Neo Liberalism is New Bastardry

I've recently recieved a scholarship to undertake a doctorate in Political Science. Since it doesn't begin until next year I've undertaken to read widely on the subject in the meantime, largely because my social philosophy background left out some important pol sci documents, like Rousseau and Hobbes. As a result of this reading, my care for politics, long dormant, has reawakened with a frightful intensity. Expect to see many political flavoured posts over the coming months, starting with this one...

The most grotesque intrusion of capitalism upon culture in the past few decades has been the increasingly prevalent suggestion that our existential freedom is somehow bound up with our complete and utter economic freedom.

The really scary thing lately is the fact that this capitalist culture contains a clear vein of irrationality, or else deliberate malice. What I am referring to is the neo-liberal tendency to couch the protection of privilege in the language of traditional liberalism. For example, I can understand, from an existential point of view, that some people would like to send their children to a particular type of school to receive a specific kind of education. I am thus in favor of the existence of private schools as an outlet for existential choice. However, the Howard government’s system of giving nearly two thirds of government funding to private high schools which cater to one third of the population is not liberalism, but elitism, and class warfare.

Liberalism would suggest that you simply cut taxes and give the money back to the people. Arguably, that is what the Howard (and Bush) governments did, except that the tax breaks came at the top and middle of the income ladder. This isn’t liberalism, but the protection of privilege disguised as liberalism.

Similarly, the thankfully concluded debate in America over the provision of universal health care was disgusting. ‘Small’ government need not be extended to the point where certain people are effectively trapped in an underclass position while others become healthier and wealthier.

This thread of irrationality extends to macro level policy. Wide ranging liberalization occurs, but when this causes large scale financial disasters (a la GFC) it becomes the government’s job to bail everyone out. How is this small government?

I am not suggesting that the government should not have effective the bail-out, merely expressing sympathy for those genuine right wing politicians who saw this move as inconsistent with their philosophy.

Another clear example is when the IMF intervened in the Russian currency crisis of 1997-8 to protect Western investors from having to suffer bad debts. Under classic liberal theory, the investors would have gotten pinged while the IMF helped the Russian government manage its currency difficulties without drastic cuts in public provision.

There is also the Western (contra Chinese) approach to development, which sees them encourage developing nations in Africa to open their economic borders and then maintain high tariffs in their own nations to prevent those farmers effectively exporting. How is this consistent?

Two things need to be remembered. The first is that liberalism under J. S. Mill was a cultural idea about protecting people’s freedom of identity. In the economic arena this can be quite easily achieved while introducing Keating style economic regulation on a macro level. Such regulation emphasizes the efficaciousness of the market economy while smoothing the boom/bust cycle. It is not Marxist (thankfully), but it does foster equality of opportunity. The Australian economy evaded the GFC largely because of these reforms, and I fail to see how we are not a liberal democracy.

The second is that Adam Smith, the godfather of liberal economic theory, gave a two fold formula for prosperity. Part one is the oft repeated freedom for individuals to invest their capital with an eye to their own gain. The second was a morality to guide decisions made in the free market. I can’t help but feel we’ve forgotten the second part. It is as though we think the market is inherently a moral good. Smith implied that the market should be allowed to run free until it began to interfere with our ability to live well – until it began to interfere with culture and affairs of the spirit. When the GFC drops millions into destitution, I can’t help think the liberalization of the market has crossed the line. 

We must never forget to be honest and reasonable. I am repeatedly shocked and appalled at the way many right wing conservatives in this country can hold two blatantly contradictory positions at once, provided it suits them. Take for example, the very name of the ‘Liberal’ party and its current climate action policy of government subsidy of polluting businesses. How do these two things correlate?! How is this effective application of the harm principle?! This is a blatant example of protecting privilege, not liberalism. Be consistent!

But right wing conservative philosophy must necessarily be paradoxical because otherwise it simply doesn’t make sense on a fundamental level. The world is fucked right now. Billions live in poverty. Depression in the west is at record levels. Alcohol related violence is skyrocketing. Football related violence is skyrocketing. Examples of ongoing warfare are prolific. Obesity is chronic. How can we be conservative in such an environment? We can’t, and that is the origin of this thread of irrationality.