Politics and truth

According to the Brit Colin Hay (Why We Hate Politics 2007), there is a need to challenge the dominant doctrine of neoliberalism, given its influence over public policy during the past 30 years and its negative effect upon the potential of democracy, as represented by a greater disdain for politicians and disbelief in the effectiveness of formal political institutions.

Hay’s assumption is based on government responsibility having been delegated to quasi independent bodies such as independent central banks in the public sphere; increasing privatisation; and the shifting of responsibility for important services from the public realm to the non-government sector, or a greater burden being placed on the individual.

Negative views about liberalism may even cite an abundance of evidence. After all, the current economic crisis was caused by inadequately regulated capital and financial lending, growing income disparity has occurred both within and between nations, and we are light years away from adequately addressing environmental degradation.

So should I surrender my defence of liberalism, jump on the bandwagon, and offer greater criticism? Should I run around and collect certain evidence to write an essay that pretends to have the answers to such a complex world?

Oh, I wish I was that way inclined. I would make a lot more friends at universities where an emphasis upon policy possibilities rather than limitations remains the rule of the day for most humanities students and academics.

But the aim of scholarship is to tell the truth from what one learns from an abundance of information, even if the bias of one’s views and values cannot be completely eliminated. As I would say to the former student, who could not understand why someone from a labouring background could support liberalism so passionately, I continue to open my eyes and think about the issues.

Yes, I started out as a passionate left-wing supporter. Brought up in a primarily blue-collar suburb (Preston in Victoria), I was opposed to non-Labor parties as I listened to the dominant ideas of my area. When 10 years of age, I wore an “Its Time” badge proudly in my support for Whitlam in 1972.

But I slowly learned to separate fact from fiction, a process sped up from the nonsense portrayed by some humanities academics. For instance, as noted in Quadrant in November 2006, one university lecturer, after telling students that it was the working class that made multiculturalism accepted, backed down when I suggested that the former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser would be disgusted by such a comment given his support for multiculturalism.

Sure enough it was the left-wing lecturers who promoted the biggest ideas and the most rubbish. It did not matter that many employers supported immigration from southern Europe (albeit often for self-interested reasons) during the 1950s, and that many trade union members and officials were initially opposed to such immigration.

And logic told me that racist attitudes had nothing to do with class, as there was likely to be good and bad attitudes from people with vastly different employment or wealth backgrounds. After all, working class people could also be cruel, as evident one day in the early 1970s when I was pelted with rocks when delivering newspapers, simply for being a so-called “wog”.

My wariness of do-gooders was reaffirmed after working for a federal politician (1999-2000) who wrote many books on social justice and how the world should be, yet went to jail for receiving money in exchange for unlawful favours.

So rather than rely on the wisdom of even the best-intentioned Left, I went off and read the thinkers that many humanities academics opposed. For instance, Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations thesis did state that it is human to hate and that resolving one conflict gives way to another, but also concluded that the great civilisations should respect each other and learn to live together, a view which I actually thought was too optimistic.

I also thought of my own contradictions. While I was interested in battlers and income disparity, I recognised my own immense ego and quest for a job that paid more money.

And I could not forget the academics that spoke of the need for better public schools but sent their children to private schools, or those who drove old cars with smoke spilling out while they declared their love for the environment in lectures.

By the end of my undergraduate degree, I had changed. Though I still noted the need for an effective manufacturing sector, I also recognised that freer trade was the only fair policy paradigm for encouraging peace and prosperity between competing nations struggling for resources and the influence of certain ideas.

While I had excelled at university, partly because I wrote essays that generally agreed with the views of most academics and tutors, I was increasingly determined to remain committed to the truth, no matter how subjective such an assertion can appear to be or whether it offended the views of fellow students or academics.

But I have tried hard to remain faithful to my prime interest in income disparity both within and between nations, and even environmental degradation, although I admit I am no closer to observing revolutionary solutions.

