• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

'Fightback':

Some tentative thoughts along the lines of a critique

by Simon Longstaff

Introduction

Arguments about the merits of the 'Fightback' proposals can be deployed at a number of levels. The purpose of this symposium has been to explore at least three of these levels. The first has been an analysis of the policy in light of economic theory. The second has been to review its contents in terms of ethical theory. Thirdly, the package of proposals has been subjected to a critique based on the kind of considerations that a Christian might bring to bear.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a broadly philosophical analysis of the 'Fightback' proposals; especially as they affect the provision of social welfare. Nothing in this paper should be taken as representing the established views of any church or denomination. The views expressed are those of the author. They claim no authority and seek merely to promote further reflection.

Whilst it is not possible to come to any subject completely free of one's own preconceptions, every attempt has been made to evaluate the 'Fightback' proposals in a fair and balanced manner. With this in mind, it may be as well to review some of the more general criticisms that may be (and have been) directed at the content of the 'Fightback' document and its contents. In particular, it is necessary to disentangle a critique of 'Fightback' from a broader critique of capitalism.

Ethics and the market

It is evident that the 'Fightback' proposals have generated a passionate response from some quarters. In one sense it provides a convenient target for those who are concerned to apply an emerging critique of what has been dubbed ‘economic rationalism’. Many commentators see the conservative coalition's tax and expenditure policies as a typical example of an ideological position that is uncritically supportive of market mechanisms.

These critics of 'Fightback' (and it is worth noting that the basis for criticism can vary) are alarmed at yet another attempt to impose a paradigm which fails to recognise the important role to be played by the public sector in the development of the Australian economy and in the provision of social justice.

At one level, the criticism of 'Fightback' seems to be driven by ideological concerns and therefore portrays the operation of markets in fairly crude and selective terms. At this level critics suggest that the market mechanism is inevitably driven by greed. In making this suggestion the critics ignore the point that there is a world of difference between being motivated by self-interest and being motivated by greed.

For example, a person can have an authentic commitment to promoting the wellbeing of others and this commitment can be part of the make-up of the individual who seeks to operate in the market. For such a person, it will be a matter of self-interest to see that the basis for exchange is one of justice and equity. All exchange in a free market is based on the patterns of value which are ascribed to various goods and services. These values can also reflect our social concerns.

Beyond this, it is important to realise that the market depends on the maintenance of basic ethical values for its very operation. To the extent that the market is distorted by misinformation so it is less honest but also less efficient. Likewise, to the extent that greed motivates attempts to corner the market there is a tendency towards the formation of monopolies which are, of course, entirely inimical to the market process.

The point of this is to suggest that there is nothing inherently immoral or unjust about the operation of markets. Indeed, markets are amoral. It is people who give markets their particular complexion as a reflection of the values which ultimately drive the pattern of exchange.

The chief purpose of these comments has been to create space for a debate about the ethical status of the 'Fightback' package. This requires that some account be taken of the motivation which lies behind the proposals. If they are the result of an honourable intention to promote justice and beneficence then this will have moral significance. Such considerations are necessary but by no means are they sufficient.

An appropriate evaluation will also need to take account of whether the means selected to achieve the end are appropriate. One can be culpable for failing to choose the correct means but in most circumstances this will depend on an a posteori judgement. This is not to deny that, in some circumstances, the means can be evaluated in terms of their consistency with the end. For example, a commitment to certain means (or their avoidance) may be entailed in a commitment to specific ends. Having said this, it is not at all clear that an orientation towards the operation of markets is, in any analytical sense, inconsistent with an authentic commitment to principles of justice and benevolence.

Finally, it is sometimes claimed that capitalism should be condemned because of its failure to deliver social justice. Measured against any ideal or absolute sense of justice this would seem to be true. However, relative to the dominant alternatives of non-capitalist socialism and the historical manifestation of communism, the evidence would seem to suggest that there has been a general improvement in conditions for people who have been fortunate enough to live in relatively stable capitalist economies.

This is not to turn a blind eye to the failures of the system. But once again, it is interesting to ask whether the 'system' is being blamed for human failure to exercise compassion (and a whole host of other virtues). To condemn a system for failing to match the ideal is a ridiculous notion. If that was the case, people would be committed to the wholesale rejection of noble ideals espoused as part of any intellectual project that had failed in its own terms. On such stringent criteria, the list of victims would go beyond capitalism to include: communism, socialism and Christianity (to name but a few).

So, if there is nothing morally blameworthy about a commitment to capitalism and the operation of the market, what is to be made of 'Fightback' when judged in its own terms?

The shallow voice of 'economic man'

For the sake of argument, let it be assumed that 'Fightback' is motivated by a genuine desire to create the conditions for a just, equitable and prosperous society. It would be difficult to regard such motivation as anything other than deserving of praise. Indeed, its commitment to the provision of opportunities in which people are free to pursue their own goals is laudable (assuming, of course, that the goals are defensible).

However, there seems to be something radically incomplete in the way in which the 'Fightback' document conceives of and addresses its audience. This flaw seems to arise from the fact that 'Fightback' speaks, almost exclusively, to 'economic man'. To make this observation is to go beyond the claim that the document appeals only to the greedy. With its concentration on the 'hip-pocket nerve' the document does seem overly concerned with issues of financial gain. However, its real weakness is that its appeal to other aspects of our human being is either vague or totally muted. There is much more to humankind than can be subsumed under an economic rubric.

