When you think about coronavirus, what is your thought process? Perhaps if you are a policymaker or a global business leader you think about the hit to economic growth. But otherwise the likelihood is that your thoughts are of the risk to you and your family, followed by concentric rings of friends, colleagues and so on. Do we have vulnerable relatives? How will we get to work? Will my job be safe? Should I stockpile?
For now, Boris Johnson’s government is being judged impressionistically on its handling of the crisis in the UK. Voters are giving him the benefit of the doubt. Brits can congratulate themselves on the measured intelligence of Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, and an evidence-based debate over whether to shut down parts of the economy.
But then the UK is still measuring the outbreak in the hundreds. Ultimately the response will be judged by the population’s direct experience. Were the desperately ill denied respirators or hospital beds? Did the National Health Service care for our mothers? Did shops run out of food? An NHS unable to cope will do Mr Johnson damage, hence the emphasis on slowing the spread.
There is nothing remarkable or wrong in this ingrained behaviour. But it should remind us that this is how most people view politics. The phrase “all politics is local”, most widely associated with Tip O Neill, former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, is perhaps the only real iron law of politics. At one level, MPs understand this well. They know how any issue plays in their seat. Take fuel duties. Globally, MPs see the need for green taxes; locally they know how many voters rely on cars.
Yet one reason for the rise of populist movements is that too many leaders forgot this law. In the UK, as too many of globalisation’s spoils stayed in the affluent south east of England, its cause was championed in abstract concepts, explaining the benefits of free trade or immigration to gross domestic product.
There is no benefit in a sharp-suited politician in London smugly telling voters Britain is booming if it does not feel that way to them; if their experience is cuts to public services and their children moving away to find a job. Economically the globalists had a strong case — good public services require a strong economy — but they convinced themselves they had won the argument in perpetuity and forgot the iron law.
Progressive leaders like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, and other so-called third way social democrats, had a rising economic tide lifting all boats to manage the tension between globalisation and communities. The 2008 financial crisis changed that. There are few better examples of globalist disconnect than George Osborne’s 2012 decision, while UK chancellor, to cut the top rate of income tax even as he was cutting welfare payments. He can argue that tax revenues rose but this misses the point. Before that decision he was claiming that, “We are all in this together”. Afterwards, voters knew that we weren’t.
The success of nationalist populism — from Mr Trump to Brexit — has been built on a keener appreciation of this iron law. The hard truth for liberal internationalists is that the right has understood this better. The new third way is less about the path between controlled and capitalist economics than the route between localism and globalism.
Mr Johnson’s Brexit advocacy makes him an unconvincing pilot for this course. But the prime minister understands the approach even if we doubt his commitment to it. His aim is to show people that their voices are being heard, that their schools and hospitals will improve. His demand for “levelling up” is a recognition of the need for more equitable redistribution of the rewards of an open economy.
If all politics is local then localism must inform all politics. (This is why Labour leadership contender Lisa Nandy is right to highlight better bus networks and why, in this crisis, ministers are right to pledge help for gig economy workers who need to self-isolate. We are demanding altruistic action from people who experience a weaker contract with society and to whom employers feel little duty).
One can be entirely cynical of Mr Johnson’s politics. He will struggle to square his global Britain rhetoric with his actions. His Brexit stance may cause more economic damage than can be rectified by local policies; his immigration policy may be too hard line for the needs of key sectors. But he and his allies have understood, faster than his rivals, that the iron law cannot be gainsaid and he is closer to a new third way than his enemies would like to admit.
Globalists may argue this crisis proves the need for international co-operation. But recent years suggest the case for open economies is going to have to be remade with an unswerving eye towards local benefits. Those who wish to beat Mr Johnson and his ilk must find a new way to frame their arguments, to demonstrate to all voters how lofty ideals will directly improve their own lives.
Coronavirus is a global phenomenon experienced locally. So again is politics.
Read more about the impact of coronavirus
Subscribers can use myFT to follow the latest ‘coronavirus’ coverage
