The Battle To End Right-Wing America

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 17:41


I have often wondered why America is more right-wing than some other wealthy nations. In particular, among the original G7 nations, Canada, France and Germany have all operated decisively to America's left over the past three decades. America's ideological status compared to Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom is much more debatable.

The question is only relevant as a recent historic development, too. Until Nixon took office, it is possible that America was the most consistently progressive nation on Earth for its entire history. Sure, we were far from perfect, but we were less imperialist than European nations, we were a republic far earlier, we were a relative haven of religious freedom, our social safety net was comparable or superior to just about all other wealthy nations, we were moving toward universal suffrage quite quickly, the death penalty was illegal, we were at the forefront of the early environmental movement, we founded the U.N., and we were, by far, the number one destination of people around the world who were seeking freedom and opportunity.

What happened over the last forty years? In most of the categories I listed above, we have now fallen behind other nations. How did our rate of progressive development slow to a relative crawl compared to many other wealthy nations? I can think of three reasons, one of which can be done away with, possibly permanently, if Obama wins the Presidential campaign. I explain in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: The Battle To End Right-Wing America
Three reasons why America turned to the right:

  1. The Cold War. Our heavy engagement in the Cold War opened the floodgates in the federal government to the military industrial complex and also created paranoia about left-wing politics in the United States. Our excessive military spending is acting as a long-term drag on social investment projects, and it began because we decided to engage the Cold War so intensely. Whether or not that was a good idea is debatable, but I don't think the effects of that engagement can be debated. In the span of only a couple of decades, we shifted from being an isolationist nation with virtually no military spending to a nation that allied itself with right-wing totalitarians around the globe and which dumped 6-8% of our GDP into military spending even during peace time. It pulled us to the right, big time. This won't really change much under an Obama administration.

  2. Intense Religious Belief. Compared to other wealthy nations, America is a vastly more religious nation. This is at least partly due to our lack of a state religion, as the direct attachment of religion to states in most western European nations probably helped to discredit all religions in those countries. Religion was often a propagandistic, officially oppressive force in those states in a way it just wasn't in America. In fact, many of the progressive reforms in the United States, from abolition, to suffrage, to civil rights and the anti-war movement, came from religious organizations. However, overall, the greater connection to religion, especially the better organizing of conservative religious organizations of late, has been a socially conservative force in this country.

  3. Our Apartheid State. This is the big one, and perhaps a more important cause than the previous two combined. The truth is that while America was the most consistently progressive country in the world from the 1790's through most of the 1960's, we were also an apartheid state in respect to our largest minority, African-Americans. Our greater income inequality, our lack of effective opposition to rising corporatism, our relatively smaller union movement, our lack of universal health care, our suburban car culture, the one-third of our public schools that perform very poorly--all of these are directly connected to our apartheid legacy. What's more, the movement to end the apartheid state caused a huge backlash against other aspects of the progressive agenda from many white working class quarters. The net effect was to create a conservative plurality in America that has largely governed, and retarded our progress, for the past forty years. Certainly, gains were made, but not nearly as many as in other wealthy nations.

This morning, as I saw John McCain pull even, or possibly slightly ahead, of Barack Obama in the presidential campaign, I was thinking about these three causes. It occurred to me that by electing Obama, we could strike a major blow against the third cause by defeating the conservative backlash coalition and ending electoral reliance on socially conservative whites. This wasn't a new thought, as I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago in The Nation and for much longer than that online, but it did occur to me that striking this major blow against right-wing America was going to be far more difficult than I had previously appreciated. This election will turn on identity, and progressives haven't won an election like that in at least 44 years. If we pull it off, it means that the third major cause of America's right-wing slide will have been defeated, but clearly it isn't going to come easy.  


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Right on. (4.00 / 1)
Number 3 is the cheese. Lick that and we can turn the tide.

or maybe "cheese" = $$$ (0.00 / 0)
I wonder if the alliance between big money and social conservatives has played a role?

[ Parent ]
At the top yes (0.00 / 0)
But for the actual voters, those voters that keep electing republicans ain't rich.

[ Parent ]
Important difference: the labor mvoement (4.00 / 6)
In the U.S., we were severely set back by the weakness of labor unions, or rather by the co-opting of labor unions by right wing anti-Communist forces in the government, by corruption among labor union management, and by the appeal to racism to weaken the social democratic instincts of workers.

