Migration and solidarity politics
One of the Big Questions of modern political science is why the politics of the US are so noticeably different from the politics of Europe. Which basically comes down to--why have socialism, social democracy (labelled as such) and labourism never been more than fringe elements of American politics?
One reason is that identified by de Tocqueville: equality. Early on, the US abolished laws which differentiated by folk on the basis of class or religion. Freedom of religion (which the US pioneered) and universal adult male suffrage (ditto) gave American politics a very different dynamic than European (or, even, to an extent) Australian and New Zealand politics. Not having to organise to "break into" the political game took away a major reason for solidarity politics. (With Afro-Americans being the dramatic, and revealing, exception.)
The other big reason, I would suggest, is mass migration--and, in particular, culturally varied mass migration. Mass migration is not in the interests of resident working classes. It puts downward pressure on wages, they disproportionately bear the crowding costs, they have less capacity for managing diversity. Conversely, it helps the possessors of capital--making capital relatively more scarce. (In modern developed societies, supporting migration is also a badge of status-through-correct-opinion aided as a way of lauding it over the working class in particular since the resident working class can be expected to be a bastion of anti-migrant sentiment.)
Nobel Laureate Robert Fogel, in his Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery documents just what a disaster mass migration was for the resident working class in the US in terms of average height and life expectancy (which declined in the C19th from about 1830 onwards).
But waves of culturally varied folk would have further undermined the capacity for the development of working-class-based solidarity politics. Not only did they have competing interests, but cultural differences would have greatly complicated trying to develop common political organisations. Moreover, the expanding frontier encouraged high levels of movement, further undermining the capacity to organise, and the appeal of, solidarity politics. So solidarity politics lost out both ways--less reason to organise, less capacity to do so.
Conversely, mass migration from Europe would have aided solidarity politics there, since those more focused on individual initiative would have tended to leave--particularly to go to the US. Conversely, ethnic concentration and the persistent of hierarchical politics (both religious and class) gave more capacity, and more reason, to organise to "break into" the political game.
The other Anglo-settler societies provide intermediate examples. Yes, Oz, New Zealand and Canada were migration societies, but (apart from the gold rush era in Oz) migration was overwhelmingly from the British isles. There were Protestant Establishment issues for Catholics. In Oz and New Zealand there was an extra factor--the adoption of arbitration. The state effectively created an extra reason for working class solidarity organisation and politics. (Unionism only really took off in the US, to the extent it did, under the New Deal when legislation and executive practice gave further aid to unionisation.) So Oz and New Zealand ended up with major Labour/Labor parties while Canada ended up with their social democrats being a "third party".
Which, would, of course, make the adoption of wage arbitration in the various Antipodean colonies (and later by the Commonwealth of Australia), central to the development of the Antipodean political party system. (I suspect it has much to do with risk-management and exports being overwhelmingly rural-based.) It also meant that the insistence on "White Australia" (i.e. restriction of migration to the same ethnic origins as the current inhabitants, particularly the current working class) was a rational choice to maintain a public policy system based on solidarity politics.
There is, of course, a common tendency to belittle US politics for not being like European or Antipodean politics (usually on some version of "Americans are stupid/evil'). I much prefer explanations which makes sense in terms of social patterns and rational behaviour.
One reason is that identified by de Tocqueville: equality. Early on, the US abolished laws which differentiated by folk on the basis of class or religion. Freedom of religion (which the US pioneered) and universal adult male suffrage (ditto) gave American politics a very different dynamic than European (or, even, to an extent) Australian and New Zealand politics. Not having to organise to "break into" the political game took away a major reason for solidarity politics. (With Afro-Americans being the dramatic, and revealing, exception.)
The other big reason, I would suggest, is mass migration--and, in particular, culturally varied mass migration. Mass migration is not in the interests of resident working classes. It puts downward pressure on wages, they disproportionately bear the crowding costs, they have less capacity for managing diversity. Conversely, it helps the possessors of capital--making capital relatively more scarce. (In modern developed societies, supporting migration is also a badge of status-through-correct-opinion aided as a way of lauding it over the working class in particular since the resident working class can be expected to be a bastion of anti-migrant sentiment.)
Nobel Laureate Robert Fogel, in his Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery documents just what a disaster mass migration was for the resident working class in the US in terms of average height and life expectancy (which declined in the C19th from about 1830 onwards).
But waves of culturally varied folk would have further undermined the capacity for the development of working-class-based solidarity politics. Not only did they have competing interests, but cultural differences would have greatly complicated trying to develop common political organisations. Moreover, the expanding frontier encouraged high levels of movement, further undermining the capacity to organise, and the appeal of, solidarity politics. So solidarity politics lost out both ways--less reason to organise, less capacity to do so.
Conversely, mass migration from Europe would have aided solidarity politics there, since those more focused on individual initiative would have tended to leave--particularly to go to the US. Conversely, ethnic concentration and the persistent of hierarchical politics (both religious and class) gave more capacity, and more reason, to organise to "break into" the political game.
The other Anglo-settler societies provide intermediate examples. Yes, Oz, New Zealand and Canada were migration societies, but (apart from the gold rush era in Oz) migration was overwhelmingly from the British isles. There were Protestant Establishment issues for Catholics. In Oz and New Zealand there was an extra factor--the adoption of arbitration. The state effectively created an extra reason for working class solidarity organisation and politics. (Unionism only really took off in the US, to the extent it did, under the New Deal when legislation and executive practice gave further aid to unionisation.) So Oz and New Zealand ended up with major Labour/Labor parties while Canada ended up with their social democrats being a "third party".
Which, would, of course, make the adoption of wage arbitration in the various Antipodean colonies (and later by the Commonwealth of Australia), central to the development of the Antipodean political party system. (I suspect it has much to do with risk-management and exports being overwhelmingly rural-based.) It also meant that the insistence on "White Australia" (i.e. restriction of migration to the same ethnic origins as the current inhabitants, particularly the current working class) was a rational choice to maintain a public policy system based on solidarity politics.
There is, of course, a common tendency to belittle US politics for not being like European or Antipodean politics (usually on some version of "Americans are stupid/evil'). I much prefer explanations which makes sense in terms of social patterns and rational behaviour.