Radical Joe: A New Conservative Program
Learning from one of history’s great political entrepreneurs
Radicalism is often synonymous with the Left. When used to describe the Right, it is used in negative and foreboding tones. But the truth is that there have been many conservative politicians who have been radical in their vision with transformative and profound consequences. One such politician was Joseph Chamberlain. He was “the man who made the weather”, as Winston Churchill put it, in late-Victorian and Edwardian Britain. In fact, he went on a journey from liberal radicalism to radical conservatism that would fundamentally change the British Conservative Party.
Chamberlain’s belief in industrial strength, social reform, and national influence still resonates in the twenty-first century. More than most British politicians, Chamberlain was tied to the civic politics of a particular place: his home city of Birmingham. That is where he entered the family business, a screw manufacturing firm, and became a leading figure in Britain’s industrial elite. As a follower of Unitarian Christianity, Chamberlain adopted a rationalist view of the world and did not follow the mainstream Anglican faith at a time when religious convictions still dictated how high people could reach in public life. The city was imbibed with a civic spirit driven by prominent dissenting Protestants, such as the Cadbury family. This background put Chamberlain firmly outside of the aristocratic and traditional hierarchy that had long dominated the country. But it also helped Chamberlain be among the first industrialists to attain high office.
Chamberlain showed great concern for the wellbeing as well as the productivity of his employees. He saw the social consequences of industrialization firsthand in Birmingham, such as poor sanitation and dire housing conditions, and hoped to ease the class tensions it produced. This took Chamberlain into public life when he joined the Liberal Party and founded the National Education League in 1869. In an era of democratic change, many Liberals believed the state had a responsibility to improve the education and moral character of the newly enfranchised. Chamberlain’s favored solution was universal, publicly funded, and non-denominational education. Liberal opinion, still rooted in the laissez-faire doctrine of David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, was largely divided in its attitude toward such schemes. But Chamberlain continued to push for ambitious social reform that could empower the British middle and working classes.
Elected Mayor of Birmingham in 1873, and stepping back from the family business, Chamberlain put his ideas to the test. He introduced “municipal socialism”, taking water and gas into public ownership, which helped provide the city with much needed revenue. Slums were cleared and replaced with decent housing. Birmingham city center was transformed by the creation of Corporation Street as the main thoroughfare. Partnership between local government, local business, and the local community made Birmingham a shining example of civic excellence. Later Chamberlain would help found the University of Birmingham and become its first Chancellor, pushing for practical learning alongside traditional subjects. This legacy is, sadly, a far cry from the current state of Birmingham where the local council was recently declared bankrupt, reflecting years of mismanagement and poor leadership.
After entering Parliament in 1876, Chamberlain hoped to take these ideas to the national level and reshape the Liberal Party. With his youthful appearance and charisma, armed with an orchid in his jacket lapel and a distinctive monocle, Chamberlain had a powerful personal appeal. Building up his local powerbase by establishing the Birmingham Liberal Association and then the National Liberal Federation, Chamberlain also led a grassroots movement for reform, marking a significant innovation in a country still adjusting to the arrival of mass democracy. By 1885, he was able to launch the “Unauthorised Programme”, a policy platform containing a number of radical proposals, building on the milestone social reforms of Benjamin Disraeli, such as local government expansion, free education, land reform, and progressive taxation. Chamberlain earned the affectionate nickname “Radical Joe” from his supporters but terrified the aristocratic classes, Liberal and Conservative alike, with his ideas for social change. This all made Chamberlain an unlikely source of inspiration for the British Right.
What made Chamberlain leave the Liberals and join forces with the Conservatives was the issue of Irish Home Rule. He opposed the Prime Minister William Gladstone’s proposal to devolve power to an Irish Parliament separate from Westminster, which would undermine the constitutional integrity of the Union. Chamberlain and other “Liberal Unionists” rebelled against Gladstone and worked with the Conservatives to block his Irish Home Rule legislation. After supporting the Conservative government in 1886, the Liberal Unionists would join them in coalition in 1895. In 1912, the two parties would formally merge to create today’s Conservative and Unionist Party. Birmingham provided a bloc of Unionist MPs, excluding Gladstonian Liberals, lasting well into the twentieth century. Unionism soon evolved beyond simply opposing Irish Home Rule. It came to represent a commitment to a national compact between all classes and regions.
In partnership with Lord Salisbury, leader of the Conservative Party, Chamberlain was able to shift the Unionist forces towards backing stronger measures of social reform. He successfully lobbied for the creation of county councils in 1888, scrapping fees for state-aided elementary schools in 1891, and introducing workplace injury compensation in 1897. But Chamberlain also turned his attention towards establishing old-age pensions, inspired by Bismarck’s reforms in Germany. The problem was that such an expansion of the state was a bridge too far for many Unionists, carrying too large a fiscal cost. This would, in time, become linked with Chamberlain’s tenure as Colonial Secretary, a position he specifically requested rather than the more powerful position of Home Secretary which could have been used to push for radical social legislation.
This counterintuitive move further facilitated Chamberlain’s shift to the Right. Like most members of the political class, he supported the British Empire and its interests. Anti-imperialism would become a more pronounced part of the British Left at the turn of the century following the Boer War and accelerate after the First World War. As a good businessman, Chamberlain thought that Britain’s colonies were a vast source of untapped potential that could fuel national greatness. This led to new projects such as the funding of research into tropical medicine. However, as British power declined relative to emerging industrial powers such as the United States and Germany, Chamberlain tried to use the Colonial Office to cultivate Britain’s imperial possessions to a greater extent and support economic and industrial growth. Chamberlain came to be known as “the first minister of the British empire”.
Alongside colonial development, Chamberlain supported a forward policy of imperial expansion that contributed towards the “scramble for Africa”. British imperialists dreamed of establishing colonial control from Cape Town to Cairo. This culminated in the Boer War when the British Empire struggled to subdue the autonomous Dutch-speaking Boer republics. This stimulated imperialist and patriotic sentiment at home, then known as “jingoism”, handing the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists a large majority in the 1900 “Khaki Election”. Chamberlain, the radical reformer, had become a symbol of British nationalism, sealing the breach between his followers and the old Liberal Party which would become more internationalist in its politics.
But this still left major questions unresolved. How could the British Empire consolidate further and maintain its influence in a more geopolitically competitive world? What could be done to reverse British industry’s relative decline and protect domestic manufacturers and workers? How could the British state fund new social reforms such as old-age pensions? These are questions that bear some resemblance to modern problems in the face of deglobalization, deindustrialization, and ageing societies. Much like today’s neoliberal order, the old laissez-faire consensus was breaking down in the face of serious change at home and abroad. Mass democracy also made new demands of British politicians, putting expectations on them to produce positive platforms for change rather than simply managing and responding to events.
Chamberlain’s solution was tariff reform. Protectionism had not been the ruling elite’s economic creed since the eighteenth century. It had declined and fallen during the nineteenth century, ending with the repeal of the Corn Laws that protected British agriculture. Sir Robert Peel’s struggle to expand free trade had permanently split the Conservative Party and put it in the political wilderness for a generation. But rather than being a retreat to an older generation’s comfort zone, Chamberlain was displaying his political entrepreneurial flair by proposing a new system of imperial preference. Protective tariffs on goods traded within the British Empire would support domestic companies and workers, bind the empire into a consolidated economic bloc, and fund new social programs such as old-age pensions.
The tariff reform campaign, launched in 1903, was undeniably popular and sparked a mass movement with rallies and demonstrations. But it also tore the Conservative government apart. Shortly thereafter, the Conservatives suffered an historic defeat in the 1906 General Election and Chamberlain was immobilized by a stroke. Old-age pensions would be introduced under the new Liberal government, and become more generous under Chamberlain’s son, Neville, as Health Minister. Imperial preference would also be implemented by Neville Chamberlain during his tenure as Chancellor in the 1930s. By this stage, it was too late for the full scope of Chamberlain’s tariff reform vision to become a reality. The British Empire would then be dismantled after the Second World War, leaving Chamberlain’s vision behind. But Chamberlain’s skills as a political entrepreneur left an indelible mark on his country.
The Radical Alternative
Later generations of conservatives have still looked to Chamberlain for inspiration. His combination of social conscience and patriotic passion has influenced the Conservative Party in different ways over the past century, including recent years. David Cameron and Theresa May namechecked Chamberlain in speeches during their attempts to modernize the Conservative Party. Leading thinkers such as David Willetts and Nick Timothy have written eloquent pamphlets defending Chamberlain’s contributions to conservatism. When people on the British Right discusses economic and social reform, Chamberlain is never far from their minds.
In the post-Brexit era, Radical Joe is more relevant than ever before. Leaving the European Union resolved the political stalemate of the late 2010s but left conservatives with new questions about how to respond to the disintegration of the liberal world order and the failings of Britain’s economic model. Nation states matter again. Economies are decoupling from each other. Citizens expect their governments to make their countries more resilient in the face of global shocks. New technologies threaten to fuel further economic and social disruption. The Covid-19 pandemic, wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and global inflation have all accelerated the search for a radical alternative.
Twenty-first century problems require new solutions, but this can be achieved by learning from past political entrepreneurs like Chamberlain. There are themes from his career that are particularly worth developing and applying to modern Britain and American. Chamberlain was also a fierce political organizer, experimenting with policy and campaign organizations. Generating fresh ideas is futile if conservatives cannot communicate with voters. Emerging forms of new media and grassroots activism can help if properly harnessed.
To draw together a Chamberlainite program for change, conservatives should think imaginatively about the following themes:
Industrial Policy. Manufacturing decline has made many Western countries more dependent on imported goods, created vulnerable supply chains, reduced the number of mid-skill jobs, and driven too much foreign investment towards specific regions. The state should intervene strategically to address these problems with a focus on economic resilience and reindustrialization.
Social Reform. An ageing society has caused increases in health and welfare spending, putting more pressure on working-age taxpayers. It has also widened intergenerational inequality between the asset-rich elderly and the young who struggle to own a home and start families. The welfare system needs to be overhauled to create a fairer balance between the generations.
Civic Renewal. Love of country is important. But communities are not just defined by national boundaries. People are also proud of their regions and towns, too many of which have been neglected by elites based in the major cities. Placemaking should become a more prominent way of implementing policy across government, thinking about how to improve localities.
Democratic Renewal. Too much power has been transferred from citizens and their representatives towards the administrative state, lawyers and the judiciary, and international institutions and treaties. Populism is a direct response to this transfer of power. Political decisions should be actively shaped by democratic processes so that elected governments can carry out the will of the people.
Foreign Policy. Britain is searching for a new role and America has passed its unipolar moment. But the current era of multipolarity means that politicians must put the national interest ahead of ideological considerations. Defense spending and military alliances should be reinforced to help the West confront the rise of authoritarian powers like China, Russia, and Iran.
This is an outline for a more patriotic and communitarian conservatism adapted to the West’s new place in an increasingly unstable world. An active state that acts strategically in the market and society can bring about change that is not possible under neoliberalism or a revived social democracy. It is yet to be seen if and when the British Conservative Party will pursue this course of action. But it remains their best chance to make the weather again just as Radical Joe did over a century ago.
This article is part of the American System series edited by David A. Cowan and supported by the Common Good Economics Grant Program. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors.
David A. Cowan is a Ph.D. Candidate in history at the University of Cambridge and a former staffer and researcher in the UK Parliament. He has been previously published at American Affairs, The American Conservative, Engelsberg Ideas, and National Review.