The dark knight and the puppet master
The British left's struggle between populism and pluralism.
A review of The Dark Knight and the Puppet Master by Chris Clarke (2020)
December 11th 2019 was my 20th birthday, and I spent that night in my university’s nightclub—after a few too many drinks—attempting to convince as many of my fellow students as I could to vote for Labour and Jeremy Corbyn.
Almost 24 hours later, after casting my vote for Labour by proxy, the exit poll dropped. Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party had won by a landslide, in the process tearing down the so-called Red Wall of constituencies in the Midlands and the North that were historically loyal Labour voters. I, like most of my student cohort, were appalled—how could we have got this so wrong?
I was by no means a Corbynite; whilst his domestic reforms sounded appealing (particularly to a student worried about their debt), his stance on foreign policy always concerned me and I still look back and cringe at the fact I voted for a man who called Hamas his “friends” and, if he were in power today, would have abandoned Ukraine to Russian imperialism. My vote in 2019 was more one against the Tories, rather than an endorsement of Corbyn himself.
What should have been a moment of reflection for many of us on the left—a chance to understand exactly why so many in Britain felt compelled to hold their noses and vote Conservative for the very first time—was instead followed by more of the same patronising rhetoric from Corbynites, who claimed that they had in fact “won the argument”, and that a majority of Britons were a bunch of racist bigots who don’t know what’s good for them.
I saw that most clearly in the former industrial areas of England and Wales where the wilful destruction of jobs and communities over 40 years has taken a heavy toll. It is no wonder that these areas provided the strongest backlash in the 2016 referendum and, regrettably for Labour, in the general election.
I am proud that on austerity, on corporate power, on inequality and on the climate emergency we have won the arguments and rewritten the terms of political debate. But I regret that we did not succeed in converting that into a parliamentary majority for change. There is no doubt that our policies are popular, from public ownership of rail and key utilities to a massive house-building programme and a pay rise for millions. The question is, how can we succeed in future where we didn’t this time?
In 2019 many assumed that the total collapse of the Labour Party had just handed Boris Johnson a decade in power—riding a wave of populist enthusiasm to “Get Brexit Done”. Of course, we all know how that played out in the years since. We now stand on the cusp of an unprecedented turnaround, with the Tories having nothing to show for their 14 years in power, other than (mis)managed decline in every aspect, and Labour about to return to power with a majority projected to be as large as, if not greater than, that of 1997.
Populism has not just plagued the right in Britain; it was also at the core of the Corbyn project that has since been ejected from the Labour Party—often inelegantly—under Keir Starmer’s leadership. Fragments remain within the PLP, however, the exodus of Corbynites post-2019 to the Greens (as I have covered previously) and independents has contributed significantly to the evolution of the Labour brand during this parliamentary cycle—making the party electable to the masses once again.
Most of this change is welcome to people like me on the centre-left. This will not be a hagiography of Keir Starmer—there are many legitimate criticisms of his leadership, not least the broken promises that got him elected in the first place, however, I reject the arguments that “any other leader” would be in the same place as we find ourselves today.
Labour’s manifesto is comfortably to the left of any other that has won a general election in my lifetime—despite the ridiculous criticisms of Labour now being a “right-wing” party—and to implement change you need to start by winning an election; in order to win, your candidate to run the country must be credible and someone the electorate can trust.
Corbyn’s leadership was disastrous for the Labour movement. His response to the Salisbury attack, his comradeship with terrorists and despots, and the legacy of antisemitism—his denial of which ultimately led to his suspension from the party—alienated him from the majority of voters. Now standing as an independent in Islington North (a seat to keep an eye on through election night), his legacy as a Labour MP can be summed up by the prominence that his role in saving the Number 4 bus route plays in his campaign literature.
I am sick of the people who still cling on to Corbyn as some kind of socialist messiah. He was rejected by the British public, and his relevance is now propped up by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, where he has chosen to align himself with individuals of questionable character: his independent campaign, for example, has been endorsed by Mohammed Kozbar, who has praised Hamas as “martyrs of the resistance”.
I am sick of the disdain for the working class—who “got it wrong” in 2016 and 2019—and how some upper-middle-class student, who’s never worked or gone without for a day in their life, somehow knows better than them.
I am sick of the puritanical infighting, where you may agree with someone on 99 percent of issues, but one disagreement casts you as a “fascist”, or worse, a Tory.
I am sick of seeing leftists make comparisons between Labour and the BNP, simply due to the use of the Union Flag on their campaign materials—heaven forbid the party that wishes to govern the country would wish to make use of the flag of said country!
