To what extent did New Right thinkers offer coherent and liberal ideology?

        Hayek’s idea that there was no secure resting place between mild intervention and full socialism was adopted by Keith Joseph, ‘why choose something mid way between socialism and capitalism when what you want all the time is capitalism?’ Joseph, previously a leading conservative was persuaded by the intellectual case put forward by the new right and thus became and ideological convert to it. He argued that in the mid 1970’s Keynesianism and social democracy were weakening and that the concept of neo-liberalism offered a more advanced anti-socialist position than that of middle way post-war conservativism. Just like Hayek, Joseph was strongly opposed to socialism although he did not advocate the same market entrenched state.

This brings me on to Roger Scruton, who is of the conservative school of the new right. He believes that the state arises out of ‘natural necessity’ and that what ties the citizen to society is not ‘voluntary but a kind of natural bond’, Scruton links this bond to that which exists between an infant and their parents emphasising the naturalness of both. Unlike Hayek, Scruton argues that the market should not be the principled commitment of a country, in his view the state takes a primary role; liberty takes a back seat role when he claims that it is legitimate for the state to encroach into ‘any area of social life which is vital… to the strength of the social bond’. Certain principles of Scruton’s work are almost indistinguishable from those presented by Hayek, those that the constitution directs and authorizes power and its relationship to the citizen through law, could have been written by either. Scruton’s work demonstrates so far that the ideology of the new right is not necessarily of a liberal orientation.

        I will now turn my attentions to O’Sullivan; he manages to distinguish three different schools within the new right. The first is that of economic liberalism with primary concern being that of the preservation of the free market and the minimal state often referred to as laissez-faire economics, two of the key thinkers in this school are Robert Nozick and Milton Friedman. Nozick’s is extremely libertarian, focussing heavily on the individual; he argues that a minimal state, the state that protects the lives and property of its citizens can be justified. However any use of coercive power by the state beyond this minimum will infringe on the rights of the individual and their own personal liberty. Friedman’s ideas are also very liberal in the same way as Nozick, his arguments supporting the minimal state and the free market. The arguments he puts forward centre round the freedom of the market and come as a contrast to Keynesian policy. He advocates a much smaller role for the state in the market, with more of a focus on market forces and entrepreneurship, this approach is very similar to that of Hayek. The second of O’Sullivan’s schools of the new right is what he refers to as conservativism but for him this includes both liberal and neo-conservative thinking, thus encompassing key principles of Thatcherism and Hayek. The political practice of Thatcherism involved authority and discipline on one hand and on the other the liberal values of freedom and justice, despite the two sides seemingly poles apart there is much cross over. Hayek, despite being the great spokesman for liberalism would also be placed into the same school. Finally the third of O’Sullivan’s schools is what he calls the radical new right, which is confined mostly to continental Europe. The doctrine of this radical new right puts large emphasis on decadence and a strong anti-dictatorship stance is present. Since the concept of decadence is of little political relevance in Britain I will not spend any more time discussing it. The arguments presented by O’Sullivan contribute to my growing belief that the new right offers neither a coherent or liberal ideology, but instead one that is mixture of different polices moulded and brought together more out of circumstance than sustained reasoning and the refinement of ideas. On top of this is the extreme conservativism of de Benoist and the radical new right, although generally confined to the continent it can still only add to the confusion and inconsistencies surrounding the new right.

Much of the new right seems to centre on the juxtaposition of neo-liberalism and neo-conservativism. The two sides are quite distinct, neo-liberalism with its emphasis on freedom and equality and neo-conservativism with its authoritarianism and discipline, however there is much cross over between the two. Thatcherism involved both sides, there were major reductions in public spending and taxation; de-regulation of private industry and privatisation of much of the public sector, major reductions in the power of trade unions, what did remain was a large authoritarian element and thus restricting the autonomy of the individual and the market. The changing attitudes and behaviour in the market meant the Thatcher government was forced to rely more on authoritarian and repressive measures in order to introduce greater ‘freedom’ to the economy. Thus this is where the relationship and reasons for juxtaposing neo-liberalism ands neo-conservativism can be seen, showing that the price of maintaining a free and liberal market can be the introduction of a strong authoritarian state.

