Why did Europe become so leftist and liberal?

Many Quorans point out here that after 1945, our fascist experience inoculated us against the more moderate reaches of the conservative spectrum too. It’s not just that though. I see gratitude, fear and wisdom as three other reasons why European elites came to accept left-wing demands such as universal suffrage after WWI and the welfare state after WWII. First, the elites recognised their debt to the working class after having fought and died beside them. Second, they saw that fascism had thrived on the insecurity and ignorance of the poor. The welfare state was a price worth paying for social stability and security.

Finally, wisdom came to Europe’s elites from the experience of having allied with populist xenophobes and seen the results. Whether in interwar Europe, twentieth-century Latin America or the present day US Republican Party, it makes a lot of sense for wealthy elites to form this alliance. Unfortunately, we in Europe are tending to forget this historical lesson too.

Race is central to why Americans are forgetting more quickly however. Europe’s elites hated and feared their masses too. Remember that we also had slavery across much of the continent, under the form of serfdom. This was gradually abolished over the century leading up to emancipation in the US. After the abolition of serfdom in Europe, a broadening middle class filled the social gulf between the slave class and slave-owning elite and the workers united to support socialist parties and trade unions. This all helped the liberalising process that ultimately produced the welfare state. In America by contrast, the black-white distinction established former slaves as a permanent caste. This strictly segmented an important part of the working class from the bourgeoisie and severely weakened the political coherence of the working class. The elite has therefore consistently been able to combat proposals for a welfare state by representing welfare as a black agenda.

Apologies if I, as a European, appear to be appropriating the African-American historical heritage of slavery. I don’t claim serfdom as a personal heritage as I think it never really existed in Ireland and it died out at the time of the Renaissance in Britain. Even in Central and Eastern Europe, where it was strongest into the nineteenth century, there were many differences from American slavery. There was no equivalent of the Middle Passage for example and serfs were tied to the land, so family members could not be sold separately.

Why did Europe become so leftist and liberal?

It might be something to do with how in the 20th century there were not one but two conflicts on the continent that reduced chunks of even major cities like Frankfurt, Caen, London and Manchester to smoldering piles of rubble and splintered wood.

Europe had in that same century about half-a-dozen living examples of what happens when far-right political thinking and “us vs them” mentalities take over, never was it very pretty or optimistic. In some countries like the Czech Republic, Portugal, Spain and the Balkans, this was within living memory for much of the population. “Communist” had a much more specific definition and so couldn’t be used to mean “any left-sounding idea I don’t like.”

It became apparent on the continent that when “us vs them” becomes open conflict between two comparably-leveled powers, the mentality looks rather stupid as it only hurts people.

The European Union evolved from one simple idea: How do we make sure this never happens again. The answer was trade and cooperation. The cornerstones of liberalism. Liberalism over here isn’t a dirty word used by conservatives, it’s an idea that all human beings are endowed with a right to a happy and comfortable life free of discrimination. Liberalism and a cross-border mentality meant that a growing number of cities were becoming mixing pots for “them” as freedom of movement allowed for cities to fill with immigrants and minority groups.

There is census data for instance that a little over 40% of Parisians under 20 have an immigrant parent. In London, people who identify as “White British” are a large minority (44%) and nearly 20% of the city define themselves as Asian. Most of which are either Indians or non-Chinese.

Another example of how Europe is ‘liberal’ is the longstanding appreciation for the arts. It’s not obnoxious but Europe’s cities have always been proud of being centres of culture and creativity, which started off in the cafes of Paris, Geneva and Vienna among other places. Large cities like Manchester and Liverpool take pride in the bands that call these cities home. Museums and art galleries being explored free of charge are the norm and in the UK the local pub remains a melting pot for locals no matter your vocation.

One trick was that here in Europe it is understood that Karl Marx had a point. There was never a Socialist revolution in Europe because European business owners took in what he was saying while simultaneously shunning him as a troublemaker. Labour Unions were pretty well-established by the early 20th century, having been made legal in many countries by the 1880s and I don’t think anything like the Pinkertons really emerged.

It might have been because we had this one guy who wanted to change the system and his response to strong establishment opposition and ridicule was to take over France when it fell into anarchy and then conquer half of Europe.

Twice.

Turns out it’s much better for everyone if two parties look for a diplomatic answer as opposed to one stamping on the other hoping they’ll go away.

