Marshall for The Hill: France’s Right and Left Wing Parties Are Surging. Can It Hold the Center?

French President Emmanuel Macron took power in 2017, the same year Donald Trump first moved into the White House courtesy of the Electoral College. Both were insurgents but stood on opposite sides of today’s new political barricades.
Macron upended his country’s established ruling parties, conjuring up an entirely new centrist bloc as a bulwark against Marine le Pen’s far-right National Rally. Trump took over the Republican Party, ousting traditional conservatives and turning it into a vehicle for a belligerent MAGA populism.
Both leaders are still in power, but their fates have diverged. Macron is mired in a crisis of collapsing governments and risks becoming a lame duck with two years yet to run in his second and final term. Meanwhile, the National Rally has become France’s most popular party, taking the pole position in the 2027 presidential sweepstakes.
President Trump, triumphantly reelected last year despite his farcical attempt to steal the 2020 election, is riding roughshod over his political opponents — and the rule of law — with the acquiescence of a do-nothing Republican Congress.
Keep reading in The Hill.

Marshall for LabourList: This Week Brought Good News for Democrats and Progressives in the UK and Worldwide

Demeaned and taunted by President Trump for nine dispiriting months, Democrats finally had a chance on Tuesday to respond with something more than theatrical gestures of resistance. Tapping a rich vein of anti-Trump sentiment, a party famished for wins racked up one after another in America’s odd-year elections.

Suddenly, Democrats seem politically relevant again. The victories, coming in mainly blue states and cities, don’t necessarily presage big gains in next year’s national midterm elections. For that, they’ll need to win on more competitive terrain. Nonetheless, Tuesday’s outcomes confirmed growing public dismay with Trump’s imperious rule, as well as Democrats’ ability to start reclaiming ground he seized in last year’s presidential contest.

This is good news for Labour activists in the UK and around the world, as it shows the fractures in the administration are beginning to take political effect.

Most consequential were the big Democratic victories in Virginia and New Jersey. Abigail Spanberger won the Virginia’s governor’s race by 15 points, leading a sweep of top state offices that flipped the state back into the blue column. Democrats also added seats in the state legislature, amassing their biggest majority since 1989.

Continue reading in LabourList.

Marshall for The Hill: Reindustrialization Is Just Central Planning, MAGA-Style

Why is President Trump so intent on inflicting his unpopular tariffs on the U.S. economy? How did America, always a trading nation bordering two oceans, suddenly become the free world’s glowering bastion of protectionism?

The president’s logic is often fuzzy, but for once he and his economic team have a clear answer: They’re on a mission to reindustrialize America. They call it “economic nationalism,” but it’s really just central planning, MAGA-style.

Trump believes free trade agreements and globalization eviscerated U.S. manufacturing, studding the landscape with shuttered factories — “tombstones” as he put it in his bleak 2017 inaugural address.

In fact, U.S. manufacturing output has grown substantially since 1980. What has declined is factory employment and manufacturing’s share of GDP. That tracks the trend of deindustrialization and rising demand for services in all advanced countries, regardless of trade policies.

Nonetheless, the president is ripping up trade agreements and taxing imports from friends and foes alike, in hopes of generating lots more factory jobs. But building walls around our economy won’t change the fact that automation has severed the old relationship between increased industrial production and blue-collar job growth.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Ainsley for The Liberal Patriot: Can Liberal Patriotism Save Britain From the National Populists?

Under pressure from the national populists and a restless party, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has come out fighting. His landmark speech to the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool last week gave his premiership more definition than ever before, firmly in the mold of the modern liberal patriot.

It is political definition that has never been more needed. On the eve of its annual conference, Labour had been rattled by authoritative constituency-level polling showing that its landslide victory just a year ago would be wiped out by right-wing challenger party Reform UK, taking two-thirds of Labour’s MPs with it. 267 Labour MPs, many newly elected, would lose their seats. The British Conservatives would win just 45 constituencies. Reform UK would eat up former Labour and Tory support with 306 gains, putting leader Nigel Farage on course to be the next Prime Minister.

