|
August 20, 2003
Aah. At last. We have the beginnings of a debate about conservatism and liberalism in Australia. About time too. What debate there has been on this topic has been pretty poor in terms of quality. It's been pretty much soapbox polemics that ignores what people actually write.
It was kicked off by the confusions about neo-liberalism and neo-conservative in this article by Wilson de Silva in the Sydney Morning Herald about the public philosophy of Centre for Independent Studies (CIS). That article sparked initial responses by Jason Soon over at Cataxally Files and Gary over public opinion; then Andrew Norton responded here and John Quiggin replied here.
The most substantial and considered response is by Andrew Norton and so this post will be centred around what he has to say. John Quiggin says that Andrew's piece is "both informative and accurate", though he makes a qualification about what Andrew has to say about liberalism, which I concur with. And Ken Parish concurs with Norton's suggestion that the "neocon" label is inaccurate and even misleading in an Australian context. Unlike John and Ken I find the Norton piece quite misleading.
Though Andrew is talking about CIS he also talking about Australian conservatism and liberalism in terms of foreign and domestic policy. I will deal with Andrew's argument in foreign policy first, then I will turn to domestic policy. The post is an unpacking exercise is open the ground on which different people stand. Hence it is seeking to avoid closure.
Andrew's first point is that it is misleading to represent the CIS as advocating a neocon foreign policy. He argues that CIS does not favour the vigorous use of the military power of the nation state to actively promote democracy and free market capitalism abroad, through preemptive strike if need be. Iraq is the first example of a necon foreign policy. To make his argument Andrew points to Owen Harris at the CIS who argues against the neocon foreign policy in favour of prudence and restraint. And rightly so. The reasonableness of this depends on whether Owen Harris stands for the CIS views on foreign policy.
Then Andrew turns to the relationship between Australian conservatism and the neo-cons. What he says here is more controversial. He says:
"Nor is there much else in Australian conservatism that justifies the neo prefix. Only a handful of conservative commentators, Keith Windschuttle, Christopher Pearson and Michael Duffy, started out on the Left, and only Windschuttle was prominent before his conversion. They are too few to count as a movement."
Andrew reinforces this here when he says that neo-con is an American term that has little relevance to Australia.
Ken Parish concurs with this. Andrew has nailed the ideological label. Ken says:
'John Howard committed Australian troops to the Iraq "coalition of the willing", but he fairly clearly did so predominantly because of US alliance considerations, rather than any deeply-held conviction about the desirability of aggressively spreading American values throughout the world.'
I beg to differ on this. Andrew has underplayed the broad conservative current that is in favour of Australia adopting a neo-con foreign policy.That has less to do with spreading US values across the globe and more to do with Australia being a global player. On this account an Australian neo-con would argue that Australia now has the economic strength and muscle to act on the global stage, is a global power with a global role and global responsibilities, and so the US and Australia stand together against the international terrorists and break new ground in freedom's defence. Let us call this neocon foreign policy agenda Australia is the Deputy Sheriff to the US as global cop. It is held by Alexander Downer,Australia's foreign minister --- so by the Howard Government; and is actively promoted by Greg Sheridan writing in The Australian.
Now the neo-con conception of Australia striding across the world stage with a global role and global responsibilities is a long way from the prudence and restraint of an Owen Harris. In fact, it is the very view that an Owen Harris would argue against. In saying that neo-conservatism is positively confusing in the Australian context, Andrew has underplayed the neo-conservatism of the Australian Government. This Deputy Sheriff view is not imposed on Australia by the Bush Administration; it is the foreign policy hawks in the Howard Government who are making the policy. And Alexander Downer is leading the charge on this.
Andrew then turns his attention to conservativism and liberalism in terms of the domestic policy within the nation state. Though he is more accurate in his interpretations here, he still leaves offers misleading accounts.
On Australian conservatism Andrew makes two point. The first is this:
"The highest profile self-confessed conservative is the Prime Minister. His conservatism, too, seems evolved from past conservative beliefs, not something new or striking. The old conservative concern with social cohesion is there, but no longer the view, once held by both parties, that racial purity is necessary for that goal. Experience has shown otherwise."
