By Robert Philpot
July 07, 2019
On June 9, 1983, buried in the news of the landslide
victory that returned Margaret Thatcher to 10 Downing Street for a second term,
Jeremy Corbyn was elected to Parliament. Outside the confines of the tight
circle of far-left activists with whom he had spent most of his adult life,
Corbyn was largely unknown and would remain so through most of the next three
decades until his shock election as leader of the Labour Party in September
2015.
Even so, on that June day, one Jewish member of the local
party in north London, which had chosen Corbyn as its candidate, had already
seen enough. Philip Kleinman, a columnist for the Jewish Chronicle, published an article in the Evening Standard saying that, thanks to Corbyn’s backing for
policies that would effectively mean the “destruction of Israel,” he would not
be voting Labour. Kleinman was expelled as a member by Labour. He wouldn’t be
the last Jew forced from the party due to Corbyn and his agenda.
Corbyn’s sudden rise to the leadership didn’t require him
to shed his anti-Zionist ideological clothes. He wore them proudly. More
remarkable still is the fact that in under four years, they’ve become the garb
of his party—a party British Jews once considered their natural home. Corbyn’s
leadership and the party’s transformation in his image has caused a mass exodus
of Jewish members and supporters from its ranks and has split the party
asunder.
Why should Americans pay attention? As Senator Bernie
Sanders releases videos labelling Gaza a prison camp and, together with some of
his fellow aspirants for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, shies
away from denouncing those in their ranks who propagate nakedly anti-Semitic
tropes, some in America have detected the creeping onset of Corbynism. They are
right to do so.
Now, there are huge cultural, historical, and
institutional differences between Labour and the Democrats—as, indeed, there
are between the British and American Jewish communities. But the example of
Labour’s descent into the sewer of anti-Semitism is nonetheless an instructive
and cautionary tale. It is a story of how seemingly marginal figures with views
and values far removed from the party’s mainstream were at first ignored, then
tolerated, and, finally, legitimized, with devastating consequences.
Corbyn’s anti-Zionist views and activities have defined
much of his political life. Throughout the 1980s, he was a supporter of the
Labour Movement Campaign for Palestine and regularly spoke at its events. The
group supported Israel’s replacement by a democratic, secular Palestinian state
and pledged to “eradicate Zionism” from the party. Reviewing Corbyn’s overall
record shortly before he became leader, the Jewish
Chronicle pointed to “overwhelming evidence of his association with,
support for…Holocaust deniers, terrorists, and some outright anti-Semites.”
Few mainstream Britons paid any attention to Corbyn, his
Marxist ideology, or activism. He rarely featured in the media (beyond the
pages of the pro-Communist Morning Star,
for which he wrote frequently), and, as David Kogan writes in Protest and Power, his newly published
account of the party’s recent history, he appeared to operate “not off the
radar but under the radar.” The truth, Kogan adds, is that during this period,
“no one in the leadership really cared what Jeremy Corbyn was doing.”
Corbyn was viewed as so marginal and semi-detached that,
when he publicly described Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends” in 2009, there was
little attention, let alone repercussions. It’s not as though Corbyn was doing
pernicious things in secret. Revelations of anti-Semitic connections and
virulently anti-Israel comments have dogged his leadership, but they stem from
articles he wrote, the many appearances he made on Iran’s Press TV, and his
speeches at demonstrations in the center of London. Even Corbyn’s sharpest
critics wouldn’t charge him with attempting to hide his views or tailor his
message to different audiences.
In 2017, a senior Labour Party official revealed that
Tony Blair—whose “New Labour” movement” dragged Labour to the center-left in
the early 1990s—had actually vetoed efforts by moderates in Corbyn’s
constituency to deselect him as their candidate during his premiership. Despite
the rebellious backbencher’s repeatedly voting against the government that
Blair led, the prime minister simply couldn’t conceive of Corbyn as any kind of
threat.
Corbyn might have remained the obscure figure on the
Labour backbenches he was for his first 32 years in Parliament were it not for
a major change in 2014 to the Labour Party’s rules for choosing its leader.
Ironically, given their ultimate outcome, these were driven through by the
party’s first Jewish leader, Ed Miliband. An adviser to, and later minister in,
the Blair-Brown governments, Miliband was elected as the party’s leader
following its ejection from office in 2010.
Indeed, many moderates supported Miliband’s introduction
of a form of primary in which members of the public could register as party
supporters and then vote in leadership elections. This was seen as a way to
balance the powerful role played by the increasingly left-leaning trade unions.
