The Blank Canvas

What does Jeremy Corbyn stand for; what informs his political and moral beliefs; where does he stand on the political spectrum and what is it about him that enthuses thousands of people to support him?

These are all questions that I suspect most people who follow politics could answer reasonably easily. He’s a socialist, for sure, and quite left wing and he’s offering a prospectus based on true Labour principles. Pushed a little further people will probably say he believes in human rights, a peaceful foreign policy, nationalised public services and above all he is anti-austerity. But is that enough to fully understand his appeal to many within the labour movement?

While it is demonstrably unquestionable that Corbyn is ‘of the left’ there is nothing that he has written or said that suggests he has a reasonable grasp of anything approaching a sophisticated view of what socialism is and what it might look like in practice in early 21st century Britain.

He has said he wants to see a society where “nobody is left behind” and the wealthy have obligations towards the poor. I think most people would sign up to those beliefs. In fact, a ‘one nation Conservative’ would not quibble with any of it. It doesn’t however reflect anything that is overtly socialist or particularly left-wing. Corbyn’s radical credentials appear to stem more from his associations — various hard left protest movements over the years — rather than any coherent intellectual base he has developed for himself. Testament to this is his ability to keep together a group of notoriously sectarian stands of the left in his leadership team. From Stalinists to Trotskyites, it appears his lack of ideological heft is the glue that keeps his team together.

So far so good, but it doesn’t get us any nearer to understanding Corbyn’s appeal to people who are not only self-declared left wingers, but also the many of the Labour leader’s supporters who would define themselves as nothing more than ordinary people who are dissatisfied with how society is run and would like to see more of an emphasis on social justice.

Jeremy Corbyn represents a blank canvas that both the far left (because of his previous left-wing associations more than particular ideology) and those interested in social justice can paint their hopes onto, because there is nothing in terms of the man’s political philosophy or his public profile that will resist their daubs onto the canvas.

What those opposed to Corbyn’s leadership from within the Labour Party seem to dismiss are the human factors that drive his appeal. His supporters view him as a kind and principled man who dares to look beyond the machinations of party politics and policy-making towards something more meaningful. He is a standard-bearer for those who are sick of the inequality that they believe is perpetuated by the media in the interests of the elites. They also welcome the fact that he’s not a smartly attired political salesman with a winning smile and a soundbite at the ready.

What is powerful about the blank canvas is that it means that people aren’t buying into the politician’s views and vision so much as projecting their own aspirations onto the person. Therefore, any attack on the man feels like it is a personal challenge. This in part explains why the mass rallies we see the Labour leader addressing are adorned with Corbyn paraphernalia, not Labour placards and leaflets. More established members of the party often feel frustrated at the inability of Corbyn supporters to concede even the most minor point made against the leader, but this is wrapped up in the personal connection the supporters feel they have with him.

Therefore, taking on Corbyn and his supporters in a seemingly rational debate about his policies and his competence will be frustrating for his opponents and ultimately pointless. Corbyn himself regards his politics as the politics of virtue and he is personally aggrieved when that virtue is questioned. He won’t apologise for antisemitism within the Labour Party because the suggestion he should is seen as a personal affront, rather than the first step in tackling the problem. In fact, the more he is attacked, the more his supporters feel it justifies their belief in him. We are left with two groups talking over the heads of each other, seemingly unable to agree on the terms of the debate, let alone resolve it.