While nothing is just cause and nothing just effect.. (4.00 / 1)
The labor movement was destroyed during the same period that Chris delineates, by the same forces. You can track the anti-labor legislation through-out the period. Putting business unions in companies, taking over unions, and the fedral government actively subverted and wrecked progressive unions, and not just in the U.S. but In Canada and all up and down the Americas.

Stronger Unions, fewer sellouts and a broader commitment from all actors on the left would have acted as a bulwark, but the Vietnam War, the prosperity of the 50's and 60's prevented it. Many of the neo-cons came from 'liberal' Democrats: like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator from New York, who became so enamored with and committed to his the anti-left (all anti left was called anti communist) militarism that he left any connection to progressives far behind.

Honestly John Edwards stirring endorsement and support of Unions is the first such political championing in more than a generation.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
Right (0.00 / 0)
but again, I think race was a big part of its weakness. In Europe you had basically homogenous nation states, so it was easier for labor parties and strong labor unions to develop because you didn't have the same apartheid system that actively pitted worker against worker.

Think about how this country would be different if you had the same union density in Southern states as you have in places like IL, MI, OH, and NY did at the height of the labor movement.  


[ Parent ]
Social Security passed... (4.00 / 4)
...only in the depths of the Depression and only after the exclusion of domestics and most agricultural workers. In other words, the original SS was white. Its expansion in the 50's may have been done precisely to eliminate a visible form of apartheid in the context of a Cold War for hearts and mind.

AFDC -- now TANF -- is also a child of the Depression. The latter's Clinton-era reworking is impossible to understand unless placed in a racial context. It's Sistah Souljah as social provision.

We -- white America -- are not hurt enough, poor enough, marginalized enough, sick enough, to pass a new social provision, like national health care. The pain has to be so bad that the average American is temporarily blinded to the fact that money is being taken from white people, and given to black and brown people, in amounts large enough to matter.

Until then, people will fight like wolverines for their share of a shrinking pie.

Show me how homogeneous a country is, and I'll tell you how widespread support is for social provision in general, and anything that smacks of a transfer payment in particular.


Isn't it funny (4.00 / 2)
To describe America as the most consistently progressive nation on Earth from 1790 to 1960, except for being an apartheid state for the people who were brought here as slaves?


Progressive *for whi te guys*.... (0.00 / 0)
...and then it comes out more or less true.

(With a footnote for Bismark's use of social insurance as a wedge to break German working class solidarity.)

But the invisibility of the non-white from 1790 to 1960 is part of the point...


[ Parent ]
You're right about Bismarck (0.00 / 0)
But you can see it the other way round, too: The rapidly growing numbers and political strenght of the Social Democratic movement in the late 19th century forced the "iron chancellor" (a small aristrocat from a rural area, as conservative as they can get) to offer the carrot of social security, instead of threatening with the stick, which he would have prefered. Without the unions and the left wingers, this would never have happened.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
Actually thats pretty unsurprising really (0.00 / 0)
I mean how else do you call Obama a centrist or not a progressive except to ignore stuff like that?



The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com


[ Parent ]
on the basis of his economic policies (4.00 / 1)
there's no doubt that the actual fact of having a Black president would do tons to affect the race/class dynamics in the U.S. - and also that a lot has been done to put this person in that position.  But then you have to think of what this person would do as an actual agent, what ideas they have, what they would do.  Progressive would, in today's United States, mean supporting single-payer health care, supporting an end to unjust wars and militarism in general, and a lot of other things that Obama hasn't publicly and explicitly demonstrated himself to do.

[ Parent ]
Not as funny (4.00 / 1)
as pretending that electing a nonwhite President will somehow strike a fatal blow to 300 years of racial hatred.

If Obama wins, the symbolism will be significant.  However, Obama is deliberately avoiding making promises to the AA community, since he probably rightly believes he will lose by becoming the "Jesse Jackson" candidate.  It is quite possible that minorities will make less real progress under Obama than they might under a white President.