Today, all I can do is defend the liberal cause and the recent efforts of Western governments to appease both national and international considerations, albeit while I recognise the current economic turmoil and the reality that just a small number of nations still dominate the world economy even if China and India are to be included.

My interpretation of the facts will not even allow me to ridicule the efforts of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, John Howard and George W. Bush, although I have argued that the decision of Australia to support the US in Iraq without a UN mandate was one of the worst policy decisions by liberal democracies (Quadrant).

Sure, I observed the dodgy support given by the US and other nations to corrupt regimes, but I recognised that powerful nations do make tough decisions and often get it wrong.

And I never believed that any Western political leader simply adhered to the theories of Friedman or Hayek and set about to introduce ruthless policies, nor that such liberal economists would ever claim to have the answers to such a complex world. Liberal-minded politicians and economists were doing their best to offer policies and ideas that they believed met the demands of the day.

Rather, I observed the increasing difficulty for Western governments with their post war efforts to both accept the ideal of freer trade yet uphold their national interest to maintain a high standard of living.

In Australia, the struggle was evident under the Hawke and Keating governments to be financially responsible, maintain a manufacturing sector, and improve Australia’s social welfare services.

No longer could Australia rely on high tariffs and high wages while allowing its domestic industry to be uncompetitive against foreign competition. Its close military relationship with the US was now complicated by the rise of China and its increasing economic importance. There was greater concern about welfare dependency compared to the 1960s when just 3 per cent of the Australian population were dependent on such assistance. Australia’s recent embracement of its multicultural nature was challenged by the rise of Islamic extremism, and the environment has become an issue of greater concern, thus requiring greater public resources.

Furthermore, I remain mystified by the simplicity offered by certain Australian political scientists. In addition to Professor Robert Manne who noted Howard’s effort to reverse “the cultural trajectory of the Hawke and Keating years” and deeply integrate Australia with the US “strategically, economically, socially and culturally” (The Monthly February 2006), Rae Wear argued that the Howard government brought populism to a dangerous level (Australian Journal of Political Science, December 2008).

It did not matter that empirical data noted that satisfaction and trust in Australian democracy actually increased under the Howard government from 1998 to 2004 (McAllister and Clark, Trends in Australian Public Opinion), or that perhaps some of the Howard government’s policies actually upheld public support for immigration and multiculturalism by addressing domestic concerns.

Of course, views and values remain an important guiding light to any agenda or perspective, as they are for the majority of left-wing academics besotted by policy possibilities rather than any willingness to recognise policy limitations.

But we need to be honest in our assessment of truth or normative aims.

As suggested by Professor Henrik Bang in an upcoming British Politics issue:

... if we are to bend the stick in a new direction, it is not enough to criticise neoliberalism and economic globalisation; rather we must go to the heart of the matter and show why democratic politics and policy can be conducted otherwise than as hierarchical, legitimate domination.

No doubt that sophisticated policy outcomes will be enhanced by ongoing interaction between political parties, interest groups and public opinion, or at least more so than in non-democratic nations.

But we may never find the “right” solution given our different and eclectic range of views. For instance, greater domestic industry gains may have consequences for poorer nations. Saving the environment may indeed mean accepting a less extravagant standard of living. And freer trade will indeed place greater pressure on Western nations to reform and modify their social welfare assistance.

International turmoil and environmental degradation may even worsen. Pakistan may become the next major hot spot of conflict. And the rise of prosperous Chinese and Indians may obliterate any bid to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

All we can do is offer a range of ideas and arguments from our different perspectives, hope that some people listen, but always accept the verdict of the people, at least in free and prosperous democratic societies where everyone has a right and opportunity to express an opinion.

As for myself, I will write academic articles as well as opinion pieces. My articles will never pretend to have ideas that will save the world, although I do believe that liberalism has and will continue to make an important difference for good. Rather, my articles will seek to balance the ledger against the bias and simplicity that is directed toward so-called neoliberal trends or any other claim that offers theoretical certainty about how to resolve problems in such a competitive world.