But Miliband’s plan went much further. Members of Parliament, who had
effectively acted as “superdelegates” able to cast one-third of the votes in
party-leadership elections, found their role virtually eliminated. This meant
that a crucial check on the left’s sway among the grassroots and trade unions
was lost. Although it was by no means clear at the time, the path to the
leadership for a hard-left candidate suddenly became much easier.
Like Sanders, the aging Corbyn was able to win the
backing of many young people. But behind this idealistic youthful cohort,
Corbyn was also mobilizing a powerful coalition of older, hard-left activists.
Many of them had previously had nothing to do with Labour—or had been expelled
from the party in the 1980s—and had instead been involved in tiny, highly
sectarian and factional Marxist and Trotskyite parties. Many others had also
been active in groups such as the anti-American Stop the War Coalition and the
Palestine Solidarity Campaign, in both of which Corbyn had long played a
leading part. Under Labour’s new rules, and without the veto of the
parliamentary party, this alliance swept Corbyn to an unexpected victory.
Together with some powerful trade-union muscle exerted on his behalf, it has
subsequently proved crucial in helping Corbyn weather the political storms that
he has endured over the past four years, not least a leadership challenge and a
vote of no confidence by fellow MPs.
But organizational changes weren’t the only helping hand
that Corbyn was to receive from Miliband. During the five years he led the
party, Miliband also laid the ideological groundwork for Corbyn. He signalled
the change in his first speech as party leader. “The era of New Labour has
passed,” Miliband boldly declared, before launching into a denunciation of the
Iraq war. That headline-grabbing pronouncement from the leader of the party
that had taken the country to war in 2003 was not the only sign that Miliband
intended to shift Labour to the left. Moments later, he abandoned the
pro-Israel line that had characterized the premiership of Blair and Brown, and
he shifted wholesale into the anti-Israel camp.
“The Gaza blockade must be lifted and we must strain
every sinew to work to make that happen,” he pronounced. Now, criticizing
aspects of Israeli policy in the manner Miliband did is not in itself
anti-Semitic. But in retrospect, this was the moment when Labour’s current
negative obsession with the Jewish state began. For in his 6,000-word speech,
Miliband did not address any other foreign-policy issue beyond Israel and the
war in Iraq.
Miliband’s regular attacks on much of the domestic and
foreign-policy record of the government of which he had been a member helped
give credence to Corbyn’s later rhetorical assault on the Blair years as a
triumph for neoliberal economics at home and American-led military adventurism
overseas. That assault opened the door to the new leadership’s own hard-left
alternative agenda and also cast those associated with the former government as
complicit in this apparently shocking enterprise.
During the 2014 Gaza war, which was begun by Hamas with
rocket attacks on civilian targets, the party strenuously attacked the “killing
of hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians,” which Miliband deemed
“unacceptable and unjustifiable.” Anti-Semitic attacks in the UK doubled in the
wake of the conflict. And the Labour leadership maintained a studied silence
about that for four months. In a further harbinger of the future, Labour then opted
to doubledown on its strategy. While anger at its actions simmered among many
Jews, the party announced that it would support unilateral recognition of a
Palestinian state, backing a motion proposed by a virulent critic of Israel
who, just weeks before, had compared the Israel Defense Forces to the Islamic
State.
Labour’s anti-Blair lurch to the left set the ideological
stage for Corbyn, just as its misconceived populist plan to expand the
leadership vote set the political stage for him. When the party elected a new
leader in September 2015, Corbyn won nearly 60 percent of the 422,000 votes
cast. (Under the old rules, Miliband narrowly beat his brother, David, by 1.4
percent of the overall vote; indeed, David, who was closely associated with
Blair, won the votes of 54 percent of the roughly 127,000 members who cast
ballots, but that lead was overhauled by union voters.)
Corbyn terrifies Labour members of Parliament, but
there’s little they can do about him; he is now in complete control of the
levers of party power outside the House of Commons. He has a majority on
Labour’s governing body, the National Executive Committee, which plays a key
role in setting and interpreting the party’s rules, as well at times in the
selection of parliamentary candidates. He has purged Labour’s London
headquarters of veteran staff whose loyalty to the new leadership was suspect.
His allies control key trade unions that, thanks to their financial
contributions and their power within the party’s internal structures, wield huge
influence. Finally, and crucially, Corbyn continues to enjoy wide support among
the party’s grassroots membership, much of which has joined since his election.