Currently, the middle class is shrinking, and it will continue to shrink until global economics radically change.  With no room to move into the middle class, the working poor and the poor will continue to slide further behind.  As long as the middle class is threatened, inciting racial fears will be an effective method of continuing to make war between the white middle class and the minority poor, to the benefit of the wealthy.  


[ Parent ]
Your analysis (4.00 / 3)
Is similar Chris, to that of Paul Krugman in hiks book "Conscience of a Liberal". Krugman gives a great overview of the economic-political history of the US from the end of the Civil War to the present.

Krugman recognizes the huge impact of segregation and racism on our economy, especially in the arguments of the southern white politicians in the late 1940s in derailing Truman's national health care proposal which could have lead to the early desegregation of hospitals in the South.

Also Krugman points out that higher taxes on the rich actually built the U.S. infrastructure, roads, bridges, buildings etc., in the 1950s while building a prosperous middle class. Lower taxes on the wealthy, which Bush the Lesser has managed to do, has greatly weakened our country, both in terms of infrastructure and a healthy middle class.

President Obama will have his work cut out for him.


Why do we insist on making defeatist comments? (4.00 / 1)
Why do progressives insist on making comments like this:

This morning, as I saw John McCain pull even, or possibly slightly ahead, of Barack Obama in the presidential campaign, I was thinking about these three causes.

Seems strange.  Look at the evidence and you find that one poll (Gallup - and a tracking poll at that) has McCain ahead while numerous polls still have Obama ahead.  So honestly, why do we say things like this which only serve to undermine our confidence and our faith in our candidate?

It's as if we feel the need to sabotage ourselves or we've been forced by the GOP into some victimization complex which causes us to quickly lose hope in our candidates.  Whatever it is, it's absolutely epidemic among progressives.  

It's also got to stop if we hope to win Presidential elections.  This strange inferiority complex projects weakness and that weakness reflects on our candidate.  If there is one quality the American people will not tolerate in its President, it's weakness.  For God's sake, let's be strong this time.


Post-world war II prosperity (4.00 / 1)
Consider what the US was like in the 1950s, when it was the only country in the world without its industrial base destroyed by war.  Next time you watch "American Graffiti," remember that the rest of the world was scrambling to put the next meal on the table at the time when this film is set.

Certainly the "stabbed in the back" narrative after China went Communist brought the GOP back from political oblivion, but I doubt they could have pulled it off if the country was not feeling fat and complacent at the time.

The post-WWII prosperity of the US is now coming to a close.  American living standards are about to fall dramatically behind that of other industrialized countries.  It has managed to maintain its technical edge by hiring the best tech students from India and China, but it remains to be seen if this can be sustained as their home countries become modern industrialized economies.

Will the country wake up in time to stop a collapse in living standards?  My worry is the South, which for various reasons has a political tradition that one might call pre-industrial.  I am less worried about the West and Mountain because it looks like environmentalism and libertarianism may at least make those states politically "interesting."  Perhaps eventually the rest of the country will have to unite against the backward and reactionary South in order to allow the rest of the country to evolve into a modern post-industrial society.


Our excessive military spending  .... began because we decided to engage the Cold War so intensely.

Actually Eisenhower conceived of strategic nuclear defense as a cheaper alternative to a large conventional standing army, and of course he warned of the rising power of the military-industrial-congressional complex.  The Vietnam war and the Reagan defense build-up (spending billions on obsolete weapons systems) blew huge holes in the national finances.


Where were you in '62? (4.00 / 1)
That's the tagline of American Graffity, and in the early 60s, European nations had alread recovered. But there are lots of US movies from the late 40s and elary 50s that show an afluent society at a time when Europeans were running after coal transports to pick up or even steal some briquets, and were invading farmers fields on the hunt for leftover potatos. Take "It's a Wonderful Life" (1946), for instance, or "Father of the Bride" (1950). Good examples of US middle class families of that time.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
billmon said something similar to your point no. 3 (0.00 / 0)
on Daily Kos yesterday

[Obama]'s the canary in the coal mine -- if he gets elected, then I'll be able to revisit some of my more pessimistic assumptions about this country (and white people in particular).

http://www.dailykos.com/commen...


