The improbable rise of Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign presents an interesting question: why is Sanders, a self-proclaimed "democratic
socialist2," running as a
Democrat1? McGill University
sociologist3 Barry Eidlin examines this question through an historical comparison with Canada, a country similar to the U.S. in many ways, but whose political culture and electoral system have ostensibly been more
hospitable4 to
labor5 parties. "In any other industrialized country, Sanders would likely be the standard-bearer for a labor or social democratic party", says Eidlin in a new analysis published in the American Sociological Review. "But the U.S. famously lacks such a party. The conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. lacks a labor or socialist party because its political culture is hostile to socialism, and its electoral system is uniquely hostile to third parties."
Electoral data challenges conventional wisdom
"The analysis of 142 years of electoral data shows that differences in political culture and electoral systems did not affect labor party support as expected: prior to the 1930s, political differences were muted, with low but significant labor party support in both countries" says Eidlin.
It was only in the 1930s that labor party support
collapsed6 in the United States and took off in Canada. Why was there such a
stark8 shift in the 1930s?
Using in-depth archival research, Prof. Eidlin shows that it was a consequence of different ruling party responses to worker and farmer protest during the Great Depression. In the U.S., FDR responded to the protests with rhetorical appeals to the "forgotten man" and policy reforms that successfully absorbed some farmer and labor groups into his New Deal
coalition9, while
simultaneously10 dividing and excluding others. The result was labor party
collapse7.