 2010. (OLI SCARFF)

Andrew Steele

Running in reverse Add to ...

The Conservatives are the bookmakers favourites to win the current election in Britain, held back from near certain victory by two fundamental challenges.

The first is the background, style and manner of their Eton and Oxford educated leader, David Cameron, fifth cousin of the Queen and a bit too "posh" to gel with the mass electorate in class conscious Britain. Cameron is seen as too slick and polished to be trusted in Britain, where three terms of Tony Blair left portions of the electorate thirsting for authenticity.

The second is the chasm between the ideological right-wing of the British Tories, nurtured on the heady brew of Margaret Thatcher, and the pragmatic, compassionate and skeptical tradition of British Conservatives back to Peel, Disraeli and Derby.

While the first challenge is innate and can't be easily changed, the management of their own coalition is well within their power.

The normal way to undertake this type of play is a two-stage strategy. In the first stage, one wins over the hearts and minds of the party core with lustful praise for critical touchstone policies. Once the base is secured, it is followed by a scamper to the centre to win over the swing voters.

This is the tactic American politicians use constantly: play to the extremists early and then shift to the centre to win the general election.

The upset win by Ronald Reagan in 1980 is a great example of starting hard-right and moving to the centre.

Ronald Reagan began his campaign outside Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in the 1960's, with a speech emphasizing "state's rights," a watchword for segregationists since before the Civil War. Incumbent President Jimmy Carter had brought the Solid South back to the Democrats in 1976 after Nixon's success in 1972, and Reagan needed Southern conservatives to vote Republican again.

The move seemed to reinforce Reagan's image as a hard-right extremist, a big challenge for the Republican with the Northern Catholic voters he would need to win key swing states.

But by the closing days of the election, Reagan had shifted away from earlier extremist policies and was emphasizing his sunny outlook, shrugging off claims of extremism with "there you go again." Reagan's closing argument was on pocketbook issues for swing voters, asking in the debates "are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Having made his play to Southern extremists early, the Republican challenger was free to focus on the middle in the late going.

Polling showed a surge to Reagan after the final debates, turning a tight race into a landslide. The surge was not caused by his early dog-whistling to segregationists in Dixie. It was a move based on his appeal to moderates over economic issues, and his personality inspiring those moderate to hope that Reagan would bring about positive change.

George W. Bush's 2004 election victory was another excellent example of building up and consolidating a massive core on the right, then playing to the centre in the general election.

Following the 2000 nailbiter election, Bush strategist Karl Rove was obsessed with improving turnout among Christians. There had been an increase in polarization of evangelical Christians toward the Republicans back to the 1980 election victory of Ronald Regan, but in 2000, turnout among Christians was down. Rove concluded that four million Christians had stayed home on Election Day who would have voted for Bush, and that getting these voters to the polls would be the critical mission for 2004.

Through conscious effort, the Bush Administration courted evangelical Christian voters while in office. The language of major speeches was pepped with subtle Evangelical allusion and language. For instance, the 2003 State of the Union includes a lovely passage about the 'wonder-working' power of America, a deft allusion to a popular Evangelical hymn, and directly addressed the nature of Providence and the power of God.

On policy, both abortion and gay rights issues were used as straw men to rev up Christian turnout. In particular, ballot initiatives or referenda were used to pull Evangelical voters to the polls, where they would then cast a ballot for political offices as well.

In a state like Ohio, won by Bush by only 2 per cent of the vote, the extra turnout pulled by that ballot initiative deserves some of the credit for Bush's victory in 2004. Without Ohio, Bush would have lost, and without the ballot initiative, he might have lost the state.

During the general election, however, Bush was not running on abortion or gay rights.

The Republicans had moved to an issue suite that was in keeping with the moderate voters they needed to win in key battleground states. Gay rights and abortion wouldn't get moderates to vote Republican, because it wasn't the issues that motivated them. They wanted to hear about security issues in the first Presidential election after 9/11. The Bush campaign portrayed John Kerry as a "flip-flopper" who was uncertain on defense issues, a play to "security moms," the swing vote in the election.

Report Typo/Error
Single page

Next story




Most popular videos »

More from The Globe and Mail

Most popular