What is “Social Reform”? Social Reform is the idea that increasing government spending and/or regulations reduces poverty or other “social ills” (sickness and so on) and it is the idea that has dominated British thinking since the late 19th century. Liberal Party “Radical Joe” Chamberlain of Birmingham (so beloved by Prime Minister May) outlined his program of using government to improve life (the central idea of “Social Reform”) in 1865 – but Liberal Party Manchester had already taken over such things as the provision of water and gas and undertaken various other “Social Reforms” in the years after the Act of 1835 set up modern local government in the cities and towns, replacing the old “Closed Corporations” – apart from in the one-square-mile City of London that has kept its Closed Corporation to this day.
Conservative Party Prime Minister Disraeli made it compulsory for local government to do about 40 Social Reforms (i.e. perpetual government spending functions) in 1875 – whether local tax payers wanted this or not. And J.S. Mill stated in 1848 (in his “Principles of Political Economy”) that “everyone agreed” (by which Mr Mill meant that he and his friends agreed – no opponent counted as part of “everyone”) that local government should do X,Y, Z, to help the people. Liberal Party Prime Minister Gladstone agreed in 1870 that School Boards be set up in most of the country (some towns, such as the one I am sitting in, refused to have one – but were forced to have one some 20 years later) to build state schools on the Prussian model – although denying they would be like the Prussian schools. And Conservative Party Prime Minister Disraeli put unions above the Common Law in 1875 – by allowing “picketing” (obstruction) and giving the unions immunity from some claims of civil damage. This was part of the theory that wages and conditions of work should not be determined by the market (by supply and demand) but by “collective bargaining” – basically (as W.H. Hutt explained in the “Strike Threat System”) of “give us what we want – or we will not allow people to go in or our of your place of business, at least we will make it very difficult for them to do so”. Conservative Party Disraeli was a Social Reformer – he had no love for “capitalists” believing (or half believing) that they “exploited” people, and Liberal Party Mr J. S. Mill had much the same opinion (indeed a more radical one) – longing for the day when workers co-ops would replace the “capitalists”.
Since about 1870 the British state has grown – not just spending more money, but spending more money even as a proportion of the economy (leading to a rise in taxes over time). In the early 19th century the state, at least as a proportion of the economy shrank – since the 1870s it has grown. Also the early 19th century witnessed deregulation – the repeal of various restrictions and edicts. From the 1870s onwards there has been a massive increase in regulation – with the state seeking to control every aspect of life, much the like the last years of Queen Elizabeth the First when there was an orgy of statute passing, often quite demented statutes such as the “Statute of Artificers” which tried to make everyone follow the occupation of their parents, there were also attempts to tie people to the parish of their birth and other throwbacks to the late Roman Empire (the Emperor Diocletian and all that).
However in the Tudor Age passing “laws” (based on the idea that the government “makes law” like a carpenter makes furniture) was largely symbolic, at least for people in much of the country, as the Tudor state (unlike the states of Continental Europe) did not really have the professional Civil Service to actually enforce its “laws”. Some people claim that Thomas Cromwell wanted to build such a professional Civil Service, but in reality his “Revolution” in government (the old claim of Professor Eldon and others) was still born – as Thomas Cromwell was executed largely at the instigation of the Duke of Norfolk (whom he had insulted by having the family tombs of the Howard family destroyed with the monastic house they were in – rather than allowing the Duke to turn the monastic chapel into a church in order to save the family tombs). The late Victorian state had a professional Civil Service (on the Chinese or Prussian model) selected by examinations and highly effective in putting regulations into practice. And the time was gone when the gentry or aristocracy could have administrators who insulted their families (or the ordinary people the great families represented in various parts of the country) executed. Certainly the industrial revolution could not have occurred if all the Tudor regulations had actually been enforced (hat tip to the late T.S. Ashton “The Industrial Revolution” for this point) – but up in places such as Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire most people had never heard of the various ravings that came out of London in the 16th century, as the only government in these areas was unpaid Justices of the Peace (mostly local landowners) who had no time for or interest in “planning society” or trying to recreate the semi totalitarian nightmare of the post Diocletian Roman Empire, although they did enforce the Poor Law (and its tax did great harm – especially under the “Speenhamland” system of wage subsidies that grow up from the 1790s till it was repealed in 1834). In the late 19th century someone like Prime Minister Disraeli could have Parliament pass a “law” and rather than everyone then forgetting about it (even people “south of the river” – just over the Thames from the City of London tended to ignore a lot Tudor stuff) the regulation would be enforced all over the country – by dedicated (and paid) “public servants” whom one could not threaten or bribe to just go away.
