514
PARTISAN REVIEW
became clearly and (except for some fringe groups) unambiguously a part of
normal politics in the democracies of the world. Some thought that this was
exactly what was wrong with it. It has to be admitted that Ramsay
MacDonald and Hermann Muller and perhaps even Leon Blum were not
the most inspiring leaders of political parties committed to radical reform. But
it is also true that by involving themselves in normal politics, Social
Democrats became staunch defenders of the constitution of liberty.
Democracy and the rule of law were in good hands with them. As
newcomers to its pastures, they showed
if
anything a greater commitment to
the values and institutions of the open society than older liberals.
So what went wrong? Did anything go wrong? You reminded me of the
article I wrote a few years ago called "The Misery of Social Democracy,"
which obviously caused you some heartache. (In this you are not alone;
Willy Brandt, in his farewell speech as leader of the West German Social
Democrats, expressed pained bewilderment: "I have asked myself time and
again which decades those contemporaries had in mind who thought that the
Social Democratic century is over. Have they overlooked the two wars,
fascism and Stalinism, the great economic crises and the new existential
threats?") At the time, I started with the straightforward ob ervation that
Social Democratic parties allover Europe were not doing very well, and
those who were doing well, like those of Spain and perhaps Italy, were not
particularly Social Democratic. Advocating a decent society wa evidently no
longer good enough for the electorate of advanced societies. What had
brought about this change of fortunes for the dominant political force of a
century?
The simplest answer is victory. Like the British Liberals in 1911,
Social Democrats had conquered Europe by the end of the 1970s. Their
combination of democracy and planning, of economic freedom and demand
management, of individual choice and redistribution, of
liberty
and justice, had
become the dominant reality of the OEeD world (though the United States
went partly its own way and never fully recognized the social rights of citi–
zenship). We were
all
Social Democrats then , and in important respects we
still are.
For the people of the developed world, this was fine , but for Social
Democracy it was fatal. The creation of a large majority of those who could
hope to satisfy many of their aspirations within existing conditions - a
majority class - made Social Democratic parties either a protective, not to
say conservative, force or dispensable, or both. The emergence of a majority
class (sometimes called a middle class, thought the concept is misleading in the
absence of an upper class which sets the tone, and a cohesive working class)
meant above all that the traditional social base of Social Democracy had
melted away. The working class had disappointed its intellectual leaders;
contrary to their assumptions, it was actually not a particularly progressive
