Why is there no Labor Party in the United States?
平特五不中 Sociologist uses historical data to provide a new take on an old question
The improbable rise of Bernie Sanders鈥� presidential campaign presents an interesting question: why is Sanders, a self-proclaimed 鈥渄emocratic socialist,鈥� running as a Democrat? 听平特五不中 sociologist Barry Eidlin examines this question through an historical comparison with Canada, a country similar to the U.S. in many ways, but whose political culture and electoral system have ostensibly been more hospitable to labor parties.
鈥淚n any other industrialized country, Sanders would likely be the standard-bearer for a labor or social democratic party鈥�, says Eidlin in a new analysis published in the听American Sociological Review. 鈥淏ut the U.S. famously lacks such a party. The conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. lacks a labor or socialist party because its political culture is hostile to socialism, and its electoral system is uniquely hostile to third parties.鈥�
Electoral data challenges conventional wisdom
鈥淭he analysis of 142 years of electoral data shows that differences in political culture and electoral systems did not affect labor party support as expected: prior to the 1930s, political differences were muted, with low but significant labor party support in both countries鈥� says Eidlin.
It was only in the 1930s that labor party support collapsed in the United States and took off in Canada. Why was there such a stark shift in the 1930s?
Using in-depth archival research, Prof. Eidlin shows that it was a consequence of different ruling party responses to worker and farmer protest during the Great Depression. In the U.S., FDR responded to the protests with rhetorical appeals to the 鈥渇orgotten man鈥� and policy reforms that successfully absorbed some farmer and labor groups into his New Deal coalition, while simultaneously dividing and excluding others. The result was labor party collapse.
In Canada, mainstream parties responded to protests with a combination of repression and neglect. This exclusionary approach left room for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), a precursor to today鈥檚 New Democratic Party (NDP), to organize them into a durable third-party coalition.
The paradoxical role of parties
Eidlin鈥檚 analysis highlights the role that political parties play not only in reflecting the will of different segments of the electorate, but in actively constructing and constraining political coalitions.
鈥淲hat鈥檚 really interesting here is the paradoxical role that the ruling parties play in both countries,鈥� Eidlin said. 鈥淚n the U.S., the Democrats鈥� more conciliatory response to farmer and labor protest ended up constraining progressive politics over the long term. Meanwhile, the Canadian Liberals and Conservatives鈥� efforts to suppress farmer and labor protest backfired, setting the stage for the relatively more progressive political landscape we take for granted today.鈥�
Definitely not Ivory Tower intellectuals
Amidst the tumult of the Great Depression, similar groups of intellectuals played very different roles in shaping political parties鈥� approaches in both countries. 鈥淚n the U.S., President Roosevelt relied on a group of intellectuals known as his 鈥楤rains Trust鈥� to develop the reform program that came to be known as the New Deal,鈥� Eidlin explained. 鈥淚n Canada, the mainstream parties had no room for this kind of big thinking. So the Canadian intellectuals who would likely have been part of that 鈥楤rains Trust鈥� had they been in the U.S., particularly some professors at 平特五不中 and the University of Toronto, instead formed the League for Social Reconstruction, which provided the intellectual backbone for the CCF.鈥�
To contact the Prof. Eidlin directly: barry.eidlin [at] mcgill.ca ()
听
