Don’t just give us the Third Way Kevin, do something
|
You don’t hear much about the Third Way these days. Perhaps Kevin Rudd avoids the phrase because Mark “Civilising Global Capital” Latham so thoroughly owned it during those now-forgotten days when everyone declared him a genius. More likely, the ignominious deflation of Tony Blair’s political balloon rendered Blairism a unattractive referent for Kevin 07. But with Labor in power, the comparison between the ALP here and New Labour in Britain deserves more attention than it’s received. As Guy Rundle recently argued in The Age:
The Blairite approach to Laura Norder provides a good example. In 1993, the murder of two-year-old James Bulger by two ten year-olds appalled the world. Tony Blair seized the chance to assault on the Tories on crime. The nation faced “moral chaos”, he warned: “A solution to this disintegration doesn’t simply lie in legislation. It must come from the rediscovery of a sense of direction as a country.” New Labour famously promised to be “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.” Accordingly, under Labour, Britain’s rate of incarceration skyrocketed: it now locks up more people than any other western EU member apart from Luxembourg. As Jackie Ashley noted in The Guardian:
Tough on crime? Check! Causes of crime? Not so much. Any serious attempt in that direction would involve a large-scale transformation of society, precisely the kind of thing that sends shivers down the spine of a Blarite spin-doctor. After all, in the UK, as in Australia, the real policy disputes are over. On both sides of the aisle, there’s a single model of economic and political management – and it’s a conservative one. It allows for more police powers but it’s not so big on fundamental projects like extinguishing the causes of crime. In his much-derided End of History thesis in 1989, Francis Fukuyama argued that we’d reached the total exhaustion of systematic alternatives to free-market liberalism. OK, you only have to look at Iraq to recognize that History still sputters on but Fukuyama’s point stands as a description of a political culture in which no credible candidates recognize options other than “free market liberalism”. “The end of history will be a very sad time,” he prophesied. “The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one’s life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands.” Is this not more or less exactly our political landscape today? When politics becomes entirely about economic calculation and technical management, the parties of the Left and the parties of the Right necessarily rely on the same methods to appeal to those sophisticated consumers known as voters. So, in 2008, Tony Blair’s anti-crime rhetoric resounded once more:
This time, the speaker was Tory leader David Cameron – but his words were one hundred percent pure New Labour. As Rundle says, New Labour behavioral coercion will in all likelihood dominate Australian politics into the future. But don’t be surprised if it catches on in the Liberal Party, too. Jeff Sparrow is the editor of Overland. |
|
|
|








2 Comments
A good, thought-provoking piece, Jeff! However, I don’t think Fukuyama’s position has been confirmed. We only have to look at the case of modern China — certainly not an example of “free market liberalism” — but nor is it solely communist ideology.
No social programmes,however well intentioned,can substitute for the first ‘school’of virtue,the family. Those ‘habits of generosity, consideration for others,sincerity,hard work,etc are learned (or not) at the feet of parents. So many kids without dads!