And I am sick of the people who reject pluralism, in favour of a left-populism that purports to be holier-than-thou, and seemingly would enjoy another five years of Conservative rule (that will inevitably slide the country further to the right, inviting Nigel Farage into the fold) if it meant that they were “proved right” in the end.
This is where the arguments of Chris Clarke come in. His book, The Dark Knight and the Puppet Master, in my opinion, perfectly encapsulates my feelings regarding the abject failures of the left in recent years—due to its embrace of populism—and how Keir Starmer’s rejection of this has transformed the Labour Party for the good.
The populist narrative
Like myself, Clarke despairs at Labour’s lurch towards populism under Corbyn, following its collapse into infighting in the aftermath of the 2015 general election. Clarke attributes this shift to a growing appetite for catastrophe, a proclivity for identifying and vilifying culprits, and an alarming drift towards conspiracism. He identifies three core belief systems that sustain populist movements: the belief in a common enemy, an anti-establishment stance, and a sense of national decline.
The first belief system, the notion of a common enemy, is central to the populist narrative. Populists thrive on an "us versus them" mentality, creating a malign foe that the movement can rally against. This enemy can take various forms, such as the "elite," immigrants, or other marginalised groups, depending on the populist group’s political orientation.
The second pillar is anti-establishmentism, where populists argue that omnipotent and self-serving elites are obstructing the “will of the people”. This narrative suggests that these so-called elites are out of touch and act in their own interests—rather than those of the broader population. By positioning themselves as the voice of the people, populists claim a moral high ground against the supposed corruption and inefficiency inherent to the establishment.
The third belief system is a sense of decline, often articulated through opposition to the increasing interdependence between nations. This creates a sense of urgency and crisis, propelling the populist cause forward. The populist narrative contends that the nation is in peril and that only a radical break from the status quo can restore it to its former glory.
In the UK, these belief systems are clearly visible among both left- and right-populist movements. Both blame "elites" for society’s ills, though the left targets "global" elites while the right focuses on "metropolitan" elites. They each view themselves as victims of institutional biases, be it from the "right-wing press" or the "liberal media", and they are sustained by a nostalgic longing for a past era, be it the Keynesian consensus of the post-war Attlee government or the imperial grandeur of Churchill’s Britain.
This shared sense of decline, driven by "neoliberal" globalisation and culturally liberal internationalism, galvanises both movements. They argue that their causes are the last bulwarks against a total collapse into irrelevance and despair. However, this sense of urgency often leads to destructive and exclusionary approaches.
Populist belief systems foster cognitive dissonance and conspiracy theories, resulting in a lack of perspective and a refusal to engage with alternative viewpoints (sound familiar?). They do not present hard choices or encourage democratic debate; instead, they hold the wider electorate hostage to their narratives, often inflating their support and claiming to speak for a larger group than they actually represent. This perceived moral superiority stifles genuine dialogue and undermines rational political discourse.
Ultimately, these populist approaches are the thin end of an extremist wedge. They have already poisoned much of the debate and led to policies with no foothold in reality. Taken to their conclusion, they encourage reactionary outcomes, enabling narratives of collective guilt to take hold, or elites to be violently purged. One of the lowest so far, for example, was the horrific murder of MP Jo Cox in 2016—sincerely condemned by populists, but nevertheless the product of narratives which caricature and dehumanise the other side.
By adopting these belief systems associated, populist movements like Corbynism distort the national conversation. They claim to represent "the people," but in reality, they divert us from true egalitarian and democratic governance. Rational and honest politics are abandoned in favour of sensationalist and simplistic narratives.
Clarke’s analysis of populism provides a critical lens through which we can understand the rise and impact of these movements. His book serves as a stark reminder of the need to resist the lure of populism and to strive for a politics that is inclusive, rational, and truly representative of the diverse voices within our society.
The dangers of myth-making
The disconnect between the far-left Corbynites and the Labour Party as it has returned to the centre-left under Keir Starmer can be traced back to fundamental differences in ideology, political strategy, and views on reality itself. Clarke explores how these differences manifest and the implications they have for the Labour Party and wider British politics going forwards.
Clarke’s thesis highlights the dangers and myths of populism, emphasising the allure of a simplistic, black-and-white worldview. He identifies three central myths that sustain populist movements. These myths are not only pervasive in the far-right but also significantly influence the far-left, including the Corbynite faction within the Labour Party.
The first myth, the Dark Knight, relates to morality and the political spectrum. Far-left populists often view the political right as fundamentally motivated by self-interest or spite. This perspective leads them to regard many individuals, causes, methods, and institutions closer to the right as inherently immoral. The centre-left, however, does not typically interpret political issues through such a rigid moral lens.