Not to belittle your patriotic pride, but... (4.00 / 4)
..sry, imho many of your arguments are a bit exaggerated:

"Sure, we were far from perfect, but we were less imperialist than European nations,"
Tell that to the spaniards and mexicans! You were just as imperialist, you only jumped on that train later. But the invasions of Cuba and the Philipines, for instance, were purely based on imperialism, not doubt about that. Don't confuse US propaganda of that time with the real motives.

"we were a republic far earlier"
I seem to remember that this state form was invented by the ancient greeks...

"we were a relative haven of religious freedom"
Just like, say, the Dutch and the Prussians for some time in their history.

"our social safety net was comparable or superior to just about all other wealthy nations"
Now, come on! This indicates a lack of knowledge about the safety nets of European nations. In the US, there has always been a stronger emphasis on individual responsibility and less desire to make the government the shepherd of national welfare.

"the death penalty was illegal"
In 1972, yes. For five years. I have to admit, I had to check this and found good info here:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...

"we founded the U.N."
Actually, cofounded them, together with the other participants of Jalta. Not only FDR, but also Winston Chruchill played a prominent role. Not to forget, the first official general assembly in 1946 was in London, not New York!

The UN became necessary because the first attempt of such an international body, the League of Nations, founded by the participants of the Versaille Treaty, had failed. The problem of the League of Nations was that some important nations never joined, or only for a limited time, most prominently the United States, which never became a member. And before, the Hague Conventions, founded by the Russian Tsar and the Queen of the Netherlands, was the first assemblage that tried to solve conflicts by creating internaional standards.

So, the US has a proud history of great achievements, agreed, but pls refrain from exaggerations. It's not as if we Europeans lived on the trees in the 19th and 2oth century, ok?

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter


Other countries fought the Cold War (4.00 / 4)
And the European ones were on the front lines, not us.  They had strong leftist parties, so strong that we intervened in their elections to prevent the Communists from being part of an elected government for many years.  

So it wasn't the Cold War per se, but the way the Cold War was used by the Right to demonize anything that smelled of community or egalitarianism.  "Godless Communism" was the alternative to Capitalism, and religion plus our characteristically American veneration of individualism were used to beat back any "collectivist" solutions, like planning of any sort, industrial policy, government-provided health care ("socialized medicine") and ultimately any kind of regulation of the Almighty Market.

Another difference between the US and other countries is the way advertising and consumerism took over here so decisively in the 1950s and 1960s.  In other countries family and community were more important, also art in all its forms.  Here we just went in for mindless, crass consumption of mostly shoddy stuff--Made in Japan and then Southeast Asia/Latin America and now China. This also destroyed progressivism, as people lost the idea of collective goals in favor of individual, private consumption.

Maybe these were the anesthetic with which we assuaged our guilt over apartheid, but they were also very important in allowing the Right to pervert us from citizens into shoppers and dull progressive impulses.  And the importance of race is that it was a means to divide the lower middle class and working class, divide and conquer.  Poorly paid whites, especially in the South, always had someone to look down on.  It allowed a largely feudal system to survive there until 1952 or so.  


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


One more thing (4.00 / 1)
I think that the importance of Obama is as much in his revival of community and cooperative action as in his transcending the race issue.  We have often had a call to something greater than itslef, but it was usually "National Greatness" (the State) rather than communities and collective action.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Comparison to the others (4.00 / 4)
You say that it's harder to define "America's ideological status compared to Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom". To me, that makes it all the more damning.

Italy probably doesn't belong in this group in terms of voting preferences - the communists used to get nearly 30% right up until the Berlin Wall fell and it's arguable that the post-WW2 Italian state was deliberately constructed to shut them out of power.

Japan was similar to Italy in terms of shutting out the left, but much more intensive, to the extent that even now it's only technically a multi-party democracy.

And Britain, whilst definitely of the left up until 1979 (the Tory wets were dominant in their party until Thatcher rose to power and favoured an alliance between labour and capital), was then ruled by nutters for 18 years and cowards for another decade. And we're still further left than America by quite some way (polling shows McCain losing by something like 4-1).

If this is your competition and you're still furthest right, you get an idea of how bad the situation is.