The diverse strands that came together in the new right had fundamental elements in common; different resemblances of the family were among their key conceptions thus giving it a recognisable political identity. The family is their expression for the individual, seeing the male as the wage earning, ‘bread winning’ head of the family. Although maybe not politically correct in the modern society, this view of the family is present throughout new right thinking. All the strands of the new right have also recognised that in the post-war period too much had been expected of government. They believed that too much emphasis had been placed on the provision of welfare rather than providing the framework for individuals too pursue their various goals and the laws to protect them. Keith Joseph converted to the new right from conservativism after noticing the failings of Keynesianism and social democracy; ultimately ruling along with the rest of the new right that the middle way post-war conservativism had not achieved its objectives.

The basic elements of the new right appear to be those of neo-liberalism and neo-conservativism thinking, liberalism with its discourse of freedom and justice and conservativism focussing on authoritarian principles. The new right appears to be a fusion of both but to offer a tight definition of it is very difficult, due to the vast array of ideas presented by the various scholars. On the liberal side there is Keith Joseph, who converts from conservativism to the liberalism and believes that Keynesianism and its policies of state intervention in the market have failed. This contributes to the arguments put forward by Milton Freidman who again criticizes Keynes and his macro economics, instead focussing on market forces. With the conservativism there is large emphasis on authority and discipline with the state have a much larger influence on the market. Roger Scruton is an important thinker in this school; he throws out the libertarian argument of individuality and instead claims that the state should take the primary role in society. With conservativism there is also a strong emphasis on tradition, with rules and laws being formed as part of a natural progression.

        Between these two is what for obvious reasons can be called conservative neo-liberalism, which is an amalgamation of the two strands. This theory is represented by Thatcherism and although he refuses to acknowledge the conservative connection, Hayek. There is the liberal concept of the free market and the authority of the conservative and despite these two being seemingly incompatible there is much cross over between the two and no clear separation can be made. Law and order are important concepts in all three schools; the neo-conservative is confronted with the power of the state, conservative neo-liberalism the power of the law and for the neo-liberal the power of the market. Therefore, this underpinning desire for order and discipline from all 3 schools could lead you to say the new right does offer a coherent ideology. The extent to which it is coherent must be looked at with great scrutiny as the different strands that have been identified by scholars such as O’Sullivan certainly wouldn’t lead me to this conclusion. Gray believed that new right policies were often inconsistent, that their philosophical foundations were unstable, and that these policies were brought about not through sustained reasoning but more so out of circumstance. The extent to which there is an argument for a lack of coherence in the new right is the fault of the liberals, their proclamation of freedom is merely a rhetorical device they attach the same priorities toward order as conservatives. The difference is that for liberals this order is expressed through the market and for conservatives through the state. This can then be extended to the individual, in liberalism they are only free to the extent that the market allows and in conservativism it is that of the state. It is therefore shown how the two sides are able to cross over so that no clear separation can be made; O’Sullivan also states this when talking of how the conservative school of the new right also includes neo-liberalism. This where conservative neo-liberalism are able too come to the fore by juxtaposing the ideas of the different schools, as Thatcherism did with a relatively free market (liberal) but with authoritarian elements (conservativism) to make sure this remained free.

The extent to which the new right conforms to a liberal ideology is easier to answer, due in part to the points already raised on the cross over between neo-liberal and neo-conservative doctrines. New right liberals parade themselves as libertarian, but to the extent to which they are is meagre. Liberal principles are present in the new right but they are not dominant, finding themselves in the shadow of the conservative neo-liberalism school. The liberal new right are also strongly anti-socialist, so concessions made to outlaw it are very un-democratic and could be considered an own goal to the left. This would in turn move them further away from the right.

In answer to the question the new right does offer a coherent ideology, one that is an amalgamation of both neo-liberal and neo-conservative ideas and can be easily understood as both. The extent to which it is liberal is limited due to the involvement of conservativism in new right ideology.