— In one of his more bizarre applications of one-size-fits-all, jingoistic theory, Mr. Anglophile jumps through obscure hoops explaining why there’s not a Le Pen in Great Britain at the moment:
Why is Britain such an exception? Two reasons stand out. One is the lack of a nationalist tradition of the Continental type, in which adulation of the nation-state becomes a pseudo-religion justifying the submersion of the individual in a greater cause. Absent this, patriotism becomes merely a statement of sentiment, a love of community, place and history drawing on elemental emotions.
As if Brits and Americans are any less patriotic than Continentals. Let me refer you to Mr. Nick Denton, that extraordinary Internet troll, who offers a much more sensible explanation for the fact that Brits and Americans don’t vote for Anglosphere Supremacists:
Much as I’d like to believe in the unique qualities of the Anglo-American tradition, there’s one obvious reason for the absence of far-right parties in the UK: the electoral system. A first-past-the-post system, which applies in the US and the UK, punishes smaller political groupings. So far-right voters are forced to subsume themselves within the main conservative party. If the UK and the US had proportional representation or two-round presidential systems, they would have their Le Pens.
Think about it: if Bush were running in a national election against Pat Buchanan with no other choices allowed, wouldn’t Pat most likely poll 15-20% of the vote? He’d get all the far right, and some of the disaffected left who simply don’t want to vote for the mainstream candidate, so of course he would. While it’s an amusing parlor game to connect medieval institutions with object-oriented programming, there’s nothing to it but snake-oil, and it only appeals to people fundamentally ignorant of world culture and politics and correct hyperlink structure.
Dear R. Bennett:
So how come the BNP has gotten nowhere in the European Parliament elections, which *are* run in the UK by proportional representation? Le Pen found the Euro Parliament elections a useful way to get elected. The UK Independence Party, which has no other representation, managed to elect three MEPs the last time around.
In the 1930s and 1940s, most Continental European countries had mass fascist movements. No English-speaking country did. But I imagine you think that’s just coincidence.
Cheers,
J. Bennett
Britain had the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s, and in the US we’ve had the KKK, the American Nazi Party, and various other extreme-right groups forever; whether they meet your definition of mass movements, I don’t know, but their influence was comparable to Fascist influence in France, where fascism was strictly a fringe phenomenon.
There were certainly many in the US who felt we shouldn’t enter WWII on the side of the Brits and the Communists, as I recall. There’s probably a case to be made for Communism and Fascism rising in proportion to each other in the 20s and 30s, in those countries where the voting system encourages multiple parties.
But there’s not much connection between Britain and the US in this, because more Americans are of German heritage than of British in any case.
Forgive the intellectual sloppiness, but I suspect the truth lies in between the two Bennetts.
The political system certainly makes a difference, but that does not refute the role of culture.
I think the Anglosphere concept of nationalism IS different from the European concept. Take language, one of the foundations of national identity. Samuel Johnson despised the Academie Francaise, and no self-respecting Anglosphere legislature would pass a “Spelling Reform Act” as Germany did recently or Denmark did a couple times this century.
Moreover, Denmark had first-past-the-post elections 100 years ago, but they decided to change their system. Why did they make these changes while the US and UK did not? Maybe it was cultural factors.
I’d be curious to know what sort of voting rules were in place during different periods of French and Germany history as well, particularly during the 1920s and 1930s.
Also, if Jim Bennett’s “mass fascist movements” is referring to National Front-style governments, first-past-the-post might have made the difference, but it might not have. It’s possible that National Front candidates would have won under both systems. (I don’t have the vote totals in front of me.)
Of course, over time different electoral systems can influence culture. For an Arab-American to be elected to higher office, he or she generally has to appeal to non-Arab-American voters. By contrast, an Israeli Arab politician can be comfortably and perpetually reelected on a sectarian platform without a single Jewish vote. Over time, this can make a big difference in cultural assimilation and race harmony.
I hope the two learned Bennetts will forgive my intrusion into this debate.