October 20, 2005
THESIS (FREEDOM), ANITHESIS (SECURITY), SYNTHESIS (THIRD WAY):
The Third Way: Myth and Reality (James Petras, March 2000, Monthly Review)
What is the Third Way? Both historically and in the contemporary world, there are numerous examples of political leaders and movements that declare their allegiance to a Third Way—defining alternatives in opposition to what they perceive to be dominant paradigms. In the contemporary world, the best known exponent of the Third Way is British Prime Minister Tony Blair, though a number of other political leaders in Europe and elsewhere have expressed sympathy or support for the rhetoric or substance of Blair's version of the Third Way.What we should keep in mind, however, is that there are many other varieties of a Third Way in the modern world besides the Euro-American brand. Moreover, the contemporary version represents a sharp divergence from earlier Third Way approaches, prominent in European politics throughout the twentieth century. This paper will begin with a brief exposition of the principal arguments of the contemporary Euro-American Third Way. We will then compare and discuss historical experiences and earlier exponents of the Third Way, critically analyzing their assumptions and prognostications. We will then proceed to discuss a variety of contemporary Third Ways, including the Euro-American one, before summing up our analysis and theoretical conclusions.
The Western European version of the Third Way (specifically the Tony Blair/Anthony Giddens account) begins by elaborating a critique of what they describe as free-market capitalism and state socialism. They argue that free-market capitalism is inhumane and exclusive—based on a class-bound establishment that denies equal opportunity to all classes and social groups. On the other hand, the ideologues of the Third Way claim that statist socialism denies the individual freedom of choice and incentives to engage in entrepreneurial activity. Having specified the two dominant modes of thought of the present or recent past, the Blairites and their cohorts claim that they are in favor of an economy and society that combines the individual choice of the marketplace and the social opportunities of the welfare state. [...]
The Euro-American Third Way articulated by Prime Minister Anthony Blair and practiced, if not preached, by President Clinton, German Prime Minister Schröder, and the prime ministers of other western European regimes provides a rhetorical gloss over a new style of right-wing politics. Essentially, the Euro-American variant of the Third Way builds on and extends the Old Right Thatcher-Reagan doctrines of privatization and the promotion of concentrated, centralized capital (witness the gigantic mergers under the auspices of Third Way regimes). Despite their leadership of putative labor and/or social democratic parties, the Third Way regimes faithfully follow the Old Right policies against labor by promoting state advocacy of supply-side policies. As much or more so, the Third Way regimes exceed the Old Right in their zeal to promote the international expansion of their multinational corporations (MNCs) and banks, while admonishing labor to accept social welfare cuts and to lower wage expectations to further the competitiveness (profits) of MNCs.
The Third Way regimes have gone far beyond the Old Right in promoting Euro-American hegemonic rule over the third world, central and eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America via armed interventions, NATO bombings, military occupations, and concerted economic strategies that facilitate Euro-American economic domination. In summary, the Euro-American Third Way is a dramatic shift from reformist socialism and welfare capitalism to neoliberalism. Social democratic parties have been transformed from advocates of greater equality to regimes that increase inequalities between rich and poor, from supporters of increased social payments to abusive slashers of social welfare, from promoters of employment and job security to the architects of employer-friendly labor flexibility legislation and inexpensive redundancy policies. Today, the social democratic parties are neither social nor democratic—they represent a new and more virulent right-wing, capable of manipulating some of the earlier reform rhetoric while pursuing an unadulterated big-business, free-market agenda.
Only the Right could be so Stupid as not to realize that the Third Way is a win. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 20, 2005 7:05 PM
Most of the people who do the talking on the Right are members of the "class-bound establishment that denies equal opportunity to all classes and social groups." They've already won. They don't need a Third Way.
Posted by: Brandon at October 20, 2005 7:20 PMBrandon:
They need to keep voters happy to keep what they've got.
Posted by: oj at October 20, 2005 7:23 PMAt the risk of referring to that other site too times, here's a posting from John Derbyshire from earlier today. He remains optimistic as ever.
"DOOMED, DOOMED [John Derbyshire]
Jonah, Andrew: You're both spitting into the wind. Conservatism is a dead letter, as I pointed out five years ago on this site.
There aren't going to be any more Coolidges or Reagans. It's over. Fuggedaboutit.
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher came to power not because people were fed up with socialism. People -- practically everybody, practically everywhere -- LIKE socialism. In Britain, people were fed up with the overweening power of labor unions, which were the vehicle for socialism in that age. The wheels of that particular vehicle were coming off, that was all. In the USA, the humiliations of Iran and Afghanistan, obvious mismanagement of the economy (though not a particularly too-much-socialism kind of mismanagement), and the unattractive personality of Jimmy Carter got the Presidency for Reagan. Not by much, though: in the 1980 election, Reagan only got a tad over 50 percent of the popular vote. (In 1984 it was 58.8 percent.) Thatcher I believe never made 50 percent.
