The New Con

The New Con
by Marcus Bachler

I have always assumed that Conservative parties were more the friends of individual liberty, at least in their rhetoric if not in content, than their left-wing counterparts. At least they have always claimed to want to encourage free markets and profits in business, reduce government spending and lower taxes -– and to some extent they still do. Yet lately there has been a shift in this old style rhetoric from Conservative parties in opposition. And I believe that this change has been the result of a shift in strategy of modern day left-wing politics.

After the demise of the old USSR, the end of the cold war and the discrediting of Collectivism as a viable economic model there was a slow, but sure shift in western left-wing mentality. These rapid shifts in world politics were first felt, as is often the case, in the USA. Bill Clinton's Presidency immediately following the end of the cold war was typified by an emphasis on the national economy and a new fight against the Budget deficit, a new fiscal responsibility. Although Clinton may not have been directly responsible for it, by the end of his term he presided over a large Budget surplus and a healthy economy. This has been squandered by the Conservative Bush who has during his first term produced a skyrocketing budget deficit and, though probably not his fault, a wobbly economy. If he loses the next election it will be over the economy – with a Democratic opponent claiming to be the more fiscally competent of the two. So what has happened?

What has generally happened in countries where left-wing parties are now in government is that they have decided that they need to prove themselves as fiscally competent as their opposition have promised to be in the handling of their budgets and their potential effect upon the economy (or at least make it appear that way to voters). As it is generally observed in western democracies that a government will stay in power as long as the economy is relatively healthy – left-wing governments have used this to their advantage whilst steadily introducing laws restricting individual freedom. The old rhetoric of these left-wing governments claims that every new infringement upon liberty merely serves to enforce the need for fairness in society, the need of individual sacrifice for the community, and the provision of good public services -- something that the voting public and media at large often embrace or passively accept with a minority of fuss. Some of the advocates of this new mixture of "Conservative" budget balancing and left-wing "community before self" agenda, Clinton and Blair for example, have called this type of politics the "third way" or the "new left" and even "modernisation". On reflection this is not altogether surprising. Since the collapse of collectivism as an economical model, even the government of Red China is scrambling to embrace semi-free market practises in order to maintain its hold on power and to keep the old communist/socialist doctrine of the past alive.

What is surprising is how right-wing parties, or the "Conservatives", in opposition have felt the need to adapt. In other words – in countries where left-wing parties currently are in government – the right-wing parties are feeling themselves to be outflanked on the traditional economic arguments of the past. They have had their old standard "if you want the economy to do well then vote for us" message pulled out from under their feet. They are in need of a powerful argument in favour of a morality that defends individual liberty. That argument is often neither understood by themselves nor the voting public. This has left them on the whole losing elections and constantly running scared looking for new policies and new leaders while polls fail to respond. Their desperation to get back into power is so acute that their inability to win with liberal principles has left them only one place left to go - and this is obviously - to the left. Nowhere has this been better illustrated than in the events of last few weeks of the opposition Conservative parties in both NZ and the UK.

There were two new leaders elected in the Conservative opposition parties of both countries - Don Brash in NZ and Michael Howard in the UK. Apart from the almost identical timing, both men were former shadow Finance Spokesmen, and both replaced their former leaders due to their former leader's apparent unpopularity in the polls. Both delivered their first major speeches with similar content.

They both claimed to feel the urgency to change the current left-wing governments in power because it is harming the country.

Brash: "I said before my election as leader that I believe this Labour Government is destroying New Zealand."

Howard: "People really have begun to see through Labour...Britain is not working properly."

They both believe that this is best illustrated by the example of failing public services. They both imply that there is nothing wrong with the idea of public services that just need to be improved upon.

Brash: "I believe that New Zealanders don't want to be second rate...We have expectations about the quality of our health and education systems...core social services are failing."

Howard: "We are a first class country with second-class public services... there is a growing consensus today that our public services are inadequate."

They both feel the need to emphasise that they are not changing their values by doing this, but they are nonetheless shifting to the left.

Brash: "... it is going to be a centre-right platform, not a centre platform or a right platform...but we are not taking some huge fundamental change in direction."

Howard: "I [will] lead this party from its centre. A party that is uniting around its central principles."

However, according to them, those Conservative principles are an integral part of self-sacrifice.

Brash: "National understands that any dreams any of us may have for our country depend on our ability - and that means the ability of our productive sector - to create the wealth to support them."

Howard: "But he [Blair] knows that the Labour Party will never accept the reforms needed to build first class public services. For too many of his MPs - words like 'choice' and 'competition' are as welcome as a clove of garlic to Dracula."

As you can see the central rot has begun (or is continuing). If the Conservatives do become the government by the next election here in the UK, what hope is there for fundamental change? They may slow down some incursions on individual liberty and privacy started by the left (or even accelerate them as Bush has done), they may lower some taxes, but they still do not either understand nor accept the principles necessary to make possible any true shift away from the self-sacrifice of the centre that is today pervading and perverting politics.

In the USA, the success of the economy under Clinton almost caused the Conservative Bush to lose the last election. In fact, some say that he did. Bush's subsequent increase in spending and burgeoning deficit, after inheriting a surplus, has had some commentators wondering which of the two presidents – Bush or Clinton – will be judged by history to be the more "Conservative" in economic terms. If Bush loses the next election, any Conservative successor may well be compelled to shift towards the new centre approach and the politics of the left.

It may well turn out that as in Dante's Inferno, the centre position will become the lowest rung of Hell for individual liberty in the west, worse even than any collectivist threat from the old "Red Menace".

Discuss this Article (8 messages)