Fair enough. What does it mean? What is the significance of the point? That conservatism does not exist? We need to ask: 'what has replaced race to ensure social cohesion in the nation state ? It is integration in the form of assimilation. Nor is there any mention of nationalism of the national security state that has become a fortress with its guns and instrrumnets of surveillance trained on all movements outside and around its borders. Freedom of movement of peoples as held by libertarians--ie., open borders----is firmly rejected in the name of the threatening Other.
Now, as a good libertarian Andrew, cannot say that the Howard government is libertarian through and through. Howard, for instance, wears his conservatism as if it were a badge of honour, and he is willing to use the power of the state to protect iand prop up industries. So how does Norton understand this conservatism? The second point that Andrew makes articulates this in terms of social conservatism:
"If there is anything novel in the Prime Minister's political stance, it is his combination of market economics and mild social conservatism. Historically, conservatives have often been sceptical of the market, fearing that its dynamism would create too-rapid change and disrupt the social order."
No memtion is made of the political conservatism that asserts the power of the state or poltical authority?A conservatiim that accepts inequality, the rule of elites, keeping the subordinated clases firmly in their place, or allowing the subordinated classes an education appropriate to their station in the social hierarchy?
What Norton wants to do is brush away conservatism into non-existence and leave us with liberalism. This is how he does it:
"Is this combination of market economics and social conservatism a new form of conservatism? Or is it a new form of liberalism, given that Howard's social conservatism is so muted compared with Australia's past or conservative parties in other Western countries? In view of Howard's insistence that his thought includes conservative and liberal elements, we are probably best off describing it as not one or the other but as conservative liberalism."
Having made conservatism disappear into thin air Norton then turns his attention to neo-liberalism. Andrew is not alone in this. Consider this understanding of conservatism It's conservatism as classical Lockean liberalism that is interpreted in terms of a laissez-faire society of social and economic freedom. It's hardly Edmund Burke or David Hume. It makes nonsense of a Tony Abbottor what is usually called the toryism of a Robert Menzies.
Having done away with conservatism Norton then proceeds to mix things up. He brings conservatism back in through the side door. He says:
"For those who mix liberalism and conservatism, conservative liberal or liberal conservative should suffice. Which word is the adjective and which the noun will depend on which philosophy is emphasised."
This implies there is a difference between conservative and liberal philosophies as indeed there are. Conservatives, for instsance, have little time for libertarians because of what they see as unbridled individualism and the absence of authority. So what are the differences? Well it can be approached in terms of democracy along these lines. Fault lines begin to open on whether the sphere is politics is subordinate to the market or the market is subordinate to politics. Here is a suggestion as to the differences. And we can add that liberalism itself is a problem for many conservatives because it makes individual choice the cornerstone of its philosophy.
Andrew unpacks this differences indirectly by saying that Hayek--who was strongly anti-socialist--- was not a social conservative. The reason? Hayek wrote an essay called, Why I am not a Conservative, which was a postscript to the Constitution of Liberty. This is a key text because it refuses any easy identification of conservatism with liberalism despite their common opposition to socialism. According to Hayek liberalism and conservatism have different attitudes to change re the market, established authority and knowledge.
Yet Norton is misleading in dismissing da Silva's insight into Hayek's social conservatism. Hayek may be liberal in his fundamental antipathy of the state (a dead hand) and only willing to accept limited government; but he increasingly relies on tradition, is a strong critic of democracy and is more than willing to rely on authoritarian governments to sustain the market order. Things are not black and white on this.
What then of liberalism and neo-liberalism? Andrew doesn't like the label neo-liberal much and would prefer to do away with it. He says:
"In the Australian context, the neo labels don't add much...neo-liberalism implies the ideas are more neo than is the case. Many of the people described by others as neo-liberals, most of the people who write for the CIS fall into this group, prefer classical liberalism, highlighting our intellectual heritage, not our novelty."
So what is classical liberalism? is it Locke? Bentham? John Stuart Mill? None of these because Norton dates:
"...classical liberalism from its 20th-century revival, significant writers such as Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and James Buchanan, all Nobel Prize winners....liberalism or classical liberalism... [describes] the free marketers who, in the old line, want to keep the government out of the bedroom as well as the boardroom."
