|
April 9, 2005
The political life of Australia has been, and should be, portrayed as working within a hegemonic liberal consensus. Liberalism is the political theory implicit in our political practice, and it articulates the assumptions about citizenship and freedom that inform our public life.
Liberalism is rooted in its conception of freedom, and this is understood as the capacity of free subjects to choose their own values and ends. Hence all the emphasis on freedom of choice with respect to universities and compulsory unionism.
If liberal politics focuses on the capacity of individuals to form and revise their conception of the good, then the liberal state remains neutral as to the goods which individuals pursue.
So argues Michael Sandel in relation to US liberalism, but that account applies here as well, despite the utilitarian emphasis of Australian liberalism.
The liberal state does not support any one comprehensive conception of the good life but allows individuals to choose their own conceptions provided these are just. Liberalism holds that government should not affirm in law any particular vision of the good life. Instead it should provide a framework of rules (or rights) that respects persons as free and independent selves capable of choosing their own values and ends.
Now liberalism has difficulty articulating our concerns and anxiety about the erosion of community, the loss of self-government, and the impoverished conception of citizens. Conservatism addresses the erosion of community but has little to say about self-government or citizenship. The latter can be addressed by republicanism, which holds that individual freedom must be achieved through communal political activity; through deliberation on the common good and concern for public affairs.
The welfare state of the 1940s that was put in place by the Chifley government was a response to the massive unemployment and financial chaos brought on by the collapse of industry and the capitalist economic system during the 19130s Great Depression. Liberalism was found to be wanting. Left to itself, the free play of individual interest produced an inherently unstable economy with dramatic effects on the political and socio-economic lives of all citizens. One could no longer have faith in the combination of laissez-faire and survival of the fittest to provide a workable social order. Both rich and poor were devastated by the economic collapse. The depression marked a practical demonstration that laissez-faire capitalism was not a natural order as even those who were judged to be the fittest suffered during the depression.
This shift to the welfare state has generally been interpreted in terms of social liberalism. Does it have a republican moment? Can we say that the growing acceptance of the idea that the federal government had the right and the duty to intervene on behalf of the economic well-being of its citizens led to the corollary that the federal government had the obligation to protect the lives and constitutional rights of Aborigines? Does not extending citizenship to aborigines and the freedom rides of the 1960s suggest a republican interest in civic engagement, self-government, and the common good<
|
I think very true.
I always thought that liberalism had its problems here:
If liberal politics focuses on the capacity of individuals to form and revise their conception of the good, then the liberal state remains neutral as to the goods which individuals pursue.
I never really felt that people were very competant at forming and revising a conception of the good and were more likely to accept something that was presented to them in advertising/media.
I felt its flaw came in assuming that people were rational rather than big bundles of emotions, desires and instincts with a vaguely rational overlay. That the human conception it was based on was too idealistic.
Hope this makes sense.