Right, now I'm done beating up on your country, have a constructive suggestion: also factor in the more rural nature of American politics - you have a vast hinterland and a second chamber which empowers it way beyond its population, and rural areas and those remote from central government have in historical terms tended to be socially conservative and mistrustful of government.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


social or economic right-wing? (0.00 / 0)
Italy and Japan are as socially conservative as the US, or even more so (for example, pervasive xenophobia and racism in both countries), but economically they are much to the left of the US, due to the strong collectivist culture in both countries. I agree that UK is definitely more leftier than the US, even after Thatcher and Blair they still have NHS, social safety nets and other good parties to vote for (SNP/LD) when Labour is horrible. (If Glasgow East were in the US, the working-class voters would have hesitantly voted Democrat or stayed home, without an equivalent of SNP.) Socially the UK is much more progressive, think of the civil union, strong support for environmental causes and the (probably) next Prime Minister who is an avowed atheist. Also... what is the US equivalent of the Guardian? Can't think of any.

The US is without a doubt the most economically right-wing country, at least in OECD.  


[ Parent ]
Don't forget the lizard brain... (0.00 / 0)
During the period you cite, the Republican party also figured out how to appeal to the mostly hidden subconcious fears of key parts of the electorate to motivate them to vote against their interests. Starting with race but moving right on through terrorism. As noted on this site, many or most conservative Republican positions have been soundly rejected by a majority of Americans going back several decades. Yet Republicans have been re-elected for decades and they have implemented their policies with great destruction in spite of public disapproval of those policies. The lizard brain trumps all.

I'd add that the corporate involvement, starting heavily in the 1980s, was probably a case of big business seeing a winner in the Republican strategy and getting in. The Republicans, for their part, gladly welcomed their money and the value of captive media outlets. I'd be surprised if people like Lee Atwater had a grand plan. Rather the pieces fell together over years in a synergistic way.

How you take down this approach is another story. But, for me, these crass appeals to people's subconcious is the key to why we are in such a mess and so impotent.


hmm. (0.00 / 0)
This doesn't address why lizard brain manipulating conservatives weren't as successful in the other G7 countries.  

It's a means they've employed, and they would fail without it, but what puts them in a powerful enough place to use such tactics effectively?


[ Parent ]
Social Dems combined left wing with law and order policies (0.00 / 0)
In Europe, liberal (in the US meaning of the word)politicians didn't let conservatives outflank them on security issues. And regarding that most Dem presidents in the US were no pussies, either (with the sole exception of Jimmy Carter, an otherwise good president), I can't understand when and how exactly the Dems conceded that ground to the right side. Imho it wasn't a matter of missing action, but of lousy marketing.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
How about this slogan: (0.00 / 0)
'Can your family afford McCainonomics?'
Combined with a graphic showing the projected decline of an average US household's purchasing power in the next four years, emphasizing inflation, rising health care costs and the stangantion of wages. Under the graph, the conclusion:
'That's what more of the same failed economic policies would mean for your family. That's ok with you?'

If this wouldn't bring the masses to vote with their wallets, I don't know what else would.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter


[ Parent ]
Uh, sry, attached this one to the wrong comment (0.00 / 0)
If there's a moderator present, I would appreciate if this post would be moved. It belongs under my comment about "if Dems would be ruthless"

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
If the Dems were as ruthless as the rethugs... (0.00 / 0)
..they would mercilessly exploit the growing economic insecurity of the middle class and start to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about four more years of republican policy consisting of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. The good ole "are you better of than four years before" or even harder hitting slogans should have an impact. When there's something that people fear even more than terrorism, it's losing their jobs and becoming unable to make a decent living. Those are really existential fears, and create a strong motivation to avoid such a fate. If Obama was a more left wing and unscrupulous politician, like, say, radical populist Huey P. Long in the 1930s, he would ride roughshod over McCain's ridiculous proposals for the middle class.  

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
the u.s. has run the capitalist hegemony in the world for the last 60 years (4.00 / 1)
End of story, as far as I'm concerned.  

I think the false dichotomy you're drawing (U.S. before 1945 or so, U.S. after) underlies a basic continuity between British capitalist imperialism and U.S. imperialism, between U.S. attacks on worker mobilizing and radical ideologies through the law (esp including immigration law).  Wallerstein is useful on this stuff, if you want to understand the U.S. in global context and outside of the nationalist history that Americans are fed like this:

it is possible that America was the most consistently progressive nation on Earth for its entire history. Sure, we were far from perfect, but we were less imperialist than European nations, we were a republic far earlier, we were a relative haven of religious freedom, our social safety net was comparable or superior to just about all other wealthy nations, we were moving toward universal suffrage quite quickly, the death penalty was illegal, we were at the forefront of the early environmental movement, we founded the U.N., and we were, by far, the number one destination of people around the world who were seeking freedom and opportunity.