All the windsocks are now pointing in the direction of more socialism. As the population ages, Americans will want more leisure, drugs, health care, nursing homes, security. As the Jihadist threat continues to metastasize (from the MidEast to Indonesia, Thailand, Africa, the Caucasus, Europe), we shall want the state to have more police powers, more scrutiny of us and our lives. The trend of the last 40 years away from the old Anglo-Saxon rights and liberties -- private property rights (google "tobacco settlement," "Kelo," etc.), freedom of speech, contract and assembly ("speech codes," anti-discrimination laws, etc.), limited government (is Washington DC shrinking? looking poorer and shabbier? not that I've noticed) -- will accelerate. And everybody will be fine with all this, because that's what everybody wants, except for a few freakish intellectuals like ourselves."
There's more at the site. just about halfway down the page.
Mr. Judd, I think he agrees with you.
Posted by: mc at October 20, 2005 7:41 PMmc:
He's half right. People do want the Third Way but it increases things like property rights. You'll own your privatized SS account and be able to pass it on to your heirs--you own nothing in the currrent SS system. And, of course, the precise genius of the Third Way is that when such ownership becomes universal then everyone has a vested interest in property rights and conserving the existing order.
He's exactly the kind of guy who can't accept winning because he thinks the 18th Century is just around the corner if only we will it hard enough.
Posted by: oj at October 20, 2005 7:48 PMThey need to keep voters happy to keep what they've got.
Yes, if you need to buy off the mob to keep something then that thing isn't yours. This is why David and Derbyshire are right, and the Third Way is the Second Way. Neither is content just to receive the Danegelt, both demand that you pretend to enjoy paying it.
Posted by: joe shropshire at October 20, 2005 7:53 PMjoe:
Exactly. When white men extended the franchise the stuff they'd owned ceased to be theirs except on sufferance by the majority. The intent of the Third Way is to trick the majority into all being owners rather than mere parasites.
Posted by: oj at October 20, 2005 7:59 PMOj,
Besides "owning your own ss acount", which by the way, goverment employees already do, can you come up with another example of this third way?
Posted by: Perry at October 20, 2005 10:11 PMPerry:
The Clinton/Gingrich Welfare Reform
The education vouchers which were key to NCLB
The Faith-Based Initiative, which has been enacted via executive order
Outsourcing federal jobs, key to the Homeland Security bill
HSAs, which the President passed in the Medicare reform after years of GOP futility.
Retirement Savings Accounts, Lifetime Savings Accounts and Employer Retirement Savings Accounts
Housing vouchers
and transitioning the tax system so that it rewards savings
are a few
"The Clinton/Gingrich Welfare Reform"
The new welfare is SS disablity as well as many other programs commonly available. People are as lazy as ever. No third way here imo.
"The education vouchers which were key to NCLB"
Seems like a libertartian measure (as long as you have kids) because you take your money and shop for education, takes government out of the business of providing the education.
"The Faith-Based Initiative, which has been enacted via executive order" Agreed
"Outsourcing federal jobs, key to the Homeland Security bill"
Privatization is libertarian
"HSAs, which the President passed in the Medicare reform after years of GOP futility."
It is your own money to spend in a competing marketplace. Depending on level of regulation, most likely libertarian.
"Retirement Savings Accounts, Lifetime Savings Accounts and Employer Retirement Savings Accounts"
ditto for HSA's
"Housing vouchers"
Old style welfare
I donot understand even one distinction you make regarding third way.
and transitioning the tax system so that it rewards savings
Posted by: Perry at October 20, 2005 10:57 PMPerry:
Yes, it's all libertarian, but government mandated libertarianism.
Posted by: oj at October 20, 2005 11:01 PMThere is an alternate explanation for all the policies OJ lists: undercutting key parts of the Democratic base.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 20, 2005 11:03 PMOj,
Judging by the volume of information on this site, you have a much greater grasp of this stuff than I do so I guess I am missing something in that I thought you dispised libertarians? Now you think we should be them in modified form?
Posted by: Perry at October 20, 2005 11:20 PMLibertarianism is perfectly acceptable within narrowly prescribed boundaries.
Posted by: oj at October 20, 2005 11:43 PMHegelianism...thats only been criticized for about 100 years now.....
Posted by: Uther at October 21, 2005 11:00 AMFormer Marxists have given up too much already. Hegelian 'third wayism' is their last stand.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at October 21, 2005 11:47 AMMarxists made the same mistake as libertarians.
Posted by: oj at October 21, 2005 12:36 PMoj-
Disillusioned western/anglo Marxists are now "Third Wayers". Libertarians are non-entities. Constitutional originalists are not so easily swayed nor have they been convinced that there is a better alternative. The Wilsonian conceit that 'modern progressives' had a more advanced view of practical political philosophy than the founding generation seems to govern 'third wayists' thinking as well. You denigrate '18th century thought' as out of date when compared to your own when all you really have is a supposed synthesis of the most abstract political philosophy in history