Of course there is no general election imminent, with the next national vote expected in four years, but together with internal rumblings about Starmer’s leadership, it set the backdrop for a bumpy few days at the Labour annual conference after a bumpier first year since Labour returned to power after fourteen years in opposition.

Keep reading in The Liberal Patriot.

Marshall in CNN: How Today’s Democratic Soul-Searching Echoes the Clinton Era

Will Marshall, who has served as the Progressive Policy Institute’s president since its founding, says so many efforts are competing that none is likely to exert as much concentrated influence as the DLC did in its heyday. (The DLC itself officially closed its doors in 2011 but faded as a force in the party after Clinton left office 10 years earlier.) “If you wanted to show that you were a reform-minded Democrat, a modernizing Democrat, you joined up with the DLC and it was really the only enterprise dedicated to changing the party’s governing agenda,” Marshall said. “Now you have a slew of so-called centrist groups that are out there operating independently, and it’s all very disjointed.”

Marshall, like others I spoke with, sees another big obstacle for today’s efforts — these projects are primarily led by consultants and strategists. The DLC, he notes, was defined mostly by elected officials representing politically swing constituencies. That contrast, Marshall says, will make it harder to move these ideas into the party mainstream.

“We had a large cadre of credible Democratic figures-governors, senators, House members, state leaders-who embraced the mission of the new Democrats because they could feel the ground shaking under their feet,” Marshall said. Winning buy-in from large numbers of elected Democrats will be harder today, he says, “because the party is so shrunken, and the number of competitive seats is so shrunken, that the Democrats left standing are mostly safe.”

Keep reading in CNN.

Marshall for The Hill: Democrats Need Tough Liberals Like Bobby Kennedy

Bending laws and norms to the breaking point, President Trump is ordering political show trials of critics, stifling free speech, subjecting Spanish-speaking citizens to police state tactics and choking our economy with tariffs.

Trump’s MAGA followers greet his autocratic power grabs with vindictive glee — finally, we’re on top! Everyone else is asking: Where are the Democrats?

The party establishment seems adrift, unwilling to make a clean break with flawed policies like Bidenomics, climate alarmism and tolerance of illegal immigration and social disorder that have thoroughly alienated working class voters.

Democrats need a new breed of leader — liberals tough enough to challenge progressive orthodoxies and move the party back to the  political mainstream.

For inspiration, they could do worse than look back to Sen. Bobby Kennedy’s (D-N.Y.)1968 presidential campaign. Although tragically cut short by an assassin’s bullet, Kennedy’s run offers Democrats valuable clues for building a bigger, cross-class coalition.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Ainsley in BBC News: What lessons can Starmer learn from world leaders on fighting Reform?

Claire Ainsley, who was Sir Keir Starmer’s policy chief when he was in opposition, is now overseeing a project on centre-left renewal at the Progressive Policy Institute, and her advice is to grow the “seeds of doubt” about Reform in the electorate’s minds in the three years between now and the election.

She believes that while people are happy to cast a protest vote, they currently question whether Reform are really a government in waiting – so challenging them on whether their policies hold together, or whether their numbers add up, is a way of undermining their support.

But it does also mean doing more to tackle the core issue. She says the party leadership realised “the previous set of answers on immigration were not going to wash with the British public that want to see action”, and says she was encouraged by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s promise that “nothing is off the table” in tackling illegal migration.

But tackling Reform isn’t just about immigration. Ms Ainsley says it’s about people feeling worse off and not feeling they have got a fair deal on the economy, and a sense that other people are getting treated better than them.

Read more in BBC News.

Marshall for New York Daily News: How Citizens Can Fight MAGA Cancel Culture

The outbreak of political and corporate cowardice in America since Donald Trump’s return to the White House is reaching epic proportions.

ABC’s short-lived suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” is just the latest example. With some honorable exceptions — I never thought I’d be cheering for Harvard — almost every public or private entity seems to be caving in to Trump’s dictates.

The president is engaging in a kind of Godfather cosplay, turning the executive branch into a Mafia-style extortion racket. Nice little network you’ve got there; it’d be a shame if something bad were to happen to it.

His consiglieri in this case was FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who threatened to yank the broadcast licenses of ABC’s affiliates that carry the Kimmel show. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way” he warned them.

