There is a saying that generals always fight the last war — and those who do, lose. The current danger for the US Democratic Party is that they rerun their failure in the 2016 presidential election, partly through drawing the wrong conclusions from the UK general election this month. It is not just that Labour lost and the Conservatives won, but also the scale of that defeat; especially considering the radical Left route that Labour took, the worrying similarities between Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, and the parallels between the two electoral systems in which it is not enough to win the popular vote, but to win where it matters. It is for the Democrats to get it right where the Labour Party got it so disastrously wrong. If not, they will bear a responsibility for another four years under a president who their members in the House of Representatives have impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Labour’s resounding election defeat may well reverberate across the Atlantic, and especially affect the way voters in the primaries see the candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who represent the more left-leaning ranks of the Democratic Party. A number of leading commentators in the US saw the election battle in the UK as one between Left and Right populism in which the latter was bound to win, mainly because the Right is inherently better at manipulating populism to its advantage. Before this explanation takes hold of the Democratic Party and those who participate in its primaries, it would be wise to accept that Leftist populism does exist, and like any other style of populism it plays on people’s fears and irrational expectations. Populism may win elections but never bears fruit in government. However, the answer to right-wing populism is not counter-populism, but anti-populism; in other words, not do to battle with the Right on their own pitch, where they excel at making baseless personal attacks on other candidates, on the establishment and on the justice system, and blaming the media for the ills of society. The answer is instead to present a modern and viable liberal-left agenda for the US that corresponds with American values. Labour’s strategy under Corbyn was to answer populism with populism, which, even when it addressed pressing issues in British society, came across as too radical, too threatening to even their core voters, and unimplementable. If Sanders and Warren would like to draw a lesson from Labour’s failed approach in presenting a more social-democrat, or even socialist, program for a more equal and just society, it has to be presented more in Churchillian style — one that invokes “blood, toil, tears and sweat” (minus the blood) — and less as a fanciful cost-free socialist paradise. A better regulated Wall Street that served a modern economy without satisfying only the very rich would resonate with many voters, as long as it were not perceived as liable to bring the stock market to collapse and compromise the jobs, savings and pensions of many millions of Americans. It should be presented not as an objective in itself, but as part of a comprehensive plan that has costs and risks, not only benefits. Furthermore, those who represent the more left-leaning forces in the US do not have to deal with an all-consuming issue such as Brexit, which because of its scale and its impact on every aspect of the nation’s well being overshadowed all other issues that should have concerned the British electorate. There is no such single issue in next year’s US elections. For the Democrats the aim is to prevent a second Trump administration, especially as the president is becoming increasingly volatile. This represents a less unusual aim in elections and allows concentration on a wider range of issues. Labour was not necessarily punished at the ballot box for its radical manifesto, but more for its weak leadership, its lack of a decisive and coherent approach to Brexit, the anti-Semitism in its ranks, and remaining aloof from its core voters. Whatever the Democrats choose to make the centerpiece of their election campaign they must learn from Labour’s failure by being straight talking in their campaigning and talking to people at eye level. Democrats who are liberal-left leaning candidates should acknowledge, respect and take at least some responsibility for the fact that that many hard-working, decent Americans feel left behind by globalization and by liberal-progressive trends that clash with their values; trends that come across as an elitist imposition on their way of life. This should not deter them from pursuing a campaign that advances far-reaching changes to the health system and taxation, the approach to climate change and immigration, and the role that the US plays in the world; but their plans must be presented in a manner that resonates with the voters, and does not patronize them. In an age when leaders are under constant and intense scrutiny by all forms of media, rapport and trust between leaders and the electorate are becoming more crucial than ever. By the time Jeremy Corbyn came to be a contender for the top political job, he could not shake off his image as more an activist than a genuine prospective prime minister. He himself looked as bemused at becoming leader of a major party at this point in his life as were most of the British people. Sanders to a certain extent, and especially Warren, come across as much more comfortable as candidates to be the next residents of the White House, not afraid to challenge their country on a range of issues that are crucial for its future, but without alienating, as Corbyn did in the UK, those who votes are critical for victory. There is therefore no need for a kneejerk reaction to Labour’s failure, but for more thoughtful adjustments that may also lead to America’s first female president. Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg