May 01, 2011
— Open Blogger Such a thing as a major political party does not simply cease to exist, even in gloomy times. A rare confluence of events, personalities, and policy challenges must come together to topple such a self-perpetuating machine as a major political party. Such situations cannot be foreseen and will inevitably strike when the players involved are those least capable of preventing it. It happened to the Liberal Party in England in the second decade of the twentieth century. It may happen to the Democratic Party here in America sooner than you think.
In George DangerfieldÂ’s beautiful and quintessentially English historical monograph, The Strange Death of Liberal England, the devilish opposition of Tory leader Andrew Bonar Law and the feckless passivity of Prime Minister H.H. Asquith; the mine-craft radical, opportunistic rabble-rousing of David Lloyd George and the idealistic naivety of Sir Edward Carson and his vision of a religiously-divided Ireland; the wide-eyed political inexperience of King George V and the worldly, violent militancy of the Pankhurst women, split open the seams in the Liberal coalition in turns by chance and by design.
The Parliament Act of 1911
Liberal majorities in the Commons were strong and regular throughout the years 1890-1910. But legislation passed by the Commons was oftentimes held up and vetoed by the strongly Conservative House of Lords, a static situation which became increasingly perilous as the growing welfare state and expense of the empire strained the Exchequer to its limits. Therefore, the Parliament Act of 1911 was drafted to effectively nullify the veto power of the Lords. At the same time, the Money Bill was drafted with huge tax increases on the rich and landed gentry in order to provide the revenue necessary to perpetuate the current, relatively expansive (for the time) government.
Since the Lords obviously wouldnÂ’t agree to increased wealth redistribution at their own (and their social classÂ’) expense, the PM, Lord Asquith met with the aged King George V, and asked him to create a large number of Liberal life lords to ensure that the dire budget situation would get through the Lords. ItÂ’s unclear whether George V would have created these lords, but the credible threat was enough to get the Lords to back down. This was to be Lord AsquithÂ’s master-stroke of politicking but also his ultimate downfall.
Lord Asquith reminds me of Harry Reid: impassive, ministerial, and without a complete grasp of how the optics and outcomes of his current actions may open him up to equally-bold counterstrokes by energized and angry opposition. (Or, more like the late Claiborne Pell, if you remember him.)
The Lords, largely Conservative, eventually agreed to the Parliament Act rather than see their august assemblage diluted to a ridiculous degree. Their veto power gone, the Lords became an august assemblage of hounds without any teeth, a situation which persists to this day.
To the Tories in the Commons, this meant war. The old rules of gentile collegiality were well and truly dead. Amending the shape of the Government and destroying the Tory advantage in the upper chamber was a huge victory for the Liberals, but it opened the door for all kinds of low and dirty tricks to be used by the King’s loyal opposition to get what they wanted—the dissolution of the Liberal government and eventual control of Commons; perhaps to put right what had been done to the House of Lords, perhaps to invalidate more of the Liberal agenda, but perhaps for the base ambition of personal political power.
I canÂ’t help but notice that this is similar to recent Democratic calls to limit or eliminate the filibuster, especially during the last Congress. More generally, it reminds me of the delegation of authority from Congress to the Executive here in in the U.S. Without going into it at length, the executive was envisioned to be a fairly junior member of the Executive-Congressional-Judicial triumvirate. Only after about 1860 did the president emerge as a regular force in domestic policy; only during the Wilson administration did the Executive overtake the Congress in primacy. Removal of checks and balances makes for a nimbler legislature and government, but it also prevents factions from stopping what can be dangerous new laws from being enacted.
The Ulster Unionists
Most Northern Irish Protestants were transplanted Scots with their own culture and social identity, separate from the indigenous Irish. As both the North and Ireland proper are subjects to the Crown, it mattered little whether one cracks his egg on the round end or the pointy one. But once Lords would no longer be able to thwart the Liberal passage of a Home Rule bill (a measure to grant independence to Ireland and a long-standing plank in the Liberal platform,) the particulars of what Ireland was to become and who would rule it became quite real and concrete questions with which to wrestle.
Sir Edward Carson (later Baron Carson) was an Orangeist who disliked many of the particulars of Orange culture, viewing them as backwards and vainglorious people by and large. But he had even less love for the Catholics. At least as a subject to George V, Ulster was ruled by a Protestant monarch and not a Catholic parliament. While he was against Home Rule as late as 1912, he was equally strident in his belief that Ulster was to be independent, should Home Rule come. On September 28, 1912, he was the first signatory of the Ulster Covenant which bound its signatories to resist Home Rule (by Catholics) with the threat that they would use “all means necessary” to do so. Carson founded the Ulster Volunteers, the first Northern paramilitary group. Once the Home Rule bill passed in the spring of 1914, civil war in Ireland was only averted by the onset of World War I a few months later.
As a lover of Ireland, Carson was bitter at the Tories for, in his opinion, forcing him down the path of supporting a divided Ireland. As the particulars of the Irish partition question were in reality almost impossible to come to grips with, he also blamed the Tories for defeating Home Rule in practice, although the full extent of Tory involvement in the issue, after the Parliament Act was passed, was to throw insubstantive verbal jabs the likes of which we see on Question Time.
The Suffragette Movement under the Pankhursts
Another plank in the Liberal platform was that of female suffrage. Once the Parliament Act had been passed, it was clear to the militant suffragettes that the Liberals should act upon this plank and give them the vote. When H.H. Asquith was characteristically equivocating and dilatory in his treatment of the suffragette representatives Emmaline and her daughter Christabel Pankhurst, the younger Pankhurst directed a brilliant and expensive terrorist campaign against the City of London in furtherance of her political goals.
Christabel was a gorgeous, imperious and commanding presence who was able to run a de facto terrorist cell from her exile in France, doing millions of pounds of damage to London and its businesses, shutting down thoroughfares and squares and even Parliament over the course of the nineteen-teens. Hunger strikes, and at least one public suicide, by Emily Davison, were also very effective in garnering public support. Because the English people and government had no idea how to deal with militant women in large numbers, the Asquith government eventually relented and promised suffrage, which was eventually granted in 1918 after the War, and full womenÂ’s suffrage was achieved in England in 1928.
However, the disruptions caused by the militant suffragettes also shook the nationÂ’s confidence in Liberal leadership; and women voters didnÂ’t forgive AsquithÂ’s sleights to their cause, voting largely for Labour when their time came to speak at the polls.
Lloyd George and the Mining Syndicates
A machine politician from Wales and a lover of the working class, David Lloyd George, last Liberal Prime Minister of England, leaves a strange legacy. On one hand, he brought great reforms to the mining communities of Wales and Northern England, with wages and working conditions improving; he attacked ecclesiastical-denominational schooling in favor of national secular schools and curricula; he established a tradition of public housing; he was a strong voice against the Second Boer War; and established national welfare for the sick and infirm. On the other hand, he stewarded EnglandÂ’s unity government through World War I and instituted a military draft.
Unfortunately for Lloyd George, his support for minerÂ’s rights was not as strong as the syndicalists who supported him were led to believe, and many of the miners who he had helped the most fled to the Labour Party after the War as well when he was unable to get major industrial companies to completely recognize labor unions. After the War, he did extend social welfare benefits to millions, predating the Great Society by some 40 years.
Conclusions
The Liberals experienced a pretty serious series of defeats in 1922 and 1923. Their margins diminished quickly, and they have spent much of the intervening years as a weak sister to Labour. Even today, they run a distant third behind Labour and the Tories.
A fan of the actions of the Liberals vis-a-vis the vast expansion of redistributionist government during this period might point to underlying social pressures as the inexorable force pushing the Liberal majority to act in such a radical fashion. It was going to happen, no matter what.
In my opinion, the Liberal Party was a victim of its own successes and excesses. The zeitgeist of the first half of the 20th century and more particularly of the nineteen-teens led voters to install a government which promised huge changes. When that government was installed, the changes it promised were too small to satisfy its broad constituency and too big to allow beautiful “old” England to continue its cultural slumber. Facing the changes that Liberals promised in terms of pursuing Irish Home Rule and suffrage turned out to be too big for the country to handle. The thirst for a cradle-to-grave welfare state, created in part by Asquith’s own introduction of old-age pensions and in part by Continental Europe’s powers providing these benefits, too large a task for the Liberals even with the Parliament Act in place to prevent Tory oversight.
As a lover of the American system of government and our written and continuing Constitution, the Parliament Act of 1911 seems to be the secular version of a national and abiding sin—a transgression against forces that are bigger than even the government itself. While I understand that there was nothing technically illegal about the Act, and there is no written English Constitution against which to measure the Act’s legality, the poker game that the Liberals played with the naïve George VI to force through its passage is abominable and perverse. While I am inclined to admire and esteem the more-conservative forces in any civic play, I believe I would have been a Liberal prior to the Act and a Tory thereafter, so distasteful the machinations of its passage are to me. In this vein, I read the rest of the book with a sense of smug satisfaction, as the maladies that befell the Liberals and England altogether over the course of the nineteen-teen years feeding my appetite for just desserts.
Just as it took a Carter to bring us a Reagan, it has taken an Obama—overreaching, imperious, and tone-deaf—to bring us the TEA movement. Government sucked before, but it takes a truly colossal overstep to awaken a slumbering majority. Will the current paradigm in partisan politics change due to Democratic arrogance, or will we as a free people knuckle under to an increasingly arbitrary and invasive tyranny? We have evidence that the forces at play stripping a free people of liberty can and have been defeated and decimated by the ballot and not the bullet. In the Internet Age, so much more will be possible, and I am confident that we in the country class will overcome the government class in time. And that time may come sooner than we think.
Posted by: Open Blogger at
04:44 PM
| Comments (51)
Post contains 2022 words, total size 14 kb.
Posted by: Andrew Breitbart at May 01, 2011 04:53 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: USA at May 01, 2011 04:53 PM (YZISw)
Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek
Posted by: Dan at May 01, 2011 05:00 PM (9L1z6)
Sounds eerily like FDR's Supreme Court packing scheme. I wonder if FDR picked up this idea from Lord Asquith?
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 01, 2011 05:02 PM (c0A3e)
I mean, the collapse of the Liberal Party only led to the ascendancy of the far more virulent Labor Party.
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at May 01, 2011 05:03 PM (fjoLg)
the collapse of the Liberal Party only led to the ascendancy of the far more virulent Labor Party.
it's possible that "Labour" emerges from today's Democratic party. But they're already about as far left as any party in Europe. I don't see what they gain by dropping the facade. More likely we will see a re-alignment rightward, even if it's a little bit.
Posted by: Truman North at May 01, 2011 05:05 PM (8ay4x)
Gentile or genteel? Makes a difference, you know.
Posted by: the Joos at May 01, 2011 05:14 PM (6zFxS)
As for me, not so confident. The matrix of a perpetual prog govt seems almost complete and we have no one, not one, national political figure looking to get us out of this plutocratic oligarchy. They just argue about the edges.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 01, 2011 05:14 PM (IXLvN)
Posted by: Randolph Duke at May 01, 2011 05:15 PM (AYwIq)
You are right to suggest that to carry the parallels too far is unproductive. In fact, a forthrightly-radicalized party of the Left might well be the best possible thing to come out of the current chivaree. That there is a strong indication that it won't in fact happen.
But I have observed that most of the time, societal unrest--the breakdown of the established order, or the threat of same--tends to ratchet a polity leftwards.
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at May 01, 2011 05:18 PM (fjoLg)
Posted by: Truman North
More than likely we will see the Democratic party mutate to something else to maintain its "populist" cred. They always been the "populist" party, even when they're lying (which is often, in fact just about all the time).
The "Tories" or Constitutionalists (only a part or faction of the Republican party) have to win a whole series of elections, over a lot of cycles, to undo the damage. I think that it cannot be done. People want those sweet government entitlements - SS, Medicare, etc. The People want their sugar from Uncle Sugar. Their "thirst for liberty" was slaked long ago, and people want the easy life because deep down, they don't believe that they can lose their liberties.
I think that we will someday soon have naught - neither Liberty nor the sweet entitlements that so many thirst for. I think it will get ugly. I wish it were otherwise.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at May 01, 2011 05:23 PM (sJTmU)
Because it already happened. Wasn't it Reagan who said he didn't leave the Democrat party, it left him?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 01, 2011 05:25 PM (suk+Z)
It might be useful to have the Dems just cut the bullshit and admit they're Marxists, hate America and all she stands for, and want to replace our government with soviets and the whole nine yards. We appreciate that, but the great lowing mass of "independents" obviously haven't figured that out (or don't care, which I don't believe).
Once the Dems break cover and admit the truth, as several have come close to doing, they'll have to shoot the moon: either seize power in a putsch, or be consigned to oblivion.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 01, 2011 05:26 PM (C9l9M)
Posted by: Rich Belaire at May 01, 2011 05:27 PM (/LR68)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 01, 2011 05:27 PM (qdBf5)
It's unlikely that anything we do now can undo the USA's slouch into mediocrity. The choices now are likely a fate like the USSR, which almost instantaneously collapsed under its own weight, or a fate like Western Europe, which is on a century-long decline into oblivion.
Posted by: Truman North at May 01, 2011 05:28 PM (8ay4x)
Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at May 01, 2011 05:29 PM (QBQcg)
Posted by: Truman North at May 01, 2011 05:30 PM (8ay4x)
I think he's referring to both the original and amended act, though you're right that George VI didn't play a role in this. His father George V ruled from 1910-1936.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 01, 2011 05:30 PM (qdBf5)
Truman and Monty should team up for double dose of doom.
Posted by: lowandslow at May 01, 2011 05:31 PM (GZitp)
That would be great but it ain't happening. Look at the non-stir that was caused by naming the socialist members of Congress or the socialist or communist czars (Carol Browner, Van Jones) Barry has appointed and the cover provided by the MBM. Sheep don't care who herds them. They just want to feed and shit and make little sheep.
Posted by: huerfano at May 01, 2011 05:32 PM (6zFxS)
Once the Dems break cover and admit the truth, as several have come close to doing, they'll have to shoot the moon: either seize power in a putsch, or be consigned to oblivion.
Posted by: Jay Guevara
I think that although a few might "break cover", there are still too many Americans that will revolt about it, as you imply.
Taking this one step further, I think that with Obama, the Leftist leadership realizes that they went "a bridge too far" and will try to re-trench with..... Trump.
Trump is no Republican or a a conservative or any kind of Constitutionalist. He's a loud mouthed populist. But I think enough Republicans might get conned by him in the primaries (just a maybe) that he could get the nomination (wouldn't that be a pretty picture), and then be installed as President. Republicans stymied in the House and Senate because the titular leader of their party is really a populist Leftist's puppet, is a really strange possibility.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at May 01, 2011 05:34 PM (sJTmU)
Posted by: Nozzle at May 01, 2011 05:36 PM (sE08M)
You missed the "forthrightly" in my comment. Sure, the Democrat Party became radicalized after 1968, but they still won't admit as much to Joe Doakes, John Q. Public and their ilk.
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at May 01, 2011 05:38 PM (fjoLg)
More accurately, a oligarch masquerading as a populist strictly for PR purposes. Don't listen to what he says, watch his hands -- look at what he's done and how he runs his businesses.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 01, 2011 05:40 PM (suk+Z)
They also confuse "liberty" with "license." Government can tell them where to live, what to eat, what to drive (if they're even allowed to drive), what kind of toilets they can shit in, if they're allowed to have a mammogram, etc, etc, and that's no big deal. But as soon as someone comes along and says, "You know, school time should be used for math class instead of the joys of fisting" they're all screaming about how we want to take away their sexual freedom.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 01, 2011 05:41 PM (0vDuM)
It's way more than 536, man. There's layers and layers of un-elected and unchecked bureaucrats who write the regulations we have to obey.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 01, 2011 05:42 PM (0vDuM)
JH, I know you and I don't see eye-to-eye on proper Internet eqttiquette or on most social issues, but I am awfully fond of you, specifically for your updates on what's going on in Congress and your historical documentation over on the other site. Thanks for being fair with me when I'm sure you'd rather turn the other cheek sometimes.
Posted by: Truman North at May 01, 2011 05:51 PM (8ay4x)
Posted by: Adobe Walls at May 01, 2011 05:54 PM (uKRDQ)
Posted by: toby928™ at May 01, 2011 05:59 PM (GTbGH)
The Democrat party won't go down quietly, but down they will go. It's not just them; they will take the traditional, old school liberal media with them. The odd thing is that they don't seem to recognize the magnitude of the danger approaching.
They are truly dinosaurs ... with a cocksure look of invinciblility as they stare up in the sky at the giant fireball hurtling towards earth. The difference is this is self-inflicted. Dinosaurs, however, are an appropriate description of the democrat party and liberal media.
Posted by: JD at May 01, 2011 06:07 PM (WtMd2)
I was thinking that today is May Day (i.e., Commie Day) in Europe, which is why our own day in celebration of labor is in September.
We need a "Taxpayers' Day," a day set aside to honor all those who pay taxes. We need the 47% who ride free to realize that others are paying their fair share, while they themselves are not.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 01, 2011 06:09 PM (C9l9M)
The Democrat party won't go down quietly, but down they will go. It's not just them; they will take the traditional, old school liberal media with them.
Your lips to God's ears. But what would it take to sink them both? VENONA decrypts and/or KGB files showing Dems colluding with Reds? We've already got that, in spades. (See, e.g., Teddy Kennedy conspiring with Moscow to undermine Reagan. He should have been hanged for that alone.) Liberal icons turning out to be card-carrying communists? Howard Zinn call your office.
The media are the key. For too many, if the Red-infested media don't cover it, it didn't happen.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 01, 2011 06:12 PM (C9l9M)
Posted by: Purple Avenger
And Obama is a corporatist - protofascist. His Leninist-Marxist demagogery is just semantics and Leftist jingoism, just a charade to get power, and keep it. Trump, as you say, would govern as an oligarch, a similar corporatist - a distinction without a difference.
Tyranny stinks and will get violent on the peeps sooner or later. But as long as people gots da Hi-Def TV and lottery tickets, and what have you, let the good times roll.........
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at May 01, 2011 06:15 PM (sJTmU)
But what would it take to sink them both?
Jay, it's already happening. Both the democrats and the media tried to stop it when ordinary people started attending town hall meetings voicing their concerns after ObamaCare passed. The media did yeoman's working trying to discredit the "tea baggers". Would you disagree that was a major failure (not to mention lame)?
The democrats continued to push through legislation when they owned the house, senate, and WH. The financial legislation is certainly a major example. Nancy Pelosi guarantees dems will hold the house. Obama struts from vacation to concert to hoops game to "major speech" without a care in the world, yadda, yadda, yadda. November 2010 and the biggest House turnover in 70 f**king years and inroads in the senate. Accident? I think not.
The media's message is now it's racism. Right. Herman Cain, Allen West, and Harry Alford (CEO & President of the National Black Chamber of Commerce) might have an opinion on that subject. I don't see the loser media asking them what they think.
Let's compare the intensity and, more importantly, authenticity of the demonstrations. The dems have union organized protests including bussed in demonstrators with manufactured signs and t-shirts (lame). Those opposing big government, deficit spending, entitlement mentality have no centralized leader and cross all economic and sociological demographics.
The 2010 election was just the beginning. We now have media representing the conservative side - Breitbart, Limbaugh, Levin, many high quality bloggers, too many too mention. You know what? They're fearless and we need that.
Change is happening quickly. It takes awhile for people to realize they can change the direction of the country. We don't have to take it anymore. That includes voting out the loser Republican establishment that enjoys the self-interest associated with big government. Grab a beer and some popcorn and pull up a seat. The next 18 months will be a wild, but fun ride.
The times they are a changing.
Posted by: JD at May 01, 2011 06:49 PM (WtMd2)
Posted by: Truman North at May 01, 2011 07:12 PM (8ay4x)
Posted by: Dread0 at May 01, 2011 07:50 PM (/3KyT)
Posted by: Rich Rostrom at May 02, 2011 11:13 AM (dyIHB)
Posted by: DM500HD at May 02, 2011 10:17 PM (cRNIC)
And Obama is a corporatist - protofascist. His Leninist-Marxist demagogery is just semantics and Leftist jingoism, just a charade to get power, and keep it. Trump, as you say, would govern as an oligarch, a similar corporatist - a distinction without a difference.
Posted by: free dvd ripper at May 03, 2011 06:10 PM (J3A9l)
Posted by: oakley sunglasses outlet at June 20, 2011 09:17 AM (LGHKZ)
Posted by: sac at June 21, 2011 01:02 AM (nWvzT)
Online Radii Shoes• Buy Radii Shoes on www.radiishoe.com. Fashion and free shipping in radii footwear, radii straight jacket, radii 420 top.
Posted by: radii shoes at June 27, 2011 05:33 PM (We9m7)
Posted by: swarovski wholesale at July 07, 2011 06:08 PM (rFkvp)
Posted by: Swarovski Beads at July 07, 2011 06:09 PM (rFkvp)
Posted by: download at July 09, 2011 04:47 AM (y4hZ0)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2699 seconds, 179 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Hope you're right. Bet you're wrong. Jus' sayin'.
Posted by: Jack at May 01, 2011 04:53 PM (kCT7A)