I have just finished Aussie PM Kevin Rudd's essay on the financial crisis in The Monthly. In it, he mounts a strident attack on 'free-market fundamentalism' which he blames for our current woes - positioning himself as a pragmatic 'social democrat' in the meantime. It is interesting to see such an ideological turn from an Aussie politician - usually we steer clear of that stuff. It is a rather turgid read I have to say - but he lays the challenge out there to neo-liberals: how has your ideology done anything but expose us to this terrible danger?
I have never been fully persuaded that by the small govt mantra of the neo-liberal/Reaganite. I can understand some apects of it, but my theological appraisal of human nature (that we are unusually evil AND stupid) means that I don't trust the free market to produce just outcomes anymore than I trust government not to become corrupt and self-serving. Neo-liberalism has its own utopian vision - a dream of unfettered market forces aligning to produce prosperity and security for all. This is just as dangerous as the utopian vision of the socialist of course, with a completely planned and fixed economy. The trouble with neo-liberalism is that it hopes that a human vice - namely, greed - will produce much virtue.
The Pauline account of the role of the state focuses on justice - the restraint and punishment of the wicked (Rom 13). That is, in its own way, minimal - a 'small' government. Does it square with Rudd's view of the role of the state? -
Government is not the intrinsic evil that neo-liberals have argued it is. Government, properly constituted and properly directed, is for the common good, embracing both individual freedom and fairness, a project designed for the many, not just the few.
Well, I think so: here is a vision for the adminstration of justice - with the government taking its proper role of serving the people and not itself. The state is after all 'God's servant to do you good'. The language of 'fairness' echoes a kind of Rawlsian philosophy of justice, perhaps - and that could be debated, certainly. Rudd here speaks of 'the creative agency of government' - a phrase that could alarm neo-liberals and Reaganites, but which, in the current circumstances is prbably justified.
As Sarkozy says: Le laissez-faire, c'est fini.
10 comments:
I would be a little hesitant in claiming romans 13 as a Pauline theory of the state?
Not sure Paul had a theory of the state?
But otherwise thought provoking read, thanks!
Allow me a certain blogging looseness! I said 'account' not 'theory', but you are right... this scarcely amounts to a full blown political theology. It is, however, the basis for political theologising...
Hi Michael. I've also been meaning to get to Rudd's article.
Going by your account of it (and others I've read), it sounds like an exercise in politics and rhetoric -- by which I mean that, in reality, Rudd Labor and the Turnbull Coalition are both (by any historical measure) centrist. Both believe in markets and de-regulation, both think that government has a legitimate role in ensuring justice, fairness, opportunity for all, and protection for the vulnerable and weak, both believe in government intervention through fiscal/economic policy, and so on.
The difference between them is quite small -- a few clicks either side of centre. One wants a tad more government (but not socialism); the other wants a tad less government (but not laissez faire). To characterize the Coalition as far right, laissez faire haters of government is as silly as characterizing the Rudd-Gillard partnership as raving socialism.
So I don't think it's the return of ideology, but a (smart) political play by Rudd to position Turnbull and the liberals as far to the right as he can, and then to blame them for the economic downturn.
TP
Yea, sorry just the way I read it. Again thanks for the post!
Politicians are always political, but one has to look past that, because the admirable ones seize a kind of situational honesty when they can. During the campaign, keen to be a small target, Rudd was a "fiscal conservative" in rolled up sleeves, now he's a champion of the creative agency of government: each statement suited the times. He probably does believe both, but the latter accords with what he was arguing before he was even running for prime minister, though I can only cite a half remembered piece on the SMH opinion pages as evidence. I think its fair enough to read a bit of personal investment into the latest round of spin...
I loved your gloriously brief theological appraisal of political systems - reminded me of the Groucho Marx cliche about not wanting to join any club that would have me as a member. Perhaps that pragmatism does actually does favour free market ideology: if dog eats dog at least they keep each other under control. Socialism, for all its appeal, has a scary and unbiblical presumption of goodness that has allowed some nasty animals to roam their yards unchallenged. Their ought to be a word for a sort of schadenfreude coloured by despair that christians feel when capitalism does ordinary folk wrong. Similar to the feeling as the bodies mounted up in Iraq... "I told you so" doesn't quite cover it.
Is ideology bad by definition? or to put it another way, "Isn't pragmatism equally ideological?" Is there really any position for social engagement that is pure action without some kind of intent?
Just curious as to why espousing some kind of rationale for action is so quickly disparaged as ideology whereas the "whatever works" mantra is what? Thoughtless?
I find it helpful to remember that our debate about government size has moved beyond a decision between adam smith's promotion of the free market on one hand, and big government on the other. We now have to contend with the problem of how to address the wide range of social, moral and cultural issues that need dealing with, if we resist large government statism. That was not really an issue adam smith was addressing;it is a much wider ranging issue. I suspect we need to consider the role of the church for starters!
Okay, finally finished the article last night after 3 attempts ("turgid read" is a good description, the 2009 editor(s) of 'Best Australian Essays' won't be troubled by this one).
My read is that it is basically pragmatically, and not idealogically driven.
Surely we are not so gullible that we think "here are my holiday musings on the Financial Crisis" and then a couple of weeks later, suckered by "oh, and here is a $42 billion stimulus package that needs approval in a hurry." I think boxers call it the "1-2" with the second punch the one we should have been watching for all along.
It would seem to be that an interesting trend is emerging, where pragmatists (who are aware of the kind of criticism levelled at them) have become quite adept at borrowing a set of idealogical clothes for a big occasion. And its not just politicians who are doing it.
Back to the article though, and its main thrust seems largely uncontroversial - that in the future some kind of regulatory control will be needed to try and prevent the same thing happening.
Whether government is better placed in the long-term to provide this than the market will be thrashed out in the years to come. Those who still have faith in a self-correcting, self-regulating market will probably lay low and keep their heads down for a while yet.
Can I see Rudd borrowing the "fiscal conservative" clothes for a different big occasion in the future??? Absolutely...
As to "principled Prime Ministers" (ie not pragmatists) in my adult life time?? Keating probably tried to be, but made a hash of it. Howard?? Hawke?? Fraser?? Whitlam?? Certainly not the middle two, cases might be made for Howard and Whitlam, but I'd take a fair bit of convincing.
Probably says quite a bit about who we are, and the kind of leadership we instinctively respond to.
you'd be interested in this Templeton discussion that took place in London last term.
does the free market corrode moral character?
fascinating, especially John Gray & Bernard Henri-Levy.
Geoff: possibly. The argument might be that principles are dangerous in a PM! Certainly, Whitlam's mix of 'principles' and ego made him a PM only worth having for a couple of years.
Tony and others, I had written a long response to your interesting comments, but the connection was lost and the comment was lost. I was trying to say that I think the crisis actually emphasises the ideological difference between the sides of politics. The ALP, despite cutting the unions loose, still according to Rudd sees work/labour as more than just a commodity on a free market, for example. Some of the changes in social policy are quite marked from the Howard years - ie, attitude towards Aborigines, advocacy of 'human rights' issues...
Post a Comment