--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net> wrote:
> From: Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Baucus to Meet with Single-Payer Advocates
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org, lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 1:24 PM
> At 08:15 AM 6/4/2009, Wojtek
> Sokolowski wrote:
>
> > [WS:] I do not there is a shred of historical
> evidence that social programs - in this country and
> elsewhere - were enacted as a result of social movement, let
> alone street protest. In most cases, they were brought by
> reformers in the government itself.
>
>
>
> What about the eight hour day? It wasn't a "social
> program" I guess, but it was a fundamental and long fought
> for sea-change. Saying it was brought by government
> reform is like saying children are brought by
> obstetricians.
>
[WS:] Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that popular opinion does not matter. But I am arguing that is not enough to make social changes happen, not even close. As far as the 8 hour work day in the US is concerned - my understanding is that this was a "reform lite" - doing the least objectionable to the capital minimum to avoid more substantial social protection programs.
My understanding of this issue is influenced by Theda Skocpol (_Social Policy in the United States in Historical Perspective_) who makes an explicit argument that political institutions have been more decisive in passing social protection legislation than broad popular support or even strength of organized labor.
Her argument is that in case of the United States, it is the political parties and the judiciary who were the main obstacle in the implementation of universal social protection programs. The political parties opposed it because it undermined the potential for political patronage, from which they clearly benefited, and because most attempts of substantial reforms - even if passed by legislatures - were later overturned by courts due to a generally pro-business stance of the judiciary. Therefore, expending political capital on passing measures that later would be killed by the pro-business judicial system was not seen as the best strategy, even by those who were supportive of such programs in principle.
If this assessment is correct, it does not bode well for the future of the universal health care system in the US, because not much has changed in the arrangement of the institutional forces that derailed demands for universal social programs in the past.
Wojtek