WHy is it so that in the USA left-wing parties never had any success?

[The Yankee]

The Midwest was a Progressive stronghold in the early 20th century, so I wouldn't quite say that the rural-urban divide was a major cause of the failure for more left wing parties to establish a true toehold by 1920. I think it would have been a factor post World War II, however.

Check out this page of the 1924 presidential election by county.

Edit: And 1912 is a pretty good representation also. I'd have to dig around for congressional results, since presidential elections can be driven by personalities more so than choosing a third party.

 

[Plotinus]

I'm using official US and UN definitions and statistics. Your own arbitrary definition may be different. But I think you'd be hardpressed to find a statistical breakdown based on your specific definition.

All right! You're right and I'm wrong.

Communists tend to be considered left wing. And more often than not they're a political party.

You're just missing my point here, at least. My point was that while communists may be (extreme) left-wingers, and while there may be communist political parties, where communism has been successful it has not typically been a result of a democratic political process. It's been down to quite different factors. So looking at those countries where communist regimes were installed isn't going to tell you much about why left-wing parties haven't done well in a democracy; at most it's going to tell you why communists haven't seized power in that country.

This is hogwash. American history has been rife with (comparatively) extreme religious revivals since its late colonial history. They even called several of them the 'Great Awakening', complete with loud, evangelical 'Fire and Brimstone' preachers everywhere you turn. The '60's were not a decisive moment on this matter. Europe was turning towards secularism long before that and America would go into fits of religious conservatism anytime something threatened real social change.

But religious or (more generally) socially conservative based opposition to progress and even intellectualism has been a part of American politics since we've been a nation.

Calm down. It's not hogwash; you've been taken in by the hype. First, the "Great Awakenings" weren't that great. The first one, in the mid-eighteenth century, was confined almost entirely to New England. The second one, in the early nineteenth century, was more widespread (being focused especially in the south) but somewhat less dramatic. Second, there were equivalent movements in Europe too. Think of the Methodists in Britain or the Herrnhutters and other Pietists in Germany; and people like William Law, Daniel Rowland; and so on. And indeed the American revivals were to a large extent inspired by the European ones; the first, in particular, was closely associated with the preaching tours of George Whitefield. Also, it's somewhat anachronistic to call these people "evangelical"; they were more like Pietists.

The claim that Europe was turning towards secularism long before the 1960s is quite contentious, at least depending upon how you interpret it; the seeds were certainly sown long before that time but I don't think it's true that secularism was really a mainstream social phenomenon until then. Most people were Christian until after WWII. There may have been different underlying factors in Europe and the US long before the 1960s which would later produce the differences, but I think that if you were to go back to the early twentieth century and compare American and European society you wouldn't see much visible difference in degree of religiosity.

 

[Swedishguy]

OK, so some people we seem to have concluded that the US didn't have a left-wing party because it was stable economically and is highly rural.

Sweden was all that - how come socialism has got such a great foothold in Sweden?

 

[luiz]

As other have said, socialism and other radical forms of social engineering were also relatively widespread in the US, even (or particularly) on rural areas in the late 19th and early 20th Century. Even the Communist Party did moderately well once (I don't know precisely what election, but it was around 1930, when they got over 1 million votes).

It was only a bit later in the 20th Century that US became noticiably to the right of Europe, and this may have to do with many factors like economic prosperity for longer periods of time (deep economic crisis, or long periods of recession, are a driver of radicalism), the Cold War, etc.

It is also noteworthy that it was not only left-wing radicalism which became less prevalent in the US, but also the so-called far-right parties never grew as much there as they did once in Europe and elsewhere.

 

[Naskra]

Socialism did not fare all that badly in the US. The demands of the early 20th century Socialist Party are now largely the law of the land -- 40 hour work week, emancipation of women & non-whites, etc.
The country as a whole has moved to the left, to such an extent that notions like a progressive income tax go unchallenged (in public). Even the label "progressive" is given a pass. Much lip-service is still given to America as the land of the rugged individual, but collectivist ideology now rules.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Even the label "progressive" is given a pass. Much lip-service is still given to America as the land of the rugged individual, but collectivist ideology now rules.

There is no doubt some credibility to what you say, alot of the socialist ideals were co-opted. But I do think you're severely overstating things. We do lag severely behind on extent and scale of those social programs compared to most other Western Countries. And a number programs in our 'welfare safety net' are little more than tiny, underfunded band-aids.

