WI: Charles Dickens entered politics?

[libbrit]

Ive been fascinated by Charles Dickens for years, perhaps more so with his private life than his books.

So I ask what would have happened if Dickens went into politics?

His personal politics are actually hard to pin down. His early work as a parliamentary correspondent, not to mention his dealings with the law, made him utterly contemptuous of the establishment; as his books indicate.

He was also quite clearly a natural social reformer-his opinion of varied issues such as 'fallen women' being given opportunity rather than segregation, his opinion of school reform, public hanging, work houses and slavery can be seen in any of his books and letters you care to read.

He was also a pretty quiet republican, being dismissive of monarchy and even standing up Queen Victoria on occasion (she never seemed to mind, such was his popularity)

It's also worth remembering quite how adored he was in his day. The attendence of his public reading, and general readership of his works (at a time when access to literature in English was at its most explosively powerful) undoubtedly made him the One Direction/Justin Bieber/Beatles/(insert celeb here and multiply by 10) of his day. No doubt he would be elected, no doubt also that he would carry on writing (Disraeli did, quite succesfully). Infact i wonder what changes would happen to his literature if he wrote them from a position in politics.

what would his views of the events of the day be? What would his presence in national politics do to British politics and in general the course if 19th century British history?

 

[Ultimate Paragon]

I think we might see him write some books with elements of political procedurals.

 

[Jonathan]

I am always fascinated by the idea of Charles Dickens not only going in to politics but also becoming Prime Minister

I think his person political ideology is pretty easy to pin down, I see him as a Liberal Socialist, compared to the Conservative and

Oliver - Is about the idea of squalor leading to youth going to crime to live, anti-capital punishment.

He is seen as anti-capitalist when it comes to Scrooge and Miss Havisham, but praises people who look after the poor and the weak such as:
Abel Magwitch, Mr. Brownlow and Betsey Trotwood

Although he is seen a being contempt with the system of parliamentary and it's establishment does not mean he can't go into politics, if anything the only way to change something is from the inside.

e was also quite clearly a natural social reformer-his opinion of varied issues such as 'fallen women' being given opportunity rather than segregation, his opinion of school reform, public hanging, work houses and slavery can be seen in any of his books and letters you care to read.

Republicanism is quiet the rave in 18th and 19th Century England, especially among the literate elite.Queen Victoria herself was not very popular and her son was seen as an overweight playboy

The best person IOTL to compare him to is Boris Johnson.

He would most likely run for election in 1847 election, joining Henry John Temple and the Whig (Later the Liberal) party as an MP. He would be welcomed into the Cabinet in firstly in 1849 as a Minister without Portfolio.

Then in May 1860 Dickens succeeds Lord Elgin as Postmaster-General, a position he holds until October 1865 when he became Foreign Secretary until June 1866.
After their defeat in 1866, Dickens is chosen as leader of the opposition against Edward Smith-Stanley and later Benjamin Disraeli. Taking the office of Prime Minister in 1868, working heavily with his Chancellor William Ewart Gladstone, who would carry on the Liberal torch when Dickens retires.

I would hope that being PM he would be given better health care meaning he can subside the stroke in 1870 until maybe between 1875 and 1905 (making him 63-93 years old)

 

[Historyman 14]

A Prime Minister Charles Dickens would be great, one of a kind, TL.

 

[robcraufurd]

We've discussed this once before, but it didn't get very far. The trouble is that politics in this period cost a lot of money, and even without piracy costing Dickens a huge proportion of his earnings he would probably have struggled to pay for an election campaign. To be returned, he needs either a rich patron or a borough elite willing to fund his electoral expenses in return for the honour of having Dickens sit for their town. Either way, I doubt you'd see him in either a significant county constituency or one of the London boroughs: the size of their electorate makes a contest too costly.

He didn't have any particularly strong local links with an area, so although he could sit wherever he chose he'd have to rely almost entirely on the local party for his return. He'd also be vulnerable to a challenger better able to point to their local links, in the same way that Cobden was in Huddersfield in 1857 and Perronet Thompson was in Bradford in 1852 (at the election) and 1859 (at the selection). I can see him spending a few years in Parliament before returning to writing, either because of electoral defeat or due to lack of money. In many cases being a MP was something you did temporarily as an act of public service rather than a career in itself, so- provided he doesn't get caught up in a bribery scandal or vote the wrong way on a significant issue- he may enhance his reputation by doing so.

I don't think those assigning Dickens to a political party are right. He would probably have insisted that he would treat questions with an independence of mind and, though voting with the Whigs on some issues, was likely to have sided with conservatives such as Busfeild Ferrand and Lord Ashley on others. I doubt he would have been prepared to submit to the discipline required to allow him to form part of a government: indeed, his constituents might have seen it as a betrayal if he had.

Republicanism is quiet the rave in 18th and 19th Century England, especially among the literate elite.Queen Victoria herself was not very popular and her son was seen as an overweight playboy

More complex than this, surely? Both Victoria and Edward were wildly popular in the early 1860s, at the time of Edward's visit to America and Albert's death. Their popularity may have waned with Victoria's retirement from public life (though this later grew again when she returned to it) and Edward's series of scandals from Mordaunt to Tranby Croft. However, it was never anything more than a niche opinion despite what the occasional booing might indicate.

 

[GeographyDude]

It would be a real challenge, as the tendency of a politician is to trim his or her sails. Whereas a writer, yes, a book needs to have some calm parts, but a writer also very much wants to include some vivid and vibrant parts, too.

Maybe if Dickens had been at least 45 or 50. Either he welcomes a break from his more serious writing, or maybe some method like what the writer Irwin Shaw talked about what this French writer supposedly did. Now this may be urban legend or wishful thinking on Irwin's part, but supposedly the French writer ran one entire book ahead. Whatever book the critics were talking about, he had a whole other book finished and waiting to be published as he was working on the third book.

 

[Redhand]

I don't know if he would have the ability to even enter politics with his baggage. His noted and public dalliances, while not totally unusual for the time, would create too much of a scandal for him to achieve anything politically. Remember that as a member of the lower class, Dickens would always need to be on his best behavior in politics.