Classical liberalism is libertarianism is liberalism. There is lots of smoke and mirrors going on here. As we have seen Hayek was not a libertarian in the sense of throwing of customary restraints and scrapping all controls and traditional restraints over immigration, drugs, sexual conduct Gone or dismissed is the collective or social liberalism (E.G. Whitlam) which Andrew Norton dismisses as statism. Hence we are playing an old game of true and false liberalism. The false liberals have not grasped the true principles of a free society. So they live in error. As Norton puts it libertarian "should be kept for describing those who want to radically shrink the state."
This is an odd way to talk about a political tradition. You can sense the dogmatism, the polemics and religious dislike of heretics just beneath the surface. Libertarianism is only one form of liberalism, which is a very broad church with many diverse currents and voices. What is going on with the talk about good and bad liberalism is the displacement of both the social liberalism of T.H. Green, Keynes and Beveridge, and the utilitarian liberalism of Benthan and Mill. They betrayed and subverted the true liberal tradition because they held that the task of government is to pursue a collective goal. They were statists.
You can understand why John Quiggin highlights the strengths of John Stuart Mill in terms of freedom of political speech and thought. It acts as a democratic counter to the authoritarian tendencies of some economic liberals (John mentions Jeff Kennett, the ex Premier of Victoria "who have made a sustained, and largely successful, efforts to intimidate and silence [their] critics. A lack of concern with freedom of speech and political thought is the main distinguishing feature of neoliberals."
Behind Norton's smoke and mirrors is the equation of classical liberalism with economic or free market liberal. This is a liberal opposed to statismm and who aims to remove the political and institutional constraints that hinder the spontaneous operation of the competitive market. Hence Norton is willing to accept the term economic rationalist:
"Economic rationalist is a term we can keep, but to describe an issue movement rather than a distinct philosophy. The economic rationalists were a pro-market policy alliance that included a social democratic Labor federal government, the Liberal Opposition and then government, export-oriented businesses, economists in the bureaucracy and academe, and the think tanks. They agreed on a reform agenda more than an underlying philosophy."
The Australian term economic rationalist is equivalent to neo-liberal. What we have here is a mode of governance that shapes the conduct of a population through the hodge podge instruments of the market. A good account of neo-liberalism by John Quiggin can be here. He says:
"Neoliberalism seeks to cut back the role of the state as much as possible while maintaining public guarantees of access to basic health, education and income security.The core of the neoliberal program is:
(i) to remove the state altogether from 'non-core' functions such as the provision of infrastructure services
(ii) to minimise the state role in core functions (health, education, income security) through contracting out, voucher schemes and so on
(iii) to reject redistribution of income except insofar as it is implied by the provision of a basic 'safety net'."
I interpret this account as a way or system of thinking about the nature or practice of government. The mode of governance account shifts the emphasis away from neo-liberalism as an ideology or philosophy to a governmental reason in which the rationality of political government is seen as an activity, rather then as an institution. So economic reason that is so often deployed in Australia should also be seen as a political reason, as it offers an account of the limits of the state in reaction to the way of governing practised by social democracy.
The mode of governance approach highlights what is often forgotten in many alternative accounts of neo-liberalism ---namely, the constitution of the self. The argument is that through self-constitution, the subject is implicated in its own governance. What is meant here is that the shaping of the conduct of a population through a variety of market instruments also involves the individual creating a subjectivity that fits within the prevailing political rationality and the liberal market order. The desired subjectivity that is to be created is an entrepreneurial one, but more generally it means a subjectivity based on freedom of choice and responsibility. It is through this constitution of our subjectivity that we become increasingly enmeshed in the power relationships of the market order.
|
Gary,
I can't see anything to disagree with here. In particular, I agree Andrew has underplayed neo-conservatism in the Australian context. However, I think there is also much more to say. True enough, the foreign policy has been taken as the point for defining the neo-cons, as they were its principal formulators and promoters. Yet, this policy is far from the full and defining story. Kristol's own definition goes considerably further than either Andrew or yourself allow, and (reasoned) critics of Kristol et al (such as Shadia Drury) have gone a lot further still in identifying its defining characteristics, and its very distinct relationships to both liberalism and conservatism.