The difference is a basic one. The old state could come in, destroy things (such as monastic houses) and murder people it did not like (for theological or other reasons) – but then it would go away, and the landowning families (having bent to whatever theological or other ravings were coming out of London) would get back to running things – improving their farming estates (in order to make more money) and, from the 18th century onwards, investing in local industry. For the idea that industrial revolution was financed by “slavery” or “the Empire” (two different things) is a myth – it was mostly financed at first by domestic farming and then by reinvested profits made by satisfying domestic demands. The new state, from the late 19th century onwards, did not go away – it had statistics (for example the census every ten years starting in 1801 and the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act of 1836) and a professional Civil Service selected by examination who were actually interested in enforcing the ravings of the state (its new “laws” from Parliament and the regulations derived from them) rather than just in getting as much as they could for themselves and then spending it on whores (like 17th or 18th century “public servants” in London). Thus “Social Reform” became a reality. People such as the Liberal Party J.S. Mill (who followed the ideas of family mentor Jeremy Bentham – with his 13 Departments of State staffed by dedicated public servants out to help people be happy) or the Conservative Party Disraeli were not speaking to empty space (like 16th century thinkers such as Thomas “Utopia” Moore or John Hales)- their words could be put into effect. Both local and central government were now professional and full time (at least in their staff – politicians come and go, but the Civil Service and Local Government Officers, the dream of Jeremy Bentham and the “Westminster Review” Radicals, are for ever, and dedicated to Social Reform). Britain now had an administrative structure like that of Spain under Philip II or France under Louis XIV and people (Liberals and Conservatives) bewitched by the supposed success of professional government under Frederick the Great of Prussia – generally agreed that it was a Good Thing (T.M.).
That it was not the countries with “enlightened” professional governments that had agricultural and industrial revolutions – but silly old Britain with its “mixture of feudalism and anarchy” (as Mr Jeremy Bentham sneered at 18th century British government) did not seem to occur to most of the “intellectuals”. Bewitched as they were by the idea of “Social Reform”.
There is a basic problem with “Social Reform” – one which goes to its very core. Increasing government spending and regulations does NOT improve things – not in relation to what they otherwise would have been, in fact it makes things WORSE than they otherwise would have been.
French economists in the 19th century (the Say family, Frederick Bastiat and others) explained this very well – working from first principles to show that government spending and regulations did not make most people better off than they otherwise would be, but (in fact) made most people worse off than otherwise would be. Even if the “public servants” were totally honest and selected on merit (as with the desire of J.S. Mill and the rest of the Westminster Review people). ECONOMIC LAW showed that Social Reform (i.e. the increase of government spending and regulations) did not help the poor – it, compared to what would otherwise happen over time, made the poor worse off than they otherwise would be.
In France the arguments of the economists were so strong that the government had to create a new subject “Public Administration” to get pet “intellectuals” who (from the late 19th century onwards) argue that France should imitate Prussia-Germany (as the success of Prussia-Germany in the War of 1870 showed, as far as the pet intellectuals were concerned that Prussia must be right about everything) in endless “Social Reform”.
In the United States such economists as A.L. Perry (a follower of the French economist Bastiat) were by passed by a new breed of economist (led by Richard Ely – the mentor of both President Teddy Roosevelt and President Woodrow Wilson) who were versed in “Pragmatist” philosophy (denying laws of objective truth – including in economics) and German “Historical School” economics (also denying laws of objective truth – including in economics) and dedicated to Progressive Social Reform.