This myth creates a dichotomy where the left is seen as morally superior and the right as irredeemably evil. This binary view can be highly destructive, as it encourages an "us versus them" mentality. By framing political debates as battles between good and evil, far-left populists dismiss legitimate criticisms and alternative viewpoints as inherently immoral or corrupt.
The second myth, the Puppet Master, concerns power and society. The far-left often believes that societal problems are deliberately orchestrated by those in power. This conspiratorial thinking suggests that a small, powerful elite manipulates events to maintain their dominance. In contrast, the centre-left tends to see societal issues as the result of complex, often chaotic interactions rather than deliberate, coordinated actions.
This conspiratorial mindset can lead to a deep mistrust of institutions and authorities. It fosters an environment where fringe theories and unverified claims are readily accepted if they fit the narrative of an all-powerful elite pulling the strings. This is particularly evident in the reactions to the Israel-Palestine issue, where far-left populists often adopt extreme views and accept wild conspiracy theories.
The third myth, the Golden Era, relates to perceptions of change, decline, and the past. The far-left often believes that society has been moving increasingly rightward for decades, resulting in a decline from a past golden age. This perspective overlooks the advancements and progress made through globalisation and economic development. The centre-left, on the other hand, tends to acknowledge both the positives and negatives of contemporary changes and sees Labour’s role as one that must evolve.
The darker aspects of left-populism, particularly antisemitism, have surfaced again in recent months, following the October 7th attacks on Israel. The infighting among the left, especially among people I know very well, regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict has been deeply troubling. Many outspoken Corbyn supporters have adopted fringe views and propagated blatant conspiracy theories and propaganda across their social media accounts.
The reactions of some on the left to this conflict illustrate the dangers of the Dark Knight myth. By viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a rigid moral lens, they place Israelis closer to the "bad" pole and Palestinians closer to the "good" pole. Clarke accurately notes that this simplistic moral framework makes it difficult to engage in nuanced discussions about the conflict and leads to the adoption of such extreme positions—as anyone who has voiced opinions contrary to the dominating consensus online can no doubt confirm.
The primary point of divergence between the far-left and centre-left lies in their perceptions of reality itself. While both factions share similar values and goals, their understanding of how to engage with the world to implement these values differs significantly. This divergence is rooted in their differing interpretations of the myths identified by Clarke.
The centre-left distrusts the far-left’s reliance on the Dark Knight, Puppet Master, and Golden Era myths. These myths create a distorted view of reality that impedes pragmatic and effective policymaking. The centre-left emphasises a more rational, evidence-based approach to politics, seeking to build broad coalitions and engage in constructive dialogue.
Populist belief systems, whether on the left or right, are ultimately destructive. They foster cognitive dissonance, conspiracy thinking, and ideological exclusivity. By claiming moral superiority and dismissing dissenting views as inherently corrupt, these movements distort political discourse and undermine democratic processes.
The Labour Party under Corbyn became a breeding ground for such destructive tendencies. The tolerance of antisemitism within the party, exemplified by Corbyn’s own blind spots and reluctance to condemn antisemitic behaviour, remains a stark example. Clarke states this tolerance was not rooted in overt bigotry, but rather in the moral continuum of the Dark Knight myth, where political alignment with the "good" side justified turning a blind eye to antisemitism.
Keir Starmer’s leadership represents a return to a more centrist, rational approach. By distancing the party from the populist tendencies of Corbynism, Starmer seeks to restore credibility and engage constructively with the broader electorate. This approach involves acknowledging the complexities of societal issues and rejecting simplistic, conspiratorial explanations.
Starmer’s leadership is an attempt to bridge the divide within the Labour Party and to reestablish a politics that is inclusive, evidence-based, and focused on practical solutions. This involves not only distancing from the far-left’s populist myths but also actively challenging and addressing the toxic elements that have infiltrated the party.
The disconnect between the far-left Corbynism and the centre-left Labour Party under Keir Starmer is rooted in fundamentally different worldviews. The far-left’s reliance on the three myths creates a distorted and divisive political landscape. In contrast, the centre-left seeks a more nuanced, pragmatic approach that acknowledges the complexities of the modern world.
Towards a pluralist future
According to Clarke, pluralists face a tricky balancing act. They seek ways of consolidating the benefits of our interconnected world, while ensuring that these benefits are not overshadowed by the significant drawbacks of globalisation. Accusations of timidity or lack of ingenuity here are justified; but accusations of conservatism—as though there is something right-wing in seeking to maintain left-of-centre achievements—are not.
