Conventional
wisdom has it that Bernie Sanders is too radical for the U.S. electorate. Pundits and many voters contend that social
democracy is somehow incompatible with the “American way”. Presumably the “American way” those
commentators fantasize about is different from the reality in the U.S. today:
chronic poverty, under- and un-employment, economic and social uncertainty,
poor access to shared public services, and degraded civil rights in the face of
a predatory corporate class and over-mighty national security apparatus.
But
Sanders and the 2016 election remind me of another historic election in which
the signs were there for all to read, but wherein much of the media and the
conventional thinking about voters that it represented completely misjudged public
opinion. In 1945 in Britain, voters
opted for a complete over-haul of the country’s social and economic
contract. With their votes, they created
a new consensus about politics and economics that dominated for 30 years and
remains the foundation for Britain’s state and society.
As Americans
know, Winston Churchill was the Conservative Prime Minister who led Britain
through war at the head of a coalition government dominated by his party. More than any other figure, he came to
personify Britain’s fight against Nazism and its perseverance in the face of
aerial bombardment and isolation within Europe.
And yet
in 1945, ten years after the last election had been held, Churchill and his
party were turned out of office. Led by
Clement Attlee, Churchill’s deputy during the Second World War, the Labour
Party won over three million votes more than the Conservatives, which
translated into over 60% of the seats in the House of Commons.
Labour
was a party dedicated to the protection of the working class, to the creation
of a full-employment economy, to the nationalization of key industries and
services, and to the creation of a robust safety net. The Labour Party ran on a strong social
democratic platform that marked a dramatic deviation from the liberalism that
had predominated in British politics and society since the middle of the
nineteenth century.
Labour
won not just with the support of the poor, but also with the backing of large
sectors of the armed forces. And they
won in the face of a nasty conservative campaign in which Churchill warned
voters that his war-time deputy, a World War I veteran, famous for his mind
mannerisms, would imitate the “Gestapo” in his politics.
At the
end of the First World War, the British government had promised to make Britain
a country “fit for heroes to live in”.
But the following two decades saw a retreat from the managed economy
that had emerged during war-time and an unwillingness to re-build society along
more social democratic lines.
Veterans
of the First World War experienced widespread hardship as the Liberal and
Conservative parties stuck to a liberal orthodoxy that argued that the market
would sort things out of its own accord, refused to engage constructively with
organized labor, and expanded Britain’s overseas empire. The Conservative Party proved unwilling to
confront the fascist powers that emerged on continental Europe, used their
proximity to big business and to news magnates to castigate their political
opponents, and pursued a relentless policy of dividing society against itself
by way of isolating unions and other leftists calling for social and economic
change, all in the face of a global depression and the large scale unemployment
that followed.
During
the Second World War, the cabinet commissioned a post-war planning document
that became known as the “Beveridge Report”.
Published in 1942, the document called for cohesive social and economic
policy to wage war not only against Hitler, but also the “evils” confronting
British society in the form of poverty, ill-health, unemployment, and
insecurity, recognizing the threats these posed to British citizens.
The dry,
technical, but revolutionary Beveridge Report became an instant bestseller, and
the British public and the Labour Party came to believe that the post-war world
must be very different from the world characterized by class hierarchy and
economic inequality that had defined British life.
The
desire for change on the part of the British public was fuelled by mistrust of
the Conservatives for their foreign policy blunders and refusal to acknowledge
the cruelty of the “free” market towards the working class. It was further advanced by a lengthy war,
which inflicted widespread hardship while promoting an ideal of national
solidarity and mistrust of traditional elites.
And it accompanied growing unease with British imperialism, the ills and
injustice of which confronted British soldiers serving in the colonies and
alongside soldiers from those colonies in large numbers.
In spite
of the best efforts of the media and the political right, the public refused to
respond to scaremongering and, led by yet-to-be-demobilized veterans, voted in
large numbers for Labour, giving the party a mandate to pursue sweeping social
and economic changes.
While
other European countries would ultimately create more far-reaching variants of
the welfare state and the social contract it represents, there is probably no
other case in which a single election created in such a short period of time
such a profound shift in the political-economy of a nation.
The
transformative politics of the British Labour Party in the 1940s, and the
pundits’ surprise over what the public regarded as an obvious and common sense pivot
from the uncaring liberalism of the interwar years should serve as a cautionary
tale to a media wedded to the inevitability of Clinton’s victory—wedded as she
is to a stultifying status quo. It
should also serve as an inspiration to those who would like to see wholesale
change in the economic and social realm in the U.S., and a reminder that other
publics in democratic societies have embraced without fear the kind of shift
offered by the likes of Bernie Sanders.
The
fortunes of Britain’s welfare state can offer other lessons for the U.S. should
it embrace such change. Organized labor
in Britain remained adversarial towards the state, eschewing the large-scale
bargaining that characterized relations in the Scandinavian welfare model. When unions were portrayed by the right as
exercising undemocratic influence, they became scapegoats for an economy made
frail by vibrations in a global oil market.
And although Britain’s Labour Party committed itself to a gradual
winding down of Empire, Britain’s political elite never confronted the reality
that the country could not afford both an expansive welfare state that protected
the public welfare, and also a costly and unjust imperial foreign policy.
But life
in Britain would never be the same after Labour’s victory in 1945. Even the strongest assaults of the Thatcher
and Major governments on gains British voters made for themselves in that July
poll, in a tumultuous world still at war, have only altered the peaceful
revolution staged by British citizens.
The work
of Attlee and the Labour Party was a testament to the power of that revolution:
public healthcare, free at the point of use; sickness and unemployment
benefits; the construction of housing for the poor; family allowances; the expansion
of workers’ rights and fairer wages; the overhaul of an antiquated criminal
justice system; free secondary education and the expansion of the university
system; the nationalization of key services and some industries; and a
recognition that the state, a democratic institution, should have a hand in
managing an economy hitherto run by unaccountable industries and elites. The wellness indices of the British public
rose steadily after 1945, a testament to the power of social welfare.
Britain’s
welfare state and the fortunes of its public have changed over time, and are
today under threat. But the election of
1945 made it inconceivable that the British public would any longer be led
tamely by the nose and made to believe that their interests aligned with
irresponsible elites’ interests. It is
long overdue for the American electorate to realize that such a peaceful
revolution is not beyond our means, but rather within our grasp, and that such
a revolution, for the public good, requires the repudiation not only of the toxic
and demagogic political right, but also of those in the media and the
Democratic Party who urge us to embrace neo-liberal economics rather than the social
democracy that has made life so much better for so many around the world.
The American
electorate should look past the bluster, cruelty, and injustice of the
Republican Party, and the economic timidity and international hubris of Hillary
Clinton, and give the ideas for which Bernie Sanders argues a hearing and a
chance. Voters around the world since
1945 have taken social democracy seriously, and their lives have been the
better for it.