What also contributed to Europe's liberalisation was also that for about 40 years now America has been moving right while Europe hasn’t changed much mentally since the 1970s. Most Europeans are not going to say “not my president/prime minister” about their leader and the idea of a woman as head of government mostly gets a shrug. We appear to have become liberal to Americans when what’s actually happening is America has become more reactionary, internally redefining liberalism in the process.

For much of its history, Europe was a horrid crucible of violence and death. In the past century and a half we listened to intellectuals and experts and realised there was a different way to go. In doing so Europe learned, with a few lapses, that “us vs them” is rather idiotic when “they” live next door to you.

Here’s the dirty little secret that no one really wants to talk about: because in reality, Europe is quite conservative.

Whaaaaaat!

Basically everything that US-leftists point at to make the point that “US leftists are actually centrists compared to Europe” … was a conservative invention.

The Welfare State was invented by this man:

Bismarck, the man who politically and diplomatically outmaneuvered the whole of Europe to unify Germany (with some help of the military genius of Chief of the General Staff Moltke), now also had to unify Germany within.

The government should cultivate the view also among the property less classes of the population, those who are the most numerous and the least educated, that the state is not only an institution of necessity but also of welfare. By recognizable and direct advantages they must be led to look upon the state not as an agency devised solely for the protection of the better-situated classes of society but also as one serving their needs and interests.

And wanted to stick it to the leftists, mostly the Social-Democrats. So he looked into the big ‘ol bag of tricks of history and found something interesting: what if I let the state do the thing, that guilds and churches have been doing for centuries.

Because here’s the thing: already in medieval times, artisan guilds and churches were already doing welfare. Artisan guilds had pension funds, also for widows. Churches would engage in poor-relief, often aided by gifts from the local/regional lord.

Hell, after the peace of Westfalen in 1648, churches would become more and more nationalized under the head of state (the monarchs) and given tax-exemptions so the churches could better fulfill their role for poor-relief. It also made the monarch look good if he would donate to said funds.

So, the Welfare State was a very clever conservative ploy to bind the working classes to the National State to keep Communism at bay.

This type of policy is often called Progressive Conservatism (I know, the oxymoron is seemingly strong with this one).

The general idea behind Progressive Conservatism is to return to core-principles, but adopt new methods to preserve said core-principles.

Bismarck clearly wanted to preserve the German State and social unity (conservative principle), to achieve this, he required to have a method that creates value for all German people, enter the creation of the Welfare State (new method).

A similar act of Progressive Conservatism was the Catholic’s church Rerum Novarum, or the doctrine of Social Catholicism. Also the reason why many European nations still have large and powerful christian democratic parties.

Also, the reason the Welfare State works in Europe and not in the US: Europe doesn’t have a Welfare system, Europe has more Welfare systems then countries, as a majority of EU-countries also have their regions being responsible for Welfare. Basically, every Welfare state is custom-tailored to the region/country. A US Federal Welfare system won’t work, or be exuberant expensive.

“Right… what about all the free education then, huh!”.

What free education? It’s tax-funded… and with massive rules… and geared towards the nation’s economy. Again, the German educational system is massively geared to produce as many technical and engineering profiles as possible to maintain the high-quality manufacturing base of Germany. How more aimed at conserving can you get.

You want to study sociology in Germany? Tough luck, except if you’re in the top- 500 of the country, you don’t get to. Across Europe, similar limitations are also set for other professions.

Edit: Top 500 is incorrect, German higher education system does have limits on popular disciplines, mostly medicine, dentists and other healthcare-aimed professions. However, the German Universities are becoming overcrowded, so on the state and university level, several ‘soft’ limits have been creeping in like admission tests and clauses at the start of, in the middle of and at the end of the study. These clauses and admission requirements have become so severe, that Germans who can, have been going to Austrian universities… who then have set up quota’s for non-Austrian students, as the number of Germans were swamping their universities.[1]

Edit2: Using Belgium as an example, our universities are also suffering from overcrowding and students having to re-do years (especially the first one) which off course costs a lot tax-money. So both Belgian Universities and politicians have been trying to look for solutions. Universities are trying experiments with initial admission tests to filter out applicants. Some politicians (conservative and liberal) have even suggested to raise tuition fees on courses with over-supply in the labor market while lowering tuition fees for courses with a shortage.

The point remains, tuition-free education systems aren’t “free”. And government can jump in to make corrections that will limit freedom.