Carr knows better. In 2019 he declared: “The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the ‘public interest’ ” He was right then, and his willingness now to act as Trump’s censor is craven hypocrisy.

Keep reading in New York Daily News.

Marshall for The Hill: How Democrats Can Get Their Economic Mojo Back

President Trump’s political rise has been a stress test of American democracy — maybe the most serious we’ve faced since the Civil War. To prevent irreparable damage to our economy, our social cohesion, and the rule of law, our country needs a bigger, stronger Democratic Party.

Yet U.S. voters see the opposition party as weak and rudderless. Whether measured in terms of electoral competitiveness, public approval ratings or party registration, Democrats have hit a political nadir.

You don’t have to be a partisan Democrat to think that’s bad for the country — not just for the world’s oldest political party. Robust electoral competition is our best defense against populist demagogues who seek to monopolize political power.

But the party coalition has shrunk over the last decade as Democrats traded breadth of public support for youthful intensity and ideological zeal. By tailoring their governing agenda mainly to the specifications of liberal-left college grads, they have alienated voters without degrees and made themselves uncompetitive in a growing number of states.

How does a failing party turn itself around? By owning its mistakes and dramatically changing course.

Read more in The Hill.

Marshall, Ainsley in Politico EU: How Britain’s Labour Party is (quietly) keeping up with the Democrats

Claire Ainsley, a former aide to Starmer who is now the director of the PPI’s project on center-left renewal, said: “Looking at who’s going to be the next candidate is actually only one part of the equation. The other part of it is which faction, if you like, is going to get their candidate to emerge?”

With Bill Clinton in the 1990s, she argued, “you build the platform and the candidate emerges. It wasn’t as if Clinton came with all these ideas — you had to build a platform.” But this becomes a battle of competing ideologies too, with different think tanks lobbying for the kind of center left they want to see. […]

Likewise, Labour’s recent former General Secretary David Evans, now an adviser to PPI, has been to the U.S. with Ainsley to speak to Democratic strategists, including at a Denver summit in April. The pair are due to attend a similar behind-closed-doors “retreat” in Las Vegas on Sept. 13, where speakers will include Obama’s former chief of staff (and potential presidential hopeful) Rahm Emanuel.

The PPI has its eye on talented governors such as Whitmer, Colorado’s Jared Polis, Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro, Kentucky’s Andy Beshear, newcomers such as North Carolina’s Josh Stein and former governors such as Rhode Island’s Gina Raimondo, who also served in Joe Biden’s cabinet as a commerce secretary.

Shapiro and Whitmer in particular, argued PPI President Will Marshall, embody an “impatience with government bureausclerosis” — a battle occupying Labour in the U.K. Friendly think tanks like to hail Shapiro for fixing a key interstate in just 12 days after it collapsed.

In the U.K., PPI is interested in center-left ministers such as Lammy, Wes Streeting, Bridget Phillipson, John Healey, Ellie Reeves, Alison McGovern, Torsten Bell, Kirsty McNeill and Lucy Rigby, along with new junior ministers such as Kanishka Narayan and Mike Tapp.

Democratic former Congressman Tim Ryan — who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2020 as well as against the now-Vice President JD Vance in a 2022 Ohio Senate race — came to the U.K. in July, facilitated by the PPI, and held briefings with Labour MPs and peers. Ainsley and Deborah Mattinson, a pollster and former Starmer adviser who works with the PPI, presented research on swing voters who are becoming disillusioned with center-left parties.

Read more in Politico EU.

Marshall for The Hill: Trump is Sinking, but Democrats Aren’t Rising — Here’s Why

Like all good flimfam artists, President Trump is a master of misdirection.

As Americans grow increasingly skeptical of his inflationary tariffs, deficit-swelling tax cuts and senseless push to gut federal agencies and research, he floods the zone with a firehose of falsehoods to shift media and public attention elsewhere.

Take his grandstanding plan to dispatch U.S. troops to Chicago and other cities, as he’s already done to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. It’s a classic “wag the dog” ploy with a Trumpian twist: Instead of fabricating a foreign military crisis to divert voters from their domestic woes, he’s invading America’s blue metros.