And much of the rhetoric and actual policies have been rolled back, limited, or even reverse. You say 'progressive' gets a pass. Fair enough. But the right now dominates the terminology game and have thrown things like the double-tax and death tax into the national dialog. Various programs or taxes that were previously sacrosanct are now legitimate targets in both rhetoric and policy. The 'Progressive Tax' is much less progressive than it used to be. And in actual practice, if not actual legislation, things like worker protections, workplace guarantees, and various other rights and benefits have been limited considerably, either by court rulings or lack of enforcement.

America is less worker friendly and less progressive than it was 20-30 years ago. It also provides less comprehensive services than it did back than as well. (though inexplicably, our budget continues to rise. Go figure)

 

[jessiecat]

OK, so some people we seem to have concluded that the US didn't have a left-wing party because it was stable economically and is highly rural.

Sweden was all that - how come socialism has got such a great foothold in Sweden?

Same thing with Canada. Cooperative and social democratic movements caught on fast in the 20's and 30's, esp. with the rise of the CCF in 1932. The CCF govt. in Saskatchewan under Tommy Douglas pioneered publicly-funded transport, agricultural cooperatives and the first universal health care scheme in the world in 1938. The CCF and later the NDP held power in over half the provincial legislatures since then and formed a national coalition govt. with the Liberals in the 1980s.
My own home town of Oshawa, Ontario, a car-making company town, the home of General Motors of Canada, has regularly elected NDP MP's including the leader Ed Broadbent. Union politics has always been influential and Oshawa once had the largest union branch in the world, UAW Local 222 which had over 20,000 members. It even had a Communist mayor throughout WW2.
Even today, the NDP regularly picks up about 20% of the vote in federal elections.
So social democratic ideas have always had a firm hold in Canadian politics, which may explain why Canada has become a more liberal society both socially and politically than the U.S..

 

[classical_hero]

I would say the most important factor would be the religious nature of the average American. Generally the most religious a person the more conservative they are.

 

[Plotinus]

I would say the most important factor would be the religious nature of the average American. Generally the most religious a person the more conservative they are.

That doesn't explain much though, since as I've already pointed out, America was not notably more religious than Europe until after WWII. Moreover, Christianity in many parts of the world is associated with left-wing politics, not right-wing politics. Indeed, the rise of socialism was helped in many places by Christian activists, who believed that left-wing politics were demanded by their faith. Keir Hardie, one of the main founders of the Labour Party in Britain, was a lay preacher who called Jesus the first communist. There's also the fact that the American wing of some churches is more politically and socially liberal than in other countries; the American Episcopalian church, for example, is much more "liberal" in most senses of the word than its sister Anglican churches in other countries. This is one of the reasons why there are such divisions within the Anglican communion at the moment. So to assume that even American Christians (let alone Christians in general) tend to be right-wing would be wrong.

The question why much of Christianity in the US has become associated with right-wing politics is itself a question of enormous complexity. I suspect that the answer to it is bound up with the question why US politics in general is so right-wing. So in other words, the political conservatism of (many) American Christians is part of the phenomenon which the OP asks to be explained; it is not an explanation for it.

 

[jessiecat]

That doesn't explain much though, since as I've already pointed out, America was not notably more religious than Europe until after WWII. Moreover, Christianity in many parts of the world is associated with left-wing politics, not right-wing politics. Indeed, the rise of socialism was helped in many places by Christian activists, who believed that left-wing politics were demanded by their faith. Keir Hardie, one of the main founders of the Labour Party in Britain, was a lay preacher who called Jesus the first communist. There's also the fact that the American wing of some churches is more politically and socially liberal than in other countries; the American Episcopalian church, for example, is much more "liberal" in most senses of the word than its sister Anglican churches in other countries. This is one of the reasons why there are such divisions within the Anglican communion at the moment. So to assume that even American Christians (let alone Christians in general) tend to be right-wing would be wrong.

The question why much of Christianity in the US has become associated with right-wing politics is itself a question of enormous complexity. I suspect that the answer to it is bound up with the question why US politics in general is so right-wing. So in other words, the political conservatism of (many) American Christians is part of the phenomenon which the OP asks to be explained; it is not an explanation for it.