The number of physio-therapists who can get a official license in Belgium (and are then eligible for rebates from our health insurance) are limited. You’re not part of that selection, tough luck.

Also, the European educational system follows the same, conservative, evolution as the Welfare State. First, and only, done by the Catholic Church. Then an explosion of early-age schooling during the Reformation and Contra-Reformation (gotta win those souls when they’re young you know), then co-opted again by conservative powers to train citizens and skilled laborers.

A great example of this is the “Education Act” of 1902 enacted by the UK, which nationalized all church-run schools.

Catholic school in Volendam, NL, 1933

Now, many EU-countries, partly because of the migration-problems, are re-introducing or strengthening civil-courses. To teach kids about civil values, democratic values, the rule of law, civil debate, ect.

Guess which parties are mostly supporting this: the conservative parties.

Right, next!

“Secularism!”

Secularism is unique to Europe and remains unique to Europe. Why it happened I described here Tim Prime's answer to Why did Europe go through a process of secularization while the Islamic world did not?

But again, secularism was basically forced to maintain societal peace and order… again, very conservative values.

Why Europe is still unique in terms of secularism across the world is because of European monarchs nationalized the churches. This basically gave the churches monopolies on faith services, which in the long-term decreased their incentives to innovate.

This is vastly different compared to the America's (North, Center and South) were people can set up churches willy-nilly, basically creating new “market-segments of faith” or create new faith services.

So, the methods of European nations appear to be “left” and “progressive”, but in actuality, there’s a huge conservative ideological underpinnings to it. This is also demonstrated by the recent elections across Europe.

Welfare States are built for the people inside the country, who mostly were trained in said country and are mostly doused in the values and ethics of said country. So when a whole bunch of people come in the country who seem or are not sufficiently trained/doused… Europeans quickly turn to resentment… and turn to more conservative parties who are strict on immigration and want to create more barriers to access said Welfare System.

Danish government celebrating with a cake the 50th tightening of their migration policy in the same year as accepted annual refugees has reached a 10-year low. Also, Denmark refuses to abide by any UN-quote in terms of refugees (500 a year). You know… super-socialist and oh-so left Denmark…

Edit: an example from the UK added, thank you James Flack.

Edit: Ozgur Zeren is a fantastic case-study why you need to distinguish between principles and method. As he/she puts it:

Social programs, subsidized or free state funded education, state funded infrastructure programs, state funded or organized healthcare programs, are left practices and methodology.

This is political science. And no amount of trying to invalidate those by claiming that those who say so are trying to ‘confuse and muddle’ the general public, these will still be taught as left principles in political science courses in any higher education institution around the world.

So use “leftist” methods, you are a leftist… well… leftists, let me introduce you to one your unsung heroes who is undoubtedly a leftist as by your own definition and political “science”!

Social Programs? Why yes sir! National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia

State funded infrastructural works? But of course Reichsautobahn - Wikipedia

State funded educational system? Wham bam, yes ma’am Education in Nazi Germany

So, he’s your guy now leftists… your own political “science” says so. Have fun!

Footnotes

[1] German students swoop down on Austrian universities

Question sounds very American, hence out of context for Europe.

Speaking from European perspective, there is no left wing politics in US. Democrats are centrist Social Liberals while conservatives are centre right social conservatives. The area they cover is so limited with respect to whole political spectrum that is covered in Europe.

Within that political spectrum that is covered in Europe, Mai is very centrist in the sense that whole continent is dominated by social democrats (emphasis on welfare state) - centre left, social liberals (emphasis on individualism)- centrists, and social conservatives (emphasis on non-extreme traditionalism) - centre right.

Neither Europe has certainly become leftist, nor liberalism is a left ideology. In fact, Europe is becoming more and more rightist by the sense that more non-centrist right-leaning parties gain prominence while same cannot be said for non-centrist left-leaning parties.

There are more and more direct right wing parties becoming more prominent in Europe. You can check out European countries by political parties on Wikipedia and see for yourself.

One example:

Germany:
1st party CDU (Merkel) - Centre-Right
2nd party SPD - Centre-Left
3rd party AfD - Right Wing

Edit: Since I gave a superficial definition for 3 sides of centrist leanings, most superficially general characteristics of these right wing parties becoming more prominent are National Populism, Anti-Immigration, Euroscepticism.

