I have been gleaning some of the early platform from John Edwards. What has struck me is how similar these initial policy statements are to the work of the 19th century Conservative Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli and the movement in the UK Conservative Party which was pre-eminent in their governments of the 1950s and early 1960s.
First, it was the “big idea” of his campaign that set me off on this track. Compare and contrast:
Dear Friend,
Our opponents are constantly taking us in the wrong direction, drawing lines that divide our country into two different Americas:
* One America for those who have everything they need and one for those who struggle just to get by
* One America for those who do the work and one for those who reap the reward
* One America for those who pay the taxes and one for those who get the tax breaksYou know how this goes because you hear it every day.
But you and I believe in something different. We believe in One America. Where everyone gets an equal shot, a fair chance, a level playing field.
My family and my faith taught me that we must fight for people who don’t have a voice. Fight for good jobs, fight for seniors, fight for good health care, fight for a better day for all. That’s why Elizabeth and I launched the One America Committee, to bring vital support to Democratic candidates at the grassroots level, candidates who are fighting for One America.
With
Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets: the rich and the poor.
The second is from Disraeli’s novel “Sybil” which has the alternative title “The Two Nations”. It was the redress of these social inequities that was behind the “One Nation” movement in the Conservative party that was their philosophy before Thatcher.
The government which had this philosophy at its heart ran for 13 years. It electoral success was to a large extent due to the centerist nature of the ideals of social justice. It did not for example undo the National Health Service which could easily have happened with a more overly programme like Thatcher’s. She famously said “There is no such thing as society”.
This benevolent, if somewhat patrician, set of ideas is being re-examined as the new Conservative leader seeks to make them electorally sucessful.
interesting point. What do you think of it on the merits?
In one respect this is quite interesting and to some extent hopeful. In terms of British politics the concept is very much towards the center and helped inform the sort of consensus that build up around the need for a “welfare state” – sometimes referred to as “Butskillism” after RA Butler and Hugh Gaitskill, prominent Tory and Labour politicians. The first PMs of the Conservative administration were Churchill who was increasingly disabled from his age, strokes and alcohol and Eden who was both fairl ill himself and led Britain into the Suez crisis of 1956. The centralist policies really got started under MacMillan who was a typically upper class Tory they tended to have as leader at the time but he was a sort of patrician who had taken on the concept of “noblesse oblige”. The idea that the rich have a moral duty to aid the poor is of course the theme of Edwards’ campaign but coming from the perspective of someone who has made his money rather than inherited it.
Such policies are of course very “liberal” in US terms so we may very well see them attacked as “socialist” but I thought I would put an international perspective on it. Certainly the idea of the wealthy having a duty of care to the poor is a theme that will make him attractive to many Europeans, mself included.
On a purely frivolous note, I think it will probably do him no harm in the UK that he looks somewhat like an older John Barrowman who plays the central role in “Torchwood”, the “Doctor Who” spin off! The picture is of Barrowman arriving at his civil partnership ceremony on Wednesday. It was held in Cardiff where Torchwood is made and the couple have been together for 16 years.
I have to pass on the similarity between Edwards’ and Disraeli’s politics, due to only a passing familiarity with Disraeli’s, but the rhetorical similarities you note are interesting. America is in a period of increasing polarization of wealth. Put simply, the rich are getting much richer, the poor poorer, and those in between are being squeezed toward the poor end of the scale. The Two-Nations rhetoric is powerful because it is simple, clear, and carries a moral imperative – to help others less fortunate. Sadly, the message that has been victorious in America for the past twenty years is “Look out for yourself and your family.” I do not think this last election signals a change in the Me-First outlook. The election was an anti-incumbent, anti-Bush vote. If Edwards can harness that dissatisfaction with the status quo into a positive, community focused direction, he will do more good that simply getting elected.
The WWII generation is the group that has moved the most across the political-economic spectrum. They benefited tremendously from the GI Bill and the industrial expansion of post-war years. Factory workers moved into the secure middle-class and their children went off to colleges and bright futures in unprecedented numbers. Now these same people are retired and are watching their retirement benefits threatened or already cut by corporations whose top management is reaping startlingly huge salaries and stock options. Their children are struggling and are having trouble paying for college for their grandchildren and both parents and children are have trouble finding jobs.
These “Reagan Democrats” responded strongly to the “Me First” GOP message, even though they benefited the most by the community-first GI Bill. Will they rally around Edwards’ rhetoric with its essentially centrist appeal? That will be a key question for Edwards chances. His rhetoric may a strike nerve that has been sensitized by the economic disparities in America. He certainly has a better chance to do so than Hillary or Obama.
I realize upon rereading this comment that I didn’t do justice to you comparison, Londonbear. Consider this as thoughts generated by your interesting observation, as opposed to a comment on them. I look forward to see what others have to say.
The strange thing is that you describe the social conditions that Disraeli was reacting against in his book. As England had industrialised, the rich benefitted from the empoverishment of the workers. In part the poverty was exacerbated by their removal from the social support structures offered by their rural parishes, another similarity where the increased isolation of individuals from family/neighbourhood support in the USA makes another similarity.
The parish support system was not carried over to America as a reaction against an established Church and the self-help ethos of the westward expansion. The population kept moving into new territory and the social/political structures followed a step or two behind. People relied on themselves and the small groups of often interrelated families that tended to migrate together. It created a different social dynamic than the urbanization of the British rural population in the 19th century. Much of American “Individualism” is derived from the positive cultural stereotype of the settlers of the westward expansion. That image of self-reliance and no government to speak of resonates with many Americans to this day. Whereas in Britain, increased urbanization led to communal organizing, such as the Union Movement, the Sunday School movement, and Settlement Houses, all of which developed out of the conditions of Disraeli’s time.
Progressives in America always have to fight against the pull of Individualism that is part of our national character. In England, the appeal was noblesse oblige. In America, it is much more effective to appeal to the middle class to help each other through tough times and those less fortunate, while shaming the rich for the ill-gotten gains. I think the latter part of that equation has been lost in our consumerist era. Edwards’ “One Corps” groups are examples of the first part of the equation.
It is interesting to note that the One Corps idea was a direct borrowing of the Dean Corps started in the Howard Dean 2004 campaign. Edwards’ rhetoric may remind you of Disraeli, but his campaign is going to look a lot like Dean’s, without Joe Trippi, I hope.
of ProgressiveHistorians, a community site dedicated to the intersection of history and politics, I would be honored if you would cross-post this excellent diary there.