Crime and public disorder, including sprawling homeless encampments, are serious problems. But a rational president would partner with local leaders to alleviate them instead of putting our cities under military occupation.

Trump’s grotesquely exaggerated claims of urban anarchy discredit America in the world’s eyes so he can score political points at home. Hard-core Republicans eat it up, but the rest of the country seems unswayed by the president’s gaslighting.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Marshall for The Hill: In a Liberal Society, Equity is a False Idol

Over the last two decades, progressive activists have introduced lots of sententious words and euphemisms into the U.S. political lexicon.

Examples include microaggression, intersectionality, cisgender, BIPOC, Latinx, “the unhoused” (that is, the homeless), returning citizens (ex-convicts) and “pregnant persons” (formerly “women”).

For those not up to speed on the latest academic conceits and ideological fads, including non-college voters streaming out of the Democratic Party, progressives might as well be speaking Esperanto.

They have also infused old words with new meanings. Take “equity.” Specifically, it means ownership in a house or stocks. But in its new meaning, it is used more generally as a synonym for fairness.

Now, it has become a pillar of DEI — the hallowed trinity of diversity, equity and inclusion that defines today’s “social justice” ethos. In this context, “equity” conveys a demand for something stronger than mere equality.

Read more in The Hill.

Marshall in The New York Times: The Seeds of Democratic Revival Have Already Been Sown

We encountered more emphasis from the left than the center on countering corporate power. Centrists, by contrast, emphasized reforming the government itself (…)

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a moderate think tank, put it this way: Democrats “need to get serious about reinventing government again. One big reason Bidenomics didn’t land with working families is that they don’t think the federal government works for their benefit or can deliver on its promises. By reflexively defending underperforming public institutions — from public schools to ossified federal agencies — Democrats only cement their identification with a broken status quo.”

Read the full article in The New York Times.

Ainsley for ABC Radio National Breakfast: UK’s Labour Party suspends four MPs in rising rebellion over welfare policy

As British Prime Minister tries to reassert control of his party room, four rebel Labour MPs have been suspended after voting against the government’s welfare reform bill earlier this month.

Keir Starmer has defended the decision, which follows an earlier back-flip on key welfare measures in the wake of ongoing pressure from Labour MPs.

Critics say the suspensions could deepen divisions in the party and spark further unrest on Labour’s left.

  • Guest: Claire Ainsley, Former Director of Policy to Keir Starmer, now Director of the Project on Center-Left Renewal at the Progressive Policy Institute

Listen to the full interview.

Build Back Belief: Why Voters Around the World Lost Faith in Government and How to Win it Back

INTRODUCTION: A BREAKDOWN IN TRUST 

Listening to swing voters in Pittsburgh, Brandenburg, and Accrington, we heard the same story over and over. Frustration, even anger, with the politicians they had elected to serve them.

A powerful sense of injustice fueled by the belief that government is no longer on the side of the people it has been elected to serve. Dismay that working people like them must work harder and harder just to get by, drained of hope and aspiration. Fearful for their children and grandchildren in an increasingly insecure world.

The change imperative could not have been more powerfully felt: change to break through the malaise with a different kind of politics led by politicians they can truly believe in. Perpetuating the status quo is no longer an option for many voters who feel ignored and disregarded as their futures ebb away.

When we looked at what has worked electorally for the center left – in the U.K. a year ago, in Australia, in pockets of the U.S. where some Democrats had outperformed the norm – we found common themes.

Successful candidates persuaded voters – against the odds – to believe in them: to believe that they would deliver for them, because they believed they could deliver for them (they were competent to do so) – and, even more importantly, to believe they wanted to deliver for them. Their conviction, sense of purpose and leadership shone through.

Conviction seems to be the deal breaker. Only by feeling the strength of political leaders’ own conviction was it possible to truly believe in them.

And only when voters believed in their political leaders was it possible to believe things could get better in their country, for their future, for their communities, for their families.

This pamphlet sets out to unpack the insight gained from hours of conversation with strategists and the crucial voters they set out to woo in the U.S., U.K., Australia and Germany – and to turn that insight into practical ways for progressives to remake the broken contract between government and the people, and start to win again.

READ THE FULL PUBLICATION.