Illiberal Hegemony

In spite of their government status, the Liberal Democrats are possibly weaker than they were before 2010, as they are trapped between a Conservative dominated government and terrifying poll figures. If they stand up for themselves they will create an election which would only serve to greatly damage their cause, and, for me, the prospect of a solely Liberal Democrat government in the next few years is just as improbable as a Green Party government. Regardless, Britain's mainstream liberal party cannot be described as dominant in any way so liberalism may appear to many observers, the least obvious source of current political dominance. Yet, paradoxically, we are said to be in a long-standing era of 'liberal hegemony', where liberalism not only dominates political thought but governs almost every element of our lives.

This is a result of a gradual 'liberalisation' or 'moderation' of the other leading ideologies in the West, namely conservatism and social democracy. In the name of electoral appeal, these groups diluted their ideals with a selection of liberal values that were appealing to the general public while keeping several of their own ideas. In the UK this began in the 1980s, as the Tories fully adopted economically liberal ideas of deregulation and privatisation, concepts that had been on and off the various Conservative manifestos since the Corn Laws era, while Kinnock's Labour reforms favoured the 'red rose' of moderate social democrats on the Continent, over the more socialistic red flag, symbolic of the expulsion of its militant elements, whilst slowly abolishing commitments to high taxes and the like. At the same time, both parties mixed the new intake with traditional parts of their ideologies, illustrated by the infamous Section 28 and Labour's continued support for state owned services. In this way both doctrines gained new support whilst taking the ground from under the yellow sandals of the liberals. However, the problem with this 'moderation' was that once begun it could not be stopped, each party had to catch up with the other as they raced to that abyss of empty philosophy and meaningless ideas, known to some as the political centre. Thus New Labour tried to outwit the Tories on the electoral battlefield by abolishing the shibboleth of Clause IV (this was cleverly done by removing any meaning to the words whilst calling Labour as 'democratic socialist' party, so the leaders could gut the rich traditions of internal party dissent and democracy), and playing to the populist demands for action on 'hoodies' and 'benefit cheats', thereby entering a strange world where the anecdotal replaces the statistical, perhaps the greatest symptom of populism.

New Labour also copied Tory approaches to economic policy by refusing to reverse privatisation or to tackle the excesses and tax avoidance of the City, so that there was very little between the two, save for their imagery, which was rectified by David Cameron's 2006 election as Tory leader, changing party rhetoric on 'nasty' issues such as perceived homophobia and elitism, partly by dropping Section 28 (interestingly Cameron replaced Shaun Woodward as Witney MP, who had resigned over refusing to oppose the abolition of Section 28, thus Cameron was elected as MP for homophobic reasons and made several speeches supporting the clause) and cringe-worthy rhetoric characterised by the press as the 'hug a hoodie' approach.

As a result both Britain's mainstream parties became all but the same in rhetoric and policy, having gutted themselves of nearly all their philosophical character. Labour's leaders would not dare contemplate any major tax rises just as the Conservative HQ would commit suicide if they went anywhere near the benevolent elitism of Benjamin Disraeli, upon which the party was once founded. Hence, a liberal hegemony is created, where, on the whole, liberal policy is generally pursued regardless of who wins the election, and heavily supported by media rulers (see my post on “Britain's Microcosmic Media” for more). This is often praised as having protected the rights of the individual and secured continual prosperity. The likes of Ronald Reagan (see the 1964 speech; “A Time for Choosing”) or Niall Ferguson (author of 'Civilisation; The West versus the Rest') have even gone so far as to claim that its existence is what separates the developed West from the poorer East. However, I challenge this hegemony on multiple grounds.

Firstly, it is a massive contradiction. Its near total control is the exact opposite of liberalism, pushing aside and disregarding all but the most similar ideas, when liberals are meant to support a plurality of opinions. Thus Ed Miliband, becomes castigated as 'Red Ed' for even thinking about maintaining a 50p tax rate, while greater regulation of the banks by Vince Cable lead to incredulous comparisons to communism. Question the government in a discussion and often you will be facing a torrent of criticism of Labour's legacy. I dont care, I dont support Labour. Yet then you will be mocked as naiive or insulted for having 'dangerous' views, for simply supporting an alternative vision. That cannot be liberal. Despite 13 years of neo-liberal economics, and a devastating recession, the new government continues to pull the same line, as the old. TINA is not a liberal.(TINA=There is No Alternative, a Thatcherite slogan)

That Cable himself is a liberal highlights my second contention to the hegemony in that it is a selective interpretation of liberalism based on 'negative' liberty, the freedom from interference, rather than 'positive' liberty, where restraints are broken by government and popular action, liberating us from the restrictions caused by the freedoms of the rich and powerful which are more easily exercised. I acknowledge that there is great potential for the tax system to be abused regressively, yet surely certain measures are worthy of tax rises as they will help society as a whole. Scientific projects, better public services, superior transportation among others. Moreover, while the taxation burdens on ordinary people may be high enough, the taxes of the wealthy are rarely paid (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/27/tax). A truly 'liberal' hegemony would not allow such a disparity to arise.

Thirdly, by mixing the remnants of old ideology with the liberal adaptations, an ideological impasse is reached and no progress made. Little new ideas have come from either left or right in recent times, with Blond's 'Red Toryism' or Glausman's 'Blue Labour' essentially extended the race to the bottom. Thus a dull stagnation occurs where Space Exploration is seen as taxing and unnecessary (see recent end to NASA's space programme) and 'redevelopment' amounts to the creation of new shopping centres, vacuous altars to the immortal placebo of modernity; short term consumption. Our society is now based on short term rewards, idolisation of the 'weekend', as if it is insane to enjoy one's job. Humanities subjects are constantly mocked and slowly undermined in terms of both funding and general approaches. The likes of Classics or History, once seen as a necessary grounding for top Civil Service jobs are now attacked as 'pointless' and 'too costly', or perhaps most outrageously as 'elitist'. This is done by the hegemony to prevent anyone questioning the direction of society and to shackle us onto the conveyor belt that will eventually see us not as citizens or even human beings, but merely economic units. Of course the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects are vital to our civilisation, but to encourage only these fields will not secure further progress. The Scientists of the world can only show us where the future might be, everyone else must plot the course.

Overall then, the 'liberal hegemony' is false, it is an 'illiberal hegemony', that grew from coincidence and threatens to undermine our democracy. For how can we meet the inevitability of new challenges without the inception of new ideals and solutions?

A way in which Cameron was definitely the 'heir to Blair' was their mutual rejection of ideology, Blair proclaiming that 'Ideology is dead' to the French parliament and Cameron outlining his lack of belief in 'isms'.This implies that their policies are transcendent of ideology and relate to 'practical' solutions. Clearly, this is false. Much of neo-liberalism is based on ideology and theory, very little is empirical.

We must all reject the hegemony so that our politics can be sparked anew with innovative ideas and creative policies. That we may object to our narrowly defined existence rather than be subjected to it. We need ideology. It is guilty of terrible crimes but without it, there can be no future, no direction for our species. Fukuyama is wrong, history is not over. It has only just begun.