Mike M. posts on the topic of the views of the right wing have been food for thought. Francis "the end of history" Fukiyama was recently interviewed on the BBC pedalling essentially the same line as Olasky. It seems to me there currently exists two partially incompatible right wing ideologies. The first is a consistent liberalism which touts the freedom of the individual from interference in all spheres including the economic, the political, and the cultural. The only institution needed to control individual freedom of action is the market. This is not a particularly populist ideology but has a strong base in bourgeois, professional and intellectual circles. It has also had a strong innings as the fundamental base of government policy in much of the west, most especially Britain and the US. It's results have, however, tended to discredit it. Social breakdown, growing inequality, etc, etc, especially in Britain and the US have led some right wing 'intellectuals' to look for an alternative. In order to preserve the core of liberalism, the capitalist economic order, it is necessary to moderate the effects of economic liberalism through the intervention of traditional non-liberal institutions. These are fundamentally the European fascist trinity of God, Country, and Family. If only the market can be supplemented by a strong commitment to traditional religion, patriotism, and the traditional family, this could really be the best of all possible worlds. This also has the advantage of a more populist appeal than pure libertarianism. This turn in right wing ideology creates problems for the left. Some of the issues raised by this sort of appeal can be supported by almost everybody including the left. People (especially men) ought to behave responsibly toward their families; people ought to be good citizens, peoples personal and public behavior ought to be conducted according to some moral code. The left has always had a pretty sophisticated critique of economic liberalism. In relation to religion, nationality (of the imperial sort), and 'family values' the left has had more trouble deciding what it has to say. At base the left has defined these realms as sites of struggle between left and right. This position is the correct and as far as I can see inevitable conclusion. Nevertheless there is a serious political problem in that the left positions lack the populist appeal of the rightist positions on these issues. Sure the left supports the family but not of course the patriarchal family. Support for homosexual marriage and the economic independence of women are necessary and settled parts of any left program. But they do NOT appeal to the right wing populist desire for the atavistic security of traditional family structures. The left has attempted to subvert the patriotism issue by talking about "community". This is most striking in the New Labour Party rhetoric under Tony Blair. This tries to broaden the right wing approach to the state as the guarantor of order to include traditional social democratic welfare measures. There are several problems with this approach. The first problem is that the basic values of the left are really international and this is even more important in the current period. The second is that the left has always tried to portray itself as patriotic. At best this has been ineffective and at worst disarms the left totally in the face of international conflict. Thirdly the notion of community is inevitably an exclusionary principle resting on a sense of shared values and identity. Such common identities either don't exist among the left's potential constituencies in the metropolitan centers or are firmly reactionary in content. Fourthly the notion of community ignors class questions which must be addressed if the economic liberalism of right wing ideology is to be effectively addressed. As regards religion, the left's gut alternative to a left secular critique of religion is a position of liberal tolerance. Within this tolerance unity can be built around an essentially secular vision of the just society. Whatever the appeal of a just society, it does not directly address the question of religious belief. Thus while religion, nation, and family can and must be addressed by the left, these issues cannot form the basis of a populist appeal by the left. I want to close this post by suggesting that we look to our own tradition for an alternative appeal. The left's traditional concept of solidarity can cross religious boundaries, ethnic and gender identities and does not avoid the class question, while it is capable of identifying with that which is positive in the notion of community. Terry McDonough