Each of these is at best a contestable claim.  Less imperialist globally, perhaps, but in the Western hemisphere?  With indigenous peoples?  It's a settler state.  A republic?  So there was a liberal capitalist ideology that took hold (SLOWLY), but it was supplemented by racism.  Race:U.S. as class:UK (to really oversimplify it).  The death penalty was NOT illegal throughout U.S. history, and regardless, it's anachronistic to talk about it as a political issue in eras where slavery or the mass exclulsion of immigarnts from  the eastern hemisphere were allowed.  The U.N. was a global management tool - like the Metternich strategy.  And the U.S. selectively encouraged immigrants (from some places) and deported others because it had a low labor:land ratio.  Look at the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Red Scare (under Wilson), the nativists, the Asian Exclusion Acts, etc.  I'm not saying these things solely becaused I find ahistorical history based on nationalist myths offensive, but also because they damage our ability to engage in a real cold hard look at the state of things today as well.

As for health care - countries that are more statist can act more quickly than countries that are less so (like the united states, which because of historical accident, has a slow-moving process to create its slow moving train wreck policies)- I think this has less to do with good and bad than that - that's why Great Britain and Germany were able to get health care and the United States wasn't.  Look at how quickly the Scottish Parliament was created in Britain  This is why I think a new constitution will be in order in the United States when this progressive movement reaches its peak, so some of these stumbling blocks can be eliminated.


Dismantling the Cold War ... (4.00 / 1)
bureaucracy and the 20th Century national security state is a topic that needs some special focus.  Closely related is the need to define our current and future national security objectives, and then crafting new strategies to attain them.  
Maybe we can focus on all of this after we elect some new leadership this November.  I am interested in pitching in if there is anyone else willing to work on either of these.  

Lack of a mainstream Socialist party (0.00 / 0)
is the biggest factor, I think.

In most advanced capitalist states, the norm is that there are three main parties representating three distinct ideologies; socialism, liberalism and conservatism. In the majority of countries, socialist and conservative parties are two dominant parties, while a liberal party is a smaller third party, though with mainstream influence unlike third parties in the US. Since political debates are framed between socialists and conservatives, the entire political climate can't be too right-wing (also Green parties are gaining strength in many European/Commonwealth countries, tilting the discourse farther to the left).

Since socialist parties were formed in the early twentieth century and many of them gained power in the thirties, I don't think the right-wing tendencies in America started with Nixon. I agree with Chris on religion, and race too, but one critical thing here is that America never got a socialist party in power in the 30s/40s unlike many other Western countries.

Canada is unique in a way that liberal and conservative parties are two dominant ones, just like the US. However, (besides the Liberal party being the dominant one), they do have a socialist party, NDP, which is smaller but has substantial power in shaping public discourses. They statred as an agrarian party in the west, and first gained power in Saskatchewan in 1944. They gradually became successful in other provinces too, and as a minority partner in the Liberal  (Pearson) hung parliament, they played a crucial role in introducing universal health care in the 60s.

There were many agrarian socialist/progressive parties in western states in the US, which are similar to Saskatchewan. Populist Party in the 1890 was wildly popular in the West, Socialist Eugene Debs did well in the West in 1912, Progressive Party won many statewide offices in Wisconsin, so did Farmer-Labour Party in Minnesota. Minnesota Farmer-Labour Party was exactly like the one in Saskatchewan. So the question is, why did these numerous NDP-like parties fail to gain traction and wither away in the end, or sumsumed into the non-socialist Democratic Party?

Race is certainly one thing, and the influence of abnormally conservative South is another. Bourgeois culture and the tradition of negative liberty are the founding values of this nation and aren't very hospitable to socialism. But I don't really have the conclusive answer to that question... I just wanted to point out that a lack of a Socialist Party is an anomaly and it has hugely skewed politics in this country.


