To bastardise Dickens: let me tell you a tale of two progressive parties. One is experiencing the best of times (for now), the other the worst of times (well, not quite — it has suffered some doozies — but it certainly isn’t having much fun). One is heralding an age of wisdom, the other an age of foolishness. I could palaver on about belief and incredulity, lightness and darkness, but you get the picture.
The former is the US Democrats, who are riding high after Kamala Harris subbed in for Joe Biden as the party’s presidential candidate. One mustn’t get ahead of oneself, of course — Donald Trump could still win the presidency in November. But Harris has closed the previously yawning polling gap and her joyous campaign is both energising the party’s base and persuading gettable swing voters.
The latter is the Australian Labor Party, whose nascent reelection campaign could hardly be less joyous.
Despite the benefits of having one continuous, non-ancient leader for the past five years, and governing in a far less sclerotic and log-jammed political system, Labor under Albanese has led an unambitious and uncertain government that has whittled away such advantages.
The Australian Financial Review reported on Sunday that, for the second month in a row, the Coalition leads Labor 51-49% in the two-party-preferred rating. If an election were held now, Labor would likely still command more seats than the Coalition, but it would form a minority government.
Clearly entering pre-election mode, Labor has tried in recent weeks to neutralise supposed threats. It watered down its supposed restrictions on gambling advertising, for fear of getting the powerful industry and its beneficiaries — the corporate media — offside. Albanese also formally walked away from his shelved religious discrimination bill, which, among other provisions, would have limited the ability of religious organisations to discriminate against LGBTIQA+ staff.
His recent cabinet reshuffle also threw ministers targeted by media hysteria under the bus, and moved the government’s only effective reformer, Tony Burke, away from his impactful work on industrial relations to tamp down on controversies in Home Affairs.
This defensive crouch is perhaps the zenith of Albanese’s first-term strategy: be a “small target”. Much as he campaigned from opposition, he has continued managing expectations in government, eschewing bold schemes or nation-shaping reforms in favour of tinkering and projecting dour practicality. He has tried to, in the John Howard tradition, take politics off the front pages.
In small doses, such an approach might represent shrewd pragmatism. But as a defining ethos, or a calcified reflex, it willfully leaves a void rather than substance. Albanese now has relatively few memorable achievements upon which to campaign, because he baulked at most opportunities to implement any. If he were set for a landslide, that might be forgivable for now. But he is drifting towards being a forgettable prime minister with unremarkable longevity and diminishing political power — a remarkable failure on even his own terms.
Here, the contrast with the Democrats is instructive — particularly Harris’ new running mate, Tim Walz. On one level, Walz is an unremarkable choice for a Black presidential candidate: white, old but not too old, midwestern, a veteran, and a former teacher and football coach exuding daggy dad energy. Hand the man a hot dog and send him to a county fair in every swing district.
But he also articulated a distinct electoral strategy for progressives, which reportedly impressed Harris’ team — the polar opposite of Albanese’s approach.
Journalist Ezra Klein summarised that approach in a conversation with Walz, saying, “You don’t win elections to bank political capital; you win elections to burn the capital to improve lives.”
Walz replied:
I think too often we get into this… there’s a cautiousness around ‘I got elected, if I get a little too aggressive on certain things, it’ll make it more difficult to get reelected’. Whether it was school lunches or paid family medical leave, you’re there now. Why don’t you get that done? … I think that attitude inspires people to get going to find solutions and to move.
And boy has Walz moved. His achievements in only a few months of legislative majority in Minnesota put Labor’s first term to shame. Achieving a slim majority in both houses, Walz’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party rammed through paid leave, banning non-compete agreements, cannabis legalisation, tax changes, abortion rights, universal free school meals and universal gun background checks in just five months. The Minnesota Star Tribune called this legislative session “one of the most consequential” ever in Minnesotan history.
Outlining her economic platform on Friday, Kamala seemed to have taken inspiration from Walz’s maximalist agenda, and that of President Biden, who similarly coalesced the Democrats around mammoth social and economic investments. Harris announced plans for child tax credits of up to US$6,000 for middle-class and lower-income families, extending Obamacare subsidies that are set to expire, capping the cost of insulin, improving planning rules to facilitate building more homes, and much more.
The family-friendly emphasis is straight from the playbook of Walz, who has sought to tout Minnesota as the “best place in America to raise a family”. Crucially, this undermines the supposed pro-family politics of Trump’s running mate JD Vance, who is more focused on penalising and demonising non-parents and LGBTIQA+ kids than financially supporting parents and their offspring.
Albanese has toyed with a more robust, pro-family offering at times, such as with his childcare subsidies. But from delaying superannuation on parental leave payments, to means testing miserly student payments, to capitulating when it comes to protecting kids from gambling harms (kids don’t just watch children’s programming), any real advantage here has been largely vacated and a credible narrative missed.
“Make Australia the best country in the world to raise a child.” I could think of worse slogans to run on. Albanese would be better off trying something like it than dying wondering.
What lessons can the Labor Party learn from Walz and the Democrats? Which policies should Albanese emulate — and which should he ignore? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
