Why was British Radicalism such a flop?

[Stardust]

Of all the liberal dogmas to emerge out of the United Kingdom in the 19th century, Radicalism seems to me to have been simultaneously the most intellectually profound and the most ignored. Most of what Americans today mistakenly call 'classical liberalism', in the context of discussions on social policy and laissez-faire doctrines which are intended to be egalitarian in practice, actually originate out of this long-lost tradition, with liberalism itself being much more moderate in practice, content to concern itself with issues of protection.

The natural response is to say "they got their suffrage and their secret ballot and had no more reason to exist". But this argument doesn't get at the root of my question, which is: why did Radicalism and liberalism divorce so quickly? Liberalism took a conservative turn nearly as soon as the Corn Laws were repealed, and had begun to do so as early as the organization of the Derby Dilly. I find it odd that it should have abandoned its youthful energy so suddenly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Radical was just a term used to describe very disparate groups of people who happened to agree on some aspects of political reform. There was never any coherence beyond that. The bulk of them were most certainly liberals (and Liberals), though.

On this general subject, something fun. The fact that Charles Bradlaugh was the parliamentary representative of an organisation that lobbied against (for example) restrictions on child labour is not mentioned once in his wikipedia article. lol.

[The Mikado]

Now that I've been reading some of Mill's political (rather than philosophic) stuff, one of the things I've noticed is that he was a first-rate crank.  Crank status doesn't keep you from being right, but I now can't stop imagining him as a sort of 19th century Ron Paul, where everyone else just sighs and goes for a bathroom break when Mill gets up to give a speech.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Now that I've been reading some of Mill's political (rather than philosophic) stuff, one of the things I've noticed is that he was a first-rate crank.  Crank status doesn't keep you from being right, but I now can't stop imagining him as a sort of 19th century Ron Paul, where everyone else just sighs and goes for a bathroom break when Mill gets up to give a speech.

That's pretty much how he was regarded, yes. Not that cranks were unusual in his party; Gladstone was the King of All Cranks.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Now that I've been reading some of Mill's political (rather than philosophic) stuff, one of the things I've noticed is that he was a first-rate crank.  Crank status doesn't keep you from being right, but I now can't stop imagining him as a sort of 19th century Ron Paul, where everyone else just sighs and goes for a bathroom break when Mill gets up to give a speech.

That's pretty much how he was regarded, yes. Not that cranks were unusual in his party; Gladstone was the King of All Cranks.

Being currently engrossed in a few books about Imperial history, I'm beginning to suspect that might be a good description of an absurdly high number of prominent Victorian public figures. I wonder why that might be... (of course, in many cases, those that weren't cranks, were worse...)