The carnage of two world wars changed Europe (0.00 / 0)
First off, this is my first post.  I just had to respond to this one because I'm baffled by how people fail to understand the topic.

Consider America and Europe in 1946.  Europe has just completed the second continental war in just thirty years.  

Consider the total human cost to Europe...

The Holocaust: 6 million plus.
The Russian Revolution + Stalin's purges: 30 million plus.
Combat from WWI: 10 million dead, 8 million missing, 20 million wounded.
Combat from WWI: 20 million dead.
Civilian dead from both wars: 50+ million.

Not to minimize America's losses during the wars, but we lost slightly over half a million in both wars put together.  Outside of the Philippines, we barely saw any civilian dead.

As existential crises go, America's losses during the 20th century pale in comparison to those of Europe.

Combine the raw human costs with the political gains in America.  Why?

Well, in America there's a strong sense that we have in fact done enough.  We freed the blacks and then freed them again for good measure a century later -- just because civil rights totally are better on the second try.  We let women vote.  We implemented what we laughably call a welfare state.  We've fought the good wars as we see them.  We've defeated the evil enemies as we see them.

The reason America is more conservative is that we have reason to think we've done enough.


Post-war America (0.00 / 0)
One hesitates to say this but here goes:

There is very little talk here about the irrational policies pursued by the left in this country-the virulent abuse of one's own people, the lack of any constructive policies to solve the country's problems, the manic overemphasis upon the discriminated groups and neglect of the working class, the lack of any interest in making the great mass movements of the 60's and 70's into organized political entities, and so on.  It is no wonder that the second half of the 20th century out so badly.

Also, has anyone noticed the politics-and even more, the economics-of the oppressed groups-women, homosexuals, even the racial minorities.  They have quite often supported centrist and even conservative policies, so long as their interests, such as affirmative action programs, are met.  This, more than mass bigotry, has lead to many problems-in particular, the support of conservatism within the Democratic party (Bill Clinton) which in turn deprives the American people of a choice.

Some other points:

America not radical?  Back in 1962, we had 91% top income tax rates.  Now we have 32% rates.

Socialism not in America?  Well socialism is in the doldrums throughout the world.  This, much more than a mythical American support for a "Washington Consensus" (which cannot be carried out without the support of the American people, and they hate it as much as the rest of the world does), is the cause of the world's problems-simply put, capitalism is a growing failure, yet there is no viable, democratic, and humane alternative on the horizon.  And there probably will not be until socialism is thoroughly rethought, with a greater willingness to allow self-interest and self-realization--a moderate, universal, cooperative self-interest, but self-interest all the same.  Isn't that what the left is all about?  And isn't that why the working class, the poor, the masses, etc., support the left-not out of the goodness of their heart but in order to be realized.  Yet the left kept on imposing a straight-jacket of total self-sacrifice.

America a totally race-stratified state 1790-1960?  Well maybe, but what about the period 1830-80?  That is, the Abolitionist movement, the Civil War, and Reconstruction.

Sorry for taking so long.  


A few more reasons... (0.00 / 0)
I think you are right on #2 and #3. Regarding #1 (Cold War) I believe it was not just the empowerment of the M-I-C but also the creation of a bogeyman on the left that helped push the nation to the right. A project that started well before the last 40 years (back at least to the time of US intervention against the Bolshevik revolution). The cause, IMHO, of this difference is the lack of any real left ideology or politics. The time when labour and communist parties drew large number of votes was replaced by witchhunts that left behind a shallow liberalism that superbly filled the role of a sham alternative.

Another reason (#5) is the winner-take-all, and electioneering (with a lack of one-person-one-vote guarantees) structure of our politics, which denies small but significant groups any say in government or public policy. Instead, we are always faced with "lesser evil", "pragmatic" choices/arguments.

It is also worth pondering a bit on how #2 relates to the sort of virulent anti-intellectualism that motivates a large chunk of public and pundit opinion.

But with all that said, I am not sure I agree either that we were the most progressive nation (if such things can be quantified) or are slipping below European nations at this point. There are various issues (failing more in rhetoric than in substance) on which the US presents a more liberal environment than Europe (with its anti-immigrant policies and ghettoes), especially if we weigh out the somewhat anomalous Bush years. The glaring difference, to me, has been the demise of labour power.


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search