Edit 2: If you meant classical American obsession of small government-state by this question, the divergence to be addressed is US itself because neither in Europe, nor in Asia, there is such heavy emphasis on the concept of negative liberties. In nearly all countries, providing education, healthcare, infrastructure are seen as the duties of the government regardless of ideology.

Do you mean in comparison to the USA?

First, let's do a brief history of Europe's past:

After World War 1 many big empires dissolved and monarchies were overthrown, in the new democratic countries Nationalists and Fascists soon rose to Power. Eventually, this nationalism caused a 6 year long war with millions of civilians killed, many cities in ruins and a terrible organised Holocaust. This was all caused by nationalism, that was rising in Europe. In comparison to WW1, civilians actually saw what it was like to be bombed, and in the east many civilians were killed by the Wehrmacht and cities were burned down and plundered.

Dresden after allied Bombardement

A Russian woman's looks at the remains of her house

Wehrmacht troops carrying out action against civilians after a partisan attack

That's why nobody wanted conservatism and nationalism after the war, and nobody wanted it. But now it's on the rise again, because we have a generation who did not experience the horrors of the war, and who did not learn what it was like to be persecuted. This leads to nationalism rising again, but most of Europe ist still very liberal.

Thank you for Reading, Marc Strieder

“Why did Europe become so leftist and liberal?”

Because they followed the example of the United States of America.

Wait, what? But the US is far more conservative than Europe!

That’s true, but that’s not how it started. The US was explicitly founded on liberal values, and led the world in that regard.

Keep in mind that before 1776, most of Europe was still very conservative. Absolute monarchs. Aristocracy held all the interesting jobs. The idea that all people were created equal was ludicrous, as was the idea of free speech. Some countries were slightly more progressive: the Dutch Republic, for example, had religious freedom, and was a popular place for controversial thinkers to flee to. It was in some circumstances disgustingly egalitarian: in trekschuiten, nobles were expected to travel in the same room as peasants! But this was absolutely the exception in Europe.

Although things were already changing. Numerous thinkers had already proposed the ideas that the monarch should serve the people rather than the other way around, that people should have the right to speak their opinion freely, and even that people were basically equal. Controversial ideas at the time, but they would inspire a lot of people over the next centuries.

And that basically started in the US. Many American Founding Fathers were directly inspired by these enlightenment thinkers, and based their new Constitution on these ideas, enshrining the right to free speech, the idea that all men are created equal (it was still a bit early for feminism, I guess), and that countries should be ruled by law, rather than by the whims of their monarchs.

The American Constitution was a revolutionary document in more ways than one, and it would inspire many other constitutions. After American Independence, the next turn was of course the French. The French Revolution, based on “Freedom, equality and brotherhood” (“solidarity”, perhaps?) unfortunately wasn’t the same smashing success, ending up in the reign of terror, then Napoleon’s Empire (though he did spread a lot of those liberal values all over Europe), then monarchy, and then back to a republic again.

But Netherland moved backward at first, turning from a republic into a monarchy with a conservative king. In 1848, however, King Willem I changed his mind, became liberal, and ordered his first minister Thorbecke to write a liberal constitution, based on the American one.

During the 19th century, this struggle between conservatism and liberalism continued, but eventually liberalism won in many countries, instituting the rule of law, separation of powers, and all those other liberal ideas. Some countries were ahead of the curve, like France, while others, like Germany and Austria, stayed quite conservative until the end of World War 1.

Another thing that liberalism did, is pave the way for socialism. People being equal under the law is fine and all, but what use is that when the law protects the people who own everything while the poor stay poor? Eventually with the embrace of liberal values and the marginalisation of conservatism (it still survives in many countries, but within a liberal framework), liberalism moved from the left (progressive) side of the political spectrum to the right side, while socialism took over the left side. Liberalism was happy with people being equal under the law, but unequal economically. Socialism picked up that fight.

That’s the situation in Europe, at least. In the US, something totally different happened. Despite the equality of all men being one of the founding principles of the country, half that country realised that their economy was based on the fundamental inequality of people. And that’s the discussion that would dominate the political discourse in the US: some people were economically dependent on this inequality, giving conservatism a new life, whereas liberals fought for an end to slavery, to make black people also equal under the law. And when socialism showed up on the scene, siding with the downtrodden made sense, so liberalism and socialism stayed on the same side of the political spectrum, while conservatism survived on the other side.

Basically, this dependency on slavery made the US miss out on the political development of the 19th and early 20th century that the US itself had originally kicked off.