But in Britain things were a bit different – one can not really point to a revolution against laissez faire (please note this is a French language term, not an English language one) economics – as British economists (or at least most of them) do not seem to have really believed in it in the first place. Certainly economists such as J.S. Mill paid lip service to it from time to time (most certainly he paid lip service to laissez faire) – but they kept coming up with proposals for the state to do more rather than less. They were committed to the idea of Social Reform and they never really questioned its basic assumptions – or allowed for the possibility that even if public servants were entirely honest and professional they COULD NOT make the population better off than they otherwise would be – indeed that their efforts to help would do more harm and good. Increasingly “laissez faire” became redefined to mean “free trade” (meaning international trade) not “get the government out of the way at home”. Although YES, as already stated, in the early 19th century there was a reduction the size of the state (as a proportion of the economy) and the formal repeal of old Tudor “laws” – which the unpaid Justices of the Peace had often ignored anyway.
Sometimes this expansion of government was partly out of fear of socialists and others – for example Walter Bagehot says (in “The English Constitution” 1868) that “we should concede whatever it is safe it safe to concede” – and at this point mainstream British liberalism (not just Radicalism) stops having any connection with making the state smaller and becomes about making the state bigger, but in a civilised and orderly way – see any issue of the “Economist” publication (of which Mr Bagehot was the third editor) today – it pays lip service to “free enterprise” and so on, whilst nearly always supporting more benefits and “public services” – the heart of “Social Reform” from the 1870s onwards. But it was mainly a real commitment to Social Reform – a commitment to the idea that the state, if in honest and professional hands, (not nasty landowners and corrupt officials out to line their own pockets) could “do good” and make the lives of “the people” better than they would otherwise be.
This central idea of Social Reform is (as stated above) is contradicted by basic economic law – which shows that increasing government spending and regulations makes things worse (not better) than they otherwise would be. But even in 1883 when Herbert Spencer published “The Man Versus The State” a British thinker who pointed this out was considered a bit of freak – Social Reform (“Public Services” and so on) was, and is, the religion of the age. Heretics who question it, in Britain or most anywhere else, are either ignored or treated as monsters who want to harm the poor.
It is quite true that there is a dissenting faction of the Republican Party (a minority faction actually) in the United States that really does have fundamental doubts about Social Reform – about the idea that government can make the lives of people better, rather than worse. But the last Republican President who really acted on the basis of a principled opposition to the central idea of Social Reform was not Ronald Reagan (who actually tended to agree to increased spending and regulations – if they were strongly pushed by others), but Calvin Coolidge. At the very time that Conservative Party Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin was boasting that for the first time in history the British government was spending more on Social Reform than on national defence, President Calvin Coolidge did not believe in Federal benefits or public services for the masses at all (a massive ideological gulf between two men that the history books describe as “conservatives”). But most American Republicans tend to go-with-the-flow (witness the increase in the Sales Tax in Republican South Dakota – the money raised is to be thrown at teacher pay, in the hope that the education of the people will magically improve), and people who believe the government should be SMALLER, such as Senator Ted Cruz, are outside the mainstream of the Republican Party. President Donald Trump with his belief that government can make things “great” or “terrific” for the people is very much the spirit-of-the-age – indeed the media and education system denounce President Trump for not believing in Social Reform (i.e. ever bigger government) enough. And they denounce President Trump for the incredible heresy of thinking that government programs, such as Obamacare, can sometimes actually FAIL and if they fail should be REPEALED. The Economist publication can hardly contain its hatred and scorn for such heretics. Of course no government benefit or “public service” should ever be repealed – only an evil reactionary could entertain such an idea. Government benefits and public services are sacred, their expansion is Social Reform – to which all decent people (of whatever political party in the world) are, or should be, committed. Otherwise a person is outside the enlightened establishment elite – they are a heretic to be destroyed.
In fact, of course, President Trump is not really in favour of smaller government (only a handful of Republicans really want smaller government) – he has just noticed that Obamacare has failed and thinks that government should deliver its impossible promises in some other way. The fact that impossible promises can-not be delivered (because they are impossible) does not occur to him. But the very fact that he commits the heresy of pointing out that a particular government welfare scheme has failed (has made things worse not better) makes him a beast to be destroyed. Government benefits and public services can not make things worse – it is blasphemy to even suggest that they make things worse. The state is God! At least the only God the establishment elite really believe in – and not just in Britain, just about everywhere. And economic law (reason) is not going to be allowed to stand in the way of Social Reform.