The Strange Death of Liberal England by George Dangerfield

Reading this book was another part of working my way through all the books that have accumulated over the decades.  I don't remember how long I have had it, but it is a paperback version of a book published in 1935 with a cover price of all of $3.45.  I think that I got it in the 1970's when I was introduced to another of Dangerfield's books - "The Damnable Question" which is about Ireland during WW I and thereafter.  Of course, I have that book too and it is also in the unread category.

I think what attracted me to this book was something about its title.  In this case "liberal" does not mean a political philosophy, but refers to one of the major British political parties of the 19th century.  The Liberal party basically died between WWI and the 1920's and exists today only as a small minority long after today's major parties, the Conservative and Labour parties.  A little research indicates that at its peak, the Liberal party favored a minimal role for government, extending the vote and, most importantly, reform.

I say most importantly because according to Dangerield, the Liberal Party died during the 1910-14 period because of its inability to handle three major issues: Ireland, the women's suffrage movement and labor unrest.  In each case the Liberal Party's efforts for reform were too little to late for movements that were no longer satisfied to be patient, were demanding action and, even more seriously, pursuing the goals too some degree with violence.  In each case the Liberal Party under its leader, Herbert Asquith (pictured above) was unable to resolve the issues to any degree that mattered. 

What might have happened had not World War I and the demands of national unity intervened is almost too scary to contemplate.  Not because of any desire to see any of the groups in question fail in achieving their rights, but because of the civil violence to where the country seemed to be heading.  This is particularly true in the case of Ireland where Dangerfield makes it clear that the opposition Conservatives actually encouraged treasonous behavior especially in the Army where many officers were unwilling to command their troops against Irish rebels.

At some level all of this seems like, and effectively is, ancient history.  But the cautionary note that comes out of it is that there are times when reform is not sufficient - radical change is the only solution.  Those who believe in reform, especially those in power, have to recognize the times when what we reformers might regard as gradual progress is no longer suffient.  Being wrong about this especially in multiple cases like what faced the Liberal Part from 1910 to 1914 could have devastating results, not just 100 years ago, but any time.