Naturally enough, supporters of 'Fightback' can respond by saying that it is not surprising that there is an overwhelming concern with economics in a document about 'tax and expenditure". The reply has considerable force. Yet, 'Fightback' offers itself as being something more. In some quarters the package has been sold as an alternative vision for Australia. In current terms, it is a choice between 'Fightback' and 'One Nation'. In such a contest, the limited array of concepts deployed in 'Fightback' may betray the fact of a somewhat impoverished texture of ideas.

Some suggest that the 'Fightback' proposal is radically flawed because of its uncompromising support for the place of the individual. It is suggested that this type of liberal ideology leads to division, conflict and 'atomism'. It can be replied that, properly understood, there is nothing socially destructive about stressing the importance of the individual.

After all, the whole foundation for morality depends on each person having the capacity to accept individual responsibility for his or her actions. However, support for the role of the individual should be expanded so that there is an explicit recognition of the inter-dependence of individuals in society. One can be true to the liberal ideal of individual choice while positing a vibrant social dimension that arises out of an authentic commitment by individuals to live and work in community. Such a commitment gives rise to durable relationships that may surpass, in terms of 'moral quality", the alternative view of society as simply being a brute 'given".

The language of technique

In concentrating on 'economic man', the 'Fightback' document is a typical example of the dominant approach adopted in much of contemporary political discourse. This approach is fascinated with the deployment of the technical. In the current climate, the ability to mount a technical argument is seen as being evidence of competence and reliability.

Mastery of the technical has become the most powerful tool for legitimising the content of a proposal. So it is that the language of economics has been coopted in the service of politics. It is not just that the debate is being conducted in a time of recession and that the state of the economy is a matter for popular concern.

Rather, economics and in particular econometrics seek to persuade that they are disciplines imbued with the qualities of science. In many senses economists, politicians and a host of others now trade on the reputation and symbols of science and technology in an attempt to win support. Hence the prevalence of computer modelling. The masters of technique are attempting to offer certainty in an uncertain world.

This tendency is not restricted to the authors of 'Fightback'. Much of contemporary debate has come to be couched in the technical terms of economics. This has happened despite the fact that few people in the general population actually understand the terms of the debate.

The significance of this, from an ethical point of view, is that it represents a lop-sided and incomplete view of the person as an individual and in society. There is a tendency to ignore important dimensions in the human experience. People can come to be seen as commodities that need to be manipulated as one part of the technical challenge of running a successful economy. The fact that contemporary usage refers to 'human resources' belies an attitude that comes dangerously close to seeing people as means rather than ends.

None of this is to suggest that the conservative parties endorse such a view. It is to indicate that they have not yet proven adept at articulating a broader vision of the kind of society that the 'Fightback' programme is meant to help create. Such concerns may have been addressed elsewhere.

However, 'Fightback' is a poorer document for its lack of an explicit vision of the ‘good society’. Surely it is time to break the chains of economic man. Why not make concerns about justice, benevolence and liberty an explicit foundation for economic policy. To do so would provide a less sterile set of criteria for assessing the merits of taxation and expenditure policies (to name but a few).

As noted above, this commentary makes a number of assumptions concerning the motives which lie behind the drafting of 'Fightback'. At an intuitive level it has been assumed that the package is motivated by a sincere desire to improve the lot of all Australians. Indeed, it would be counter-intuitive to assume that any political party would set out deliberately to harm the people. In reply to this expression of optimism concerning the motivation of politicians it could be (and has been) objected that policies can be driven by a blind allegiance to ideology or by a relentless determination to secure votes - at whatever the cost.

Do the means suit the end of securing social justice?

In any case, having restated the assumptions that lie at the heart of this critique, it now remains to offer brief comment on the package as a set of means. Those who are not qualified in the techniques of economics must rely on the analysis, advice and opinion of others.

A number of papers in this collection provide rather compelling evidence to show that the authors of 'Fightback' may have made mistakes in their planning. For example, it seems that there has been less than adequate provision made to offset the regressive tendencies of a goods and services tax as it affects the relative wellbeing of the least prosperous in the community. That is, it would seem that the proposals, as currently set forth, would have the effect of actually making the disadvantaged worse off than they would be under current arrangements. Such an outcome fails even the most minimal test of justice.

Needless to say, it could be argued that the inadequate nature of compensation was not intended. However, people can't live on good intentions gone awry. Alternatively, it might be argued that a different form of analysis would refute claims concerning an unjust outcome. The debate will continue for some time yet. It is to be hoped that the coalition will amend its proposals if they are seen to fail to secure the nominated ends.

Conclusion

Garth Nowland-Foreman has noted that the coalition's taxation and expenditure statement goes beyond what you would expect in a purely right-wing ideological document. There is prima facie evidence to suggest that it has been written and offered in good faith.

The fact that it may fail in its own terms is one reason for concern. That can be rectified by dialogue, negotiation and further attention to the detail of outcomes. The greater challenge to be faced by the document's authors is that of articulating their philosophy in such a way that their vision of society is made multi-dimensional and complete.

Part of the response to this challenge must include a sophisticated but intelligible defence of the place of the market in a capitalist society. Such a defence should be balanced and should therefore be open when allowing for the fact that markets are imperfect and have limitations which government may need to overcome. Even supporters of the market can concede that its ideal form is not necessarily based on principles of laissez faire.

At the same time, a discussion of issues of this kind should challenge the whole of the community. It is far too easy to blame systems and ideologies for the woes of the community. A comprehensive debate will need to address the question of individual responsibility as the basis for an authentic commitment to the welfare of the community.

What sorts of virtues do we need to encourage if our community is to prosper? What sort of people do we wish to be? What, apart from technique, do the demands of justice and benevolence demand of us. As currently constituted, 'Fightback' is a less than adequate answer. The community can derive little comfort from the fact that the alternatives are little better.

discuss this article

---