Posted on 28 May 2010 at 4:18am By GavinoWhat are we to make of the tendency of some conservative commentators to call Democrats and their policies “Marxist”, “socialist”, “liberal” and “statist”? Is this fair or are they just being provocative?
Accurately defining politicians is essential
Part of the reason that political labeling is currently in vogue in America is the unwillingness of the left’s political elite to be defined by this universal terminology. Reacting to their tarnished brand, some on the left prefer to describe themselves with the relatively inoffensive term “progressive” and to use words like “justice” to promote their policy goals since this communicates something that is generally thought to be intrinsically good or desirable. Surely we all want justice!
However, in our modern Orwellian doublespeak, “social justice” really means wealth redistribution and “environmental justice” means curtailing economic development. These code words are used widely by “civil society”, which is the vast array of mainly progressive interest groups that campaign on these issues and whose leaders are, of course, unelected and have no greater claim to the moniker than any other societal grouping.
Compare all this to the United Kingdom’s victorious post-war Labour Party which pursued similar policies to the Obama Administration but carried no qualms about its socialist credentials. The National Health Service was introduced by socialists in an avowedly socialist government and industries were nationalized because Labour’s “Clause 4” committed the party to “common ownership of the means of production”.
President Obama shuns the labels but pursues the policies, leaving many voters unsure about what his “change” really means. Such is the American left. It was also the case with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society. With so much smoke and so many mirrors obscuring the political convictions of America’s progressive political elite, how are voters to understand what is happening in Washington?
Nearly fifty years after Johnson began his war on poverty, the battlefield is a mess. Experience shows that the power of government can be used to take vast sums of money from the middle classes in the form of taxes, but that it is unable to significantly raise living standards among the less well-off. The evidence is especially visible in low income areas in any major American city.
But the appetite of the modern left for ever greater state encroachment into the personal lives of citizens, carried out under the noble sentiment of compassion, is a movement with no end. There is no clearly defined limit to the government’s role expressed in terms of economic statistics or income levels that no longer need support. No one knows, or pretends to know, what represents enough intervention. Only this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi regaled nationalized health care for allowing creative individuals such as budding musicians to give up their day jobs and develop their hobbies without having to worry about what happens if they get sick.
Economic “hope” comes from the ability to secure a better life through social mobility, not through blunt tax instruments. Rather than propelling the poor into better circumstances, government-managed wealth redistribution often condemns them to a lifetime of dependency, while reducing incentives to work. The widely accepted need for societal safety nets has been prostituted into a drive by progressives for government to eliminate all personal risk and responsibility.
Social mobility is neither measured nor venerated by liberal intellectuals because they think in terms of a largely static model of society that contains (greedy) haves and (suffering) have-nots and a fixed amount of wealth that must be shared more equally.
Accurate labels are deemed essential for food products in grocery stores so that we can monitor what we eat, but are renounced in politics where they could shed light on what politicians really believe. We live in an era where political leaders seem to live in fear that pundits will seize on any whiff of ideology to destroy their governments. Voters are left confused. For those politicians who aim to conceal their convictions, we are reliant on the media to try to make honest evaluations about what they really stand for.
“Social mobility is neither measured nor venerated by liberal intellectuals because they think in terms of a largely static model of society that contains (greedy) haves and (suffering) have-nots and a fixed amount of wealth that must be shared more equally.”
Gosh. Is this really the attitude of the US Left and Centre Left? They should look to this side of the Water and they’ll realise that the desire and drive for social mobility is viewed not just as an intrinsic part of social justice but also as an area of public policy that can – and does – command cross-party support.
Incidentally, I think your comments about the NHS are partial. Yes, it was introduced with gusto by the post-war Labour Government but it was on the basis of a 1944 white paper prepared by the Conservative Health Minister Henry Willink. In it, the Tory called for a fully comprehensive, universal healthcare system, free of charge and available to all citizens irrespective of means. And, of course, all of this followed the Liberal-inspired Beveridge Report. A nice bit of cross-party consensus
Tom, great comment. What would you label Mr. Cameron since he accepts much of the socialized agenda? Is he a Willink Conservative or a Keith Joseph Conservative…?
Well, as far as I can tell, social mobility does not feature highly in political programs on either side of the Atlantic. Of course, if you ask a politician whether he supports it, he is bound to say that he does. But the idea of social mobility does not actually drive social policies. Social mobility in the UK still seems to be limited by its class system, despite examples of rags to riches. The education system and tax system both reinforce it. I am not familiar with Willinck but he, like Mr. Cameron, went to Eton which perhaps shows that some things haven’t changed. Wikepedia says that he advocated a “publicly organized” rather than “publicly provided” health care system and he told Parliament that the NHS introduced by Labour would “destroy so much in this country that we value.” Obama’s system certainly could be characterized in the same way. In any case, the fact that Willinck was a Conservative MP is not the measure of whether he was a conservative with a small “c”. The Western European consensus in general has congregated around an expansion of the state and, with the exception of Margaret Thatcher, that has been the direction taken to lesser or greater extents by the main parties in the UK and other countries like Germany and France. I asked the question about Mr. Cameron because it seems that he will perpetuate the consensus, with a few tweaks here and there…
If we measure social mobility purely in terms of the school the PM attended then clearly we have a long way to go. We’ve had 19 from Eton now… But I reckon it’s more complex than that. Where should we place David Cameron on the political spectrum? I don’t think he’s from the Keith Joseph school. And given the dominance of Steve Hilton, right now I think it is very difficult to assess with any degree of confidence what he stands for. But I do think there’s an important distinction to be borne in mind – that of the difference between being socially liberal (or socialized, to use your phrase) and socially aware. I sense Cameron is in the latter camp. With such a short time in the political limelight, he’s spent all of his time fighting to win elections (Party Leader followed by PM) that all we’ve had is talk of themes that chime rather than policies that effect change. I’m not knocking him for that – it’s just to say that we’re still in early days. Sadly, I’m not sure the coalition will allow the true Cameron to reveal himself since there’ll be so much trimming going on. As a new group, they’re still very much in the forming stage. If they survive the storming, then we’ll see more at the norming period and may even witness some performing before the next election. Perhaps.
(As an aside, it’s interesting to note that there are now only two countries in Europe that do not have a coalition in power – France and, wait for it, Greece…)
Anyway, back to social mobility. Actually, it does feature highly in the UK – whether we are succeeding in improving things is a separate matter. Take a look at the Coalition Agreement and you’ll see it is laced with language that warms the hearts of social mobility campaigners. In their introduction, Cameron and his butler say “We both want a Britain where social mobility is unlocked; where everyone, regardless of background, has the chance to rise as high as their talents and ambition allow them. To pave the way, we have both agreed to sweeping reform of welfare, taxes and, most of all, our schools…” A good start. Now let’s see if they can walk the talk.
I’m enjoying this chit chat – takes me back years to days and discussions in a corner office just down the road from Parliament