The last centre-left government Britain had scored plenty of achievements—almost all of which have since been dismantled or undermined by successive Conservative governments. To paraphrase a great author: populism cannot create anything new, it can only corrupt and ruin what pluralism has invented or made.
The factors driving the quest for old certainties are multifaceted: a desire for a world less confusing; for a society less technically, culturally, and ethically complex; for communities that were more localised, informal, and steady; for an economic structure without riches 'beyond our grasp”; and for a period when you knew where you stood on class, nationhood, sex, and party politics.
This quest for old certainties provides ammunition for both the right and left. For right-populists, these certainties are tied to rules, sovereignty, and respect for elders. They relate to common sense on race and the work ethic and to Britain knowing its place in the world. For left-populists, these certainties represent straightforward socialism. The challenges of the post-war years seem simpler than modern hurdles.
The left’s foreign policy outlook is often premised on an era without an “international community”, when countries were self-contained and self-interested. However, in today’s interconnected world, colonial arguments have largely been beaten, and our instinct is to help rather than plunder. This raises complex questions about our responsibilities when we see foreign crises on our TV screens and social media. The answer cannot be either blanket intervention or blanket non-intervention. Yet left-populists often fall back on blaming an omnipotent “Western imperialism”, rather than thinking through these questions.
To effectively navigate these complexities, the Labour Party needs to be comfortable enough with British culture to reassure the public that solving international problems doesn’t require us to surrender our identity or traditions. We need to abandon squeamishness about the Union Jack and respect for the armed forces. Additionally, we must jettison aspects of left-wing identity politics that verge on farce.
Doing so would enable us to make progressive arguments on immigration and Europe, addressing challenges like wealth inequality, climate change, and the dominance of London while providing security for those who fear diminishing everything that Britain stands for. This is how you win back the coalition that defected to the Conservatives in 2019.
Patriotism, distinct from nationalism, can be a buttress against extreme views. The difference is akin to the gap between confidence and arrogance; a genuine sense of self obviates the need for bullying or bragging. The populist left, however, often rejects this notion, making it ill-equipped to address the changes that have taken place.
Jeremy Corbyn exemplifies this populist left mindset. His unilateralist, anti-NATO, protectionist, and Eurosceptic stances, along with his opposition to intervention and international cooperation, reveal a rejection of the interconnected world.
Culturally, his anti-patriotic gestures—refusing to sing the national anthem or bow to the Queen—reinforced the perception amongst the wider public of being un-British, and was death sentence among older segments of the electorate. This ultimately placed him at odds with the Labour Party's need to address local, national, and global scale transformations.
In recent decades, society has undergone significant transformation, akin to a “coming of age.” Factors contributing to this include the rise of social media, increased communication and news access, and improvements in education. This shift has led to greater awareness and scrutiny of politicians and their actions, resulting in diminished trust. The populist left promotes a Golden Era myth, suggesting that past parliamentarians were more authentic representatives, replaced by power-hungry suits today. However, it is the level of exposure and public awareness that has changed, not necessarily the behaviour of public servants.
Populist myths like the Dark Knight, Puppet Master, and Golden Era are ultimately destructive. The Dark Knight myth prevents engagement with opposing arguments, the Puppet Master myth suggests that unsolved problems benefit elites, and the Golden Era myth seeks refuge in past solutions. These myths contribute to a lack of practical solutions and an inability to adapt to the modern world.
To move forward, Clarke declares that we need “a democratic socialist politics that embraces pluralism”.
This involves recognizing that we live in a democracy, which implies a range of respectable ideas and giving others the benefit of the doubt. It means understanding that few policies are inherently moral and that societal problems are not usually deliberately authored. It also requires acknowledging the finite power of democratic governments, the media, and businesses, and valuing objectivity over political faith.
To move towards pluralism is to decide that, rather than it being a mirage we enjoy the prospect of, we want to see a benign community achieved in the flesh—and are willing to recognise it when it arrives. This society can never be perfect. But it can be as equal and fair as is possible—a meaningful achievement, instead of an entity at the end of a rainbow.
Over the hump of Corbyn's leadership, a Labour Party on the cusp of power has the chance to redefine itself and focus on achieving progressive goals. This necessitates rejecting the populist myths and embracing a pluralist mindset that values cooperation and practical solutions.
By accepting the complexities of the modern world and promoting a politics that is inclusive, rational, and genuinely democratic, I hope that Labour can seize this opportunity to create a progressive future that addresses the challenges of today while building on the achievements of the past.