Labour’s unexpectedly strong showing in the 2017 general
election pretty much silenced the MPs who would prefer anyone else to be party
leader. Secure in his position, Corbyn evinces a haughty disdain for most of
his fellow elected members, regularly steering clear of their weekly meetings
and refusing to answer their questions when he deigns to make an appearance
before them.
The “Corbynization” of the party is evident in the manner
in which the boundaries of debate within the party, and its agenda for office,
have been redefined. Nationalization and higher taxes—taboo during the years in
which Blair governed, followed briefly by his frenemy Gordon Brown—are back on
the table. Union demands are invariably accepted. On foreign policy, the deep
unpopularity of Donald Trump among the British public has provided cover for a
break from the Atlanticism of Blair and Brown. The actions of Russia, Iran,
Cuba, or Venezuela are far less likely to be the object of Labour’s frequent
outbursts of righteous anger than those of the United States. This was most
evident when Corbyn repeatedly refused to condemn Russia following the March
2018 chemical attack by two Russian intelligence officers on a former double
agent in the city of Salisbury in southwest England.
No such reticence or call for dialogue—a favorite Corbyn
demand—is forthcoming when it comes to the actions of the Middle East’s sole
democracy. After the violence on the Gaza border in May 2018, for instance, the
party condemned Israel’s “brutal, lethal, and utterly unjustified actions” and
accused it of an “apparently systemic and deliberate policy of killing and
maiming.” It also blithely endorsed “the right to return to their homes” of the
“peaceful protesters” attempting to cross the border from Gaza into Israel.
Even rote condemnations of Hamas are now routinely absent from Labour’s
statements about Gaza. Compare that with the nuance the party leadership
displays when discussing Syria. In October 2016, as public concern about the
plight of civilians in Syria mounted, a spokesperson for Corbyn declared: “The
focus on Russian atrocities or Syrian army atrocities … sometimes diverts
attention from other atrocities that are taking place.” Unsurprisingly, when
Hamas recently thanked Corbyn for “showing solidarity with the Palestinian
people,” the party did nothing to repudiate this endorsement or distance itself
from it.
On these matters, it appears the Labour leadership is in
step with its base. Polling released last year at the height of the row over
anti-Semitism in the party showed that nearly 80 percent of Labour members
believe that accusations of Jew-hate were being exaggerated to damage Corbyn
and stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. A similar figure approved of the
Labour leader’s job performance, with 61 percent saying he was handling the
anti-Semitism crisis well. Polling also revealed the extent of opposition to
Israel among Labour’s grassroots. Nearly two-thirds of members said they
believe the Jewish state to be “a force for bad” in the world—six points higher
than the 59 percent who thought the same of Iran.
So how has Corbyn achieved Labour’s transformation from
the moderate, social-democratic party of Blair and Brown into a bastion of the
hard left?
First, Corbyn has out-organized his opponents. Shortly
after his leadership victory, Jon Lansman, a veteran Jewish hard-left organizer
who had run the Corbyn campaign, formed Momentum. Boasting a network of more
than 40,000 members and 200,000 supporters in local groups across the country,
this parallel pseudo-party acts as the Labour leader’s praetorian guard.
When Labour MPs attempted to oust their leader in the
summer of 2016, Momentum mobilized its grassroots activists to ensure his
reelection. Social-media savvy, it also played a prominent role in boosting
Labour’s fortunes in the 2017 election (thus, once again, helping to save
Corbyn’s job). Momentum perfectly captures the blend of politics that has
helped entrench Corbynism in the party. On the one hand, it is a campaigning
group with a youthful image pushing a radical agenda. Billing itself as a
social movement, it is currently calling for Labour to adopt a raft of
“transformational” policies in its next manifesto, including a “green New
Deal,” the abolition of migrant detention centers, and the introduction of a
four-day week. Momentum’s activities have been inspired by Sanders’s 2016
campaign, and it has close links with senior figures involved in it, as well as
ties to Democratic Socialists of America.
On the other hand, Momentum also has the mindset and
ruthlessness of the old hard left, focusing heavily on changing the party’s
rules to make it easier for pro-Corbyn members to oust incumbent moderate
Labour MPs. It is also thinking ahead: Last year it secured changes that will
make it easier for a hard-left candidate to stand in any future leadership
contest. And Momentum isn’t afraid to let its activists loose on Labour MPs who
it believes aren’t toeing the Corbyn line; in 2015, for instance, it urged them
to lobby those parliamentarians who were thinking of backing the Cameron’s
government’s support for the U.S.-led operation against the Islamic State in
Syria.
The Corbynites have been boosted by, and in turn helped
fuel, the growth and popularity of a raft of digital platforms that constitute
an informal network designed to counter the influence of the “old media
system,” with its alleged right-wing bias. These include Novara Media—sometimes
dubbed Momentum’s “armed police”—and The Canary. This “alternative” media
allows Corbyn to bypass the hated Fleet Street press and BBC and communicate
directly with his supporters. It has also enabled the Labour leadership to
amplify the voices of fringe groups helpful to its cause. Throughout the
anti-Semitism debate, for instance, Corbyn has leaned heavily on the backing of
Jewish Voice for Labour. A small group of largely anti-Zionist Jews,
unrepresentative of the Jewish community and hostile to Labour’s official
Jewish affiliate, the Jewish Labour Movement, JVL has defended Corbyn
relentlessly and attacked his opponents.
Corbyn has also benefited from the mistakes of his
internal critics. Their most fundamental error was to define their opposition
to him primarily in terms of his supposed lack of electability. This made them
seem both unprincipled and calculating. More important, the strategy was seen
to be undermined when, against all expectations, Labour managed to fight the
Tories to a virtual draw in 2017.
Finally, Corbyn’s own political and personal attributes
must be acknowledged. He has formed, in terms of British politics, a perhaps
unique bond with his supporters (cult-like, charge his critics). He has shown a
dogged self-belief, and he is driven by an ideological zeal that is often
wrongly compared to Thatcher’s (in office, she was much more cautious and
pragmatic). When he overwhelmingly lost a vote of no confidence by his MPs in
June 2016, he didn’t blink but took up the gauntlet they had thrown down and
won a second leadership election with an enhanced majority.
Even in the face of huge political controversy, he often
stubbornly refuses to cave in. Last summer, following weeks of negative headlines
about anti-Semitism, Corbyn resisted Labour’s adopting in full the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism.
Instead, he pressed for an amendment saying that it should not be considered
anti-Semitic to describe Israel, its policies, and the circumstances of its
foundation as racist. Backed by his social-media cheerleaders, such tactics
have helped to shift Labour toward more radical positions. Unlike many
political leaders, Corbyn thus serves as his own ideological outrider.
The impact of this is evident in the manner in which—even
among the small number of Labour MPs who are still willing to speak out against
anti-Semitism in its ranks—there is a wariness about addressing questions
around anti-Zionism, despite the fact that, on the hard left, the two are
inextricably linked.
Wresting Labour back from the grip of the hard left may
now be impossible or, at least, a task that will take years to accomplish. The
Democrats, however, still have an opportunity to learn from it.
First, ignoring or appeasing the views of those who
appear to be fringe figures is a dangerous risk. In uncertain political times,
and with the opportunities provided by the “alternative” media, marginal
individuals can—if they go unchallenged—take their ideas mainstream with
far-reaching consequences.
Second, disregarding the hard, unglamorous and largely
thankless task of political organizing comes at a huge cost, as Labour
moderates have discovered. The hard left’s relentless focus on connecting and
mobilizing their supporters appeared as eccentric as their views during the
Blair years. And yet, within five years of Labour’s losing office, that focus
played a critical part in Corbyn’s election. At the same time, organization
alone is not enough. The lack, among Labour moderates, of an appealing message,
their overly technocratic language, and their perceived caution and dearth of
ambition and passion helped turn a sexagenarian leftist with an agenda rooted
in the 1970s into the hero of young idealists.
Third, any critique of the far left or objections to it
should be rooted in values and principles and should not be focused solely on
electability. Such a critique can, as happened to Corbyn’s critics after 2017,
fall apart all too quickly.
Labour has lost, and seems not to care that it has, most
of its traditional Jewish supporters. In the 2017 election, 69 percent of
Britain’s Jews voted for the Conservative Party—a stunning number, considering
that Labour was the same kind of home for Jews that the Democratic Party has
been in the United States. The open anti-Semitism of so many
Corbynites—paralleled this year by the noxious words of superstar freshman
Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar—have compelled many left-wing Jews
(and non-Jews) to abandon their long-time political home. And they have led
many others to fear the consequences of it coming to power. The Democrats may
be far from that stage, but they stand at a crossroads if they do not act to
end the onward march of American Corbynization.
No comments:
Post a Comment