I agree. Canada has always been very religious and conservative, esp. in
the West. That didn't prevent cooperative movements similiar to the British
example developing among the wheat farmers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba
in the 1920's. Nor did it prevent a strong trade union movement and it's
left political affiliates developing in the more industrialized parts of the East.
The answer doesn't lie in religious factors at all. IMHO

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I would say the most important factor would be the religious nature of the average American. Generally the most religious a person the more conservative they are.

I seriously disagree with this assessment. If anything, leftist ideas are MORE Christian than conservative ones.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

I'm surprised nobody said what I am almost convinced is the correct reason, which is a longstanding history of only having two major political parties in the U.S. (Which, in turn probably traces to the roots of having a non-proportional representative system. If my party gets 50.1% in every district, we get EVERY seat on Congress) As long as you only have two major parties that can stand a real chance of winning, each one is going to be driven more and more to the ideological center, because as long as they're more left or right than "the other guys" they'll pick up all conservatives/liberals anyway.

 

[jessiecat]

I'm surprised nobody said what I am almost convinced is the correct reason, which is a longstanding history of only having two major political parties in the U.S. (Which, in turn probably traces to the roots of having a non-proportional representative system. If my party gets 50.1% in every district, we get EVERY seat on Congress) As long as you only have two major parties that can stand a real chance of winning, each one is going to be driven more and more to the ideological center, because as long as they're more left or right than "the other guys" they'll pick up all conservatives/liberals anyway.

I can see your point, but two party systems aren't set in stone and remain
so foreever. Otherwise neither Britain or Canada would have evolved three
party systems. More importantly, as I've already described, with similiar
circumstances, why did Canada develop an effective left-wing third party
and the U.S. did not?

 

[The Yankee]

I would say the most important factor would be the religious nature of the average American. Generally the most religious a person the more conservative they are.

Much of the support for the Civil Rights movement came from religious teachings. But by then, it was 1950 and later, and the anti-Commie feeling was in full swing.

 

[Maniac]

It is also noteworthy that it was not only left-wing radicalism which became less prevalent in the US, but also the so-called far-right parties never grew as much there as they did once in Europe and elsewhere.

The Republicans are far-right by European standards.

 

[Princeps]

Much of the support for the Civil Rights movement came from religious teachings.

Religious civil rights advocates like Martin Luther King were rather an exception to the rule, and even he was surrounded by secular left-wingers without who he would've never reached such heights. Martin Luther King kept receiving frosty polite warnings from the mainstream religious charlatans, who warned him to be patient, or in other words, to shut up. MLK himself was a democratic socialist.

This is why it's funny when people like Romney try to feed from MLK's reputation.

I seriously disagree with this assessment. If anything, leftist ideas are MORE Christian than conservative ones.

Well, you see, back when the conservative classical-liberals still had conservative values, they were opposed to the rise of corporations, which they perceived to be a form of feudalism, and they were also opposed to wage-slavery (wage labour) and compared it to chattel slavery (Southern version of slavery). The idea that people should be dependant on wage for survival, was often seen as an abomination in Classical Liberalism. Also some of them advocated the idea that the workers should control the factories, because that was such an obvious idea. In fact, it was for sometime the offical position of the Republican party. None of them had been influenced by any European radicalism or anything, none of them had ever heard of Marx.

 

[luiz]

The Republicans are far-right by European standards.

I was rather talking of nazi/fascists, which were far more popular in some areas of Europe of the 30's (and also Latin America, which is often forgotten) then in the US of the time.

The Republicans are not nazi/fascists.

 

[Cutlass]

I was rather talking of nazi/fascists, which were far more popular in some areas of Europe of the 30's (and also Latin America, which is often forgotten) then in the US of the time.

The Republicans are not nazi/fascists.

they are now.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

they are now.

The standard rhetoric out of the Republican party doesn't come close to some of the crap that spills forth from the mouths of right-wing nationalist parties in Europe. Unless they're talking about gays.

For the other stuff (race/ethnicity), they're forced to code that stuff.

 

[Cutlass]

The standard rhetoric out of the Republican party doesn't come close to some of the crap that spills forth from the mouths of right-wing nationalist parties in Europe. Unless they're talking about gays.

For the other stuff (race/ethnicity), they're forced to code that stuff.

They may be reigned in on the rhetoric, but America's "conservatives" never stop trying to make America a police state.