|
October 21, 2004
One of the implications of the rise of conservatism in Australia and its capture of the levers of power (both the House Representatives and the Senate after 2005) is that liberalism will increasingly become a kind of political and philosophical punching bag. We have already seen some indication of this.
On the one hand, liberalism is often denounced as the theory of big, government (the social democratic ALP) whilst its statist principles are condemned for justifying government that is too intrusive. On the other hand liberalism is condemned as the theory of small, ineffective government (libertarianism); and for requiring a government that is too limited (neo-liberalism). Communitarians say that the public law promulgated under its name refuses to take a stand on fundamental questions of the good life even as it promulgates a particular way of life as the best and the true one.
The non- liberal left argue that greater equality of power would enhance the conditions for justice, but they are often so paternalistic as to arouse a sense of injustice. Though they aim at a more perfect democracy, plans for the reform of existing institutions to ensure freedom through self-government, democratic participation, and civic virtue often require remaking the citizenry as well. And who exactly is competent to shape the virtue of citizens--those qualities of mind and character that are exercised in the pursuit of the good life?
Despite these criticisms our political culture remains liberal in the sense that few seriously advocate a politics that does not respect individual rights, insure equality before the law, and support the practice of toleration. So liberalism's core commitments are widely shared, even as its political expressions are routinely disdained.
In these dark times of conservative hegemony, which works in terms of obvious resort to fear and hate as a campaign weapon coupled to trusting conservatives to defend the homeland. So cruelty can reside and proper within within the enlightened liberal state--as with the mandatory detention of asylum seekers and the treatment of the unemployed and disabled by the free market.
Maybe we need a liberalism that is more concerned with fear and humiliation than a Kantian liberalism rights and justice? The liberalism of fear--as urged by Judith Shklar-- emphasizes the dangers of political violence, cruelty, and humiliation. Those dangers clearly mark ethnic and cultural conflicts, so the liberalism of fear is an especially appropriate political ethic for an age marked by such conflicts. So a state need not be just but it should be decent.
This is a shift in focus. The concern is with the dangers and evils that we must defend against, rather than with the goods that we should pursue and the virtues or virtus we should cultivate in order to achieve those goods. So we would begin with the negative principle that the first aim of politics is to secure individuals from the worst injustices they can suffer. And the worst of all such injustices is cruelty. So argued Judith Shklar in her essay "The Liberalism of Fear"
|
