Liberté! Egalité! Low-Carbon Economy!

Europe's Social Democrats spent a century building and ruling over the welfare state; now they're out of power. Here's how solidarity can be restored for the 21st century.

BY MATT BROWNE, JOHN HALPIN, RUY TEIXEIRA | SEPTEMBER 29, 2010

Once Ed Miliband's celebrations for winning the leadership of Britain's Labour Party have subsided, he will have to reckon with his party's disastrous election earlier this year, in which Labour received its second-lowest share of the vote since World War II. Perhaps he'll take solace that Labour isn't alone in the doldrums of opposition: Everywhere in Europe, it seems, the moderate left is enduring hard times.

Social democracy, once the pride of Europe, a genuinely indigenous political movement that fought for the welfare state and bettered the lives of millions, is today in crisis. Sweden's Social Democrats just saw their conservative rivals gain re-election for the first time in 100 years. Only four governments on the continent are headed by Social Democrats -- in Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Norway -- and several of those would likely fall from power if elections were held today. Across 13 European countries, including those with the strongest traditional social democratic parties, their average share of the vote has dropped 7 points since the 1960s.

Social democracy is not a lost cause, though. There's much that can be done to stop the bleeding of Europe's center-left and help moderate European progressives make a comeback in the 21st century.

The first step would be acknowledging just how bad the crisis is. Social democracy simply wasn't built for times like these -- the movement got its start as a way for the working class to earn a political voice after years of being denied one. When social democrats started organizing, workers couldn't vote, couldn't unionize, and endured deplorable working conditions that were unregulated by the state. Social democrats made the working class more than an expendable cog in the capitalist machine, and in return, they received workers' enduring political loyalty.

After World War II, social democrats became the chief advocates and builders of the welfare state, greatly expanding the provision of health care, education, pensions, housing, and income supports for the working class. The 1970s, however, posed new challenges. Economic growth in the advanced countries slowed under the impact of the oil crisis and international competition. Social democrats were caught unprepared. They lacked a program to restore the high levels of economic growth necessary to sustain and expand the welfare state.

The first real attempt to give Europe's center-left a modern update was in the 1990s under the banner of the Third Way. The Third Way was a movement that sought to position social democrats as modern advocates of the market who embraced globalization while retaining a commitment to the basics of the welfare state. Initially there seemed to be some electoral payoff: At the end of the 1990s there were 14 European governments headed by social democrats. But it was only a temporary respite, and the social democratic decline continued apace in the 2000s to its current lows. The Third Way, it turned out, was not quite the modernization elixir its proponents made it out to be.

That's not to say that modernization is a bad idea. But it very much matters what kind of modernization one is talking about. The Third Way was ultimately a rather superficial modernization that replaced socialist dogma with a reliance on technocrats whose faith in market mechanisms failed to produce stable, broadly shared economic growth.

We propose instead that social democrats embrace a new and deeper modernization addressing three aspects of the movement: coalitional, definitional, and organizational.

Getty images

 SUBJECTS: EUROPE
 

Matt Browne is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and director of its Global Progress Program.

John Halpin is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-director of its Progressive Studies Program.

Ruy Teixeira is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and the Century Foundation.

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

6:22 PM ET

September 29, 2010

One interesting question:

How do Social Democrats offer to create or keep jobs? On one hand, the free market keeps inflation low, but on the other it has led to outsourcing. I don't know if Europe will be able to keep its wages high, its entitlements strong, and its standard of living good while its workers compete with Chinese and Indian guys willing to do the same job for a fraction of the price.

The conservative model of growth creation here ranges from "austerity", which just cuts jobs from the state and hopes private enterprise picks up the slack, and "protectionism", which is a hypocritical and ultimately self-defeating position. What if private enterprise keeps moving overseas, and locals continue to struggle in the job market? What if other companies raise tariffs on European goods? What do the social democrats have to offer that's any different from these two obviously flawed policies?

The environmental issue is clear, but im unsure about the economic argument.

 

V07768198309

5:35 AM ET

September 30, 2010

An Innovative Credit Free, Free Market Economic Ideology

_______________________________
An Innovative Credit Free, Free Market Economic Ideology

A Tract on Monetary Reform
_______________________________

Our Economy is in Shamble

The consequences, the Great Depression and history tells us, will necessarily be a Formidable Chaos:

Social and political turmoil, and military adventures.

Neither supranational bodies nor governments can propose a plausible solution;

What is Politically Correct is Mathematically Wrong!

_______________________________

- Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?

- Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to -- to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not. And what I'm saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is, but I've been very distressed by that fact.

- You found a flaw in the reality...(!!!???)

- Flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.

- In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?

- That is -- precisely. No, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.

_______________________________

It is our responsibility to create a meaningful increment of jobs, revenues and investments:

We urgently need the only plausible solution that is offered to us:

An Innovative Credit Free, Free Market Economic Ideology

It is your duty to insure your own security and economic survival, no one else will do that for you!

History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.

_______________________________

Credit Free Economy
More Jobs, No Debt, No Fear.
Prosperous, Fair and Stable.
http://post-crash.com

_______________________________

 

HSCHMIDT

12:53 PM ET

September 30, 2010

Social democrats and Greens are similar

Both social democrats and Greens share similar DNAs. Both are based on hypothetical ideologies and unrealistic promises.

In Germany, for example, social democrats already went green. The huge green taxes we are already paying on energy and other basic goods are the only result.

I think we really need a complete different political classification than the left-right paradigm. It goes way back to the French revolution.

Today's Europe has little to do with the world back then. In fact, we have more dimensions today then just two. For example 'big vs. small government', 'industry vs. environmental conservationism', and 'idealism vs. realpolitik'.

All political parties should reshape themselves among these issues. Maybe we really need completely new political organizations (should they still be called 'parties'?).