The British Labour Party is going through an internal debate process right now that seems de rigeur after an electoral thrashing. Long-time party members are saying the party must move to the centre, or to the left, or reach out to business more, or be tougher on business, or improve its broadcast communications and stop worrying so much about retail politics, or improve its retail politics and stop worrying so much about broadcast communications etc. Every proposed course is contested by another party faction, and a long period of internecine conflict and introspection has begun.

There is nothing particularly British or leftist about such post-defeat omphaloskepsis. The US Republican Party went through the same ritual after Mitt Romney’s 2012 defeat. I appreciate the natural impulse to analyze (gripe about?) an unpleasant experience, but that shouldn’t stop political actors for facing a fundamental point of logic:

When the public turns against your party, the people you need to listen to are the ones who DIDN’T vote for you. If your party were in touch with the electorate and could figure out on its own a winning formula, you would have, well, won. The pathway to more support from the electorate by definition lies beyond the usual voices and outside the people who supported you in the recent election. It might therefore be more profitable for losing parties to talk much less about themselves and listen much more to what those who rejected them are saying.

[Cross-posted at The Reality-Based Community]

Our ideas can save democracy... But we need your help! Donate Now!

Keith Humphreys is a Professor of Psychiatry at Stanford University and served as Senior Policy Advisor in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Obama Administration. @KeithNHumphreys