(Not) arguing for social democracy

Roy Hattersley calls for Labour to rediscover its "ideological context":

Labour has to excite and inspire the electorate with its vision of a better society. A robust reassertion of the social democratic ideal may alienate the remaining devotees of the new Labour “project”. But it will appeal to more than the hard core of Labour activists...
The new year ought to begin with Gordon Brown setting out the social democratic philosophy in which he believes and saying: “This is what is right and this is what I shall do.” A principled appeal has to begin with an assault on the great disparities in wealth - and therefore of opportunity - that disfigure our society.

Whilst I sympathize with this, I fear it's a counsel of perfection.
The problem is that the party has lost the ability to make a moral argument for equality. Since the mid-90s, its core belief has been that equality and efficiency go hand-in-hand. One effect of this view, however, has been that Labour has thought it unnecessary to argue for equality as an ideal in itself.
But the failure isn't merely New Labour's. Moral argument is, as Alasdair MacIntyre described, one of our lost arts. Rather than being lines in a tradition of thinking and debate, moral claims have become mere expressions of emotion. I fear many on the left rarely progress beyond the gut feel that inequality is repugnant.
In this sense, New Labour's reliance on spin and deceit rather than open debate isn't so much a choice to be deplored, but rather an effect of the decline of rational thought about moral questions.

Comments

[Malthebof]

They might look at the ordinary working man, for nobody is there to speak for him now. NuLab is the party of the Metropolitan elite, most of whom have never had a proper job.

[ortega]

It is quite dangerous to apply moral judgements to, say, the economy. See Miterrands´ France.
Or economics criteries to the moral field.

[EddyP]

There is no argument to be made for the kind of heinous and artificial imposition on liberty that "equality" requires. I defy you, Chris, to make one without referemce to any tautology authored by Rawls. Labour is intellectually bankrupt because everything they stood for has failed, manifestly. There is a sea change in this country currently. You can feel it. And Nulab will no longer be able to silence critics by calling them racist or sexist. Marxist thought has been a grim jerking cadaver for years, animated by whatever bastard trendy cause could be employed to allow it a few minutes more life.
But now we know. Everyone knows. Your blog is fantastic. Just stop getting all class warrior on us. Some of us were poor once too you know.

[Matt Munro]

The reason they haven't made a case of any description for equality (moral or economic) is that there isn't one. An idiot can see that the more equal and diverse our society has tried to become the less competitive our economy has become. I agree with eddy, there is definately a sea change coming. The multiculty, E&D charade may have held together whilst the illusion of economic prosperity was maintained but a downturn is coming and the whole pack of cards will collapse. When houses start being re-possesed and even the menial, low paid jobs are in short supply things could turn very nasty indeed.

[Peter Risdon]

The arguments for equality of outcome I've read end up asserting it as a first principle, a value or a moral absolute. This is why examples of inequality (a footballer's paycheque versus that of a nurse) are often presented as arguments against inequality in themselves, without further elaboration.

Of course that's unpersuasive to someone who doesn't agree already, and it is a form of tautology: it is right because it is Right.

But it doesn't seem like any other form of justification for the idea exists. I see that as an indication that there is no justification for the idea.

[Peter Risdon]

The arguments for equality of outcome I've read end up asserting it as a first principle, a value or a moral absolute. This is why examples of inequality (a footballer's paycheque versus that of a nurse) are often presented as arguments against inequality in themselves, without further elaboration.

Of course that's unpersuasive to someone who doesn't agree already, and it is a form of tautology: it is right because it is Right.

But it doesn't seem like any other form of justification for the idea exists. I see that as an indication that there is no justification for the idea.

[Peter Risdon]

The arguments for equality of outcome I've read end up asserting it as a first principle, a value or a moral absolute. This is why examples of inequality (a footballer's paycheque versus that of a nurse) are often presented as arguments against inequality in themselves, without further elaboration.

Of course that's unpersuasive to someone who doesn't agree already, and it is a form of tautology: it is right because it is Right.

But it doesn't seem like any other form of justification for the idea exists. I see that as an indication that there is no justification for the idea.

[Peter Risdon]

Whoops, sorry.

[Matt Munro]

I heard you the first time ! I'm not in the habit of reading arguments in favour of equality, but they seem to be largely based on appeals to emotion, or from a sense of western guilt, or even a cringeworthy "wouldn't it be nice if we could all drink the coke of capitalism equally together" like the 1970s soft drink ad.
Equality makes no evolutionary sense. We're not born equal and we don't die equal, so why should we be equal for the bit in between ? In short tell me why equality is a good thing in rational terms, not why it might be desirable in emotive terms.

[Minute]

I think that the problem is different, and arises from an ideological difference between Labour's doers and its thinkers.

The doers, who make up the executive, do not believe in equality exactly, but rather believe in ensuring that the poor do not fall too far behind the rest. They are explicitly unconcerned with the super-rich, except as a source of tax revenue, and they believe that they can maximise the revenue from the super-rich by leaving the existing tax structure intact.

I don't entirely subscribe to their ideology, but it's a legitimate one and they have stuck with it.

The problem with New Labour is that its ideology has never really had much support from people that are interested in ideas; many "thinkers" who believe in equality have gone along with New Labour as the best vehicle to effect Old Labour policies, but they can not sell New Labour ideology because they do not believe in it. The doers cannot sell the ideology either, because they are not interested in ideas, and so, when challenged, tend to cite results. This can make them look shallow and unprincipled.

It's as if Margaret Thatcher did not have Milton Friedman or Keith Joseph.

[f]

Matt Munro:

"Equality makes no evolutionary sense. We're not born equal and we don't die equal, so why should we be equal for the bit in between?"

I agree with you that the burden of proof lies with equality advocates - why should we all be equal for moral reasons? - but I don't think this is why. Evolution has very little to do with morality - I take it you don't like the idea of forced sterilisations of genetically 'inferior' people, for instance.

Rather, I prefer to take the liberty and 'mutual winner' arguments. i.e., we should be free to do what we want except what infringes others' rights. It is self evident there is not a right to a luxurious life. Making one for yourself, honestly and without coercion, is thus fine.

Open market transactions only create winners - otherwise people wouldn't enter into them.

etc, etc.

[reason]

f..
Don't think I'm in complete disagreement with you but open market transaction do not always only create winners. A change in the price of something can affect the real income of someone dependent on it. There are almost always both income and substitution effects except in an imaginary world where every player is insignificant in every market. Think of the effect of maize based ethanol on the poor in Mexico. It is possible to imagine a trillionaire cornering the market for some grain and causing widespread starvation (in fact in a famine this is more likely to happen as the market would be easier to corner). Thank goodness that people mostly are moral creatures.

[ortega]

By the way.

http://www.economist.com/finance/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=10328935

[ad]

Matt Munro:

"We're not born equal"

Not perfectly so, but we come quite close. We all come into the world naked and powerless.

Chris, perhaps you should make or link to a moral argument for equality yourself. There are clearly many people (including me) who have never heard a convincing argument.

Certainly, if you cannot provide such an argument, you can hardly condemn New Labour for not doing so.

[Bim]

Equality without the notion of exploitation of labour as the source of profit becomes another empty liberal slogan.

Regardless of moralising the beginings of an upturn in class struggle could put equality back on the agenda as prisons go unmanned, airports shut down and trains stop running, in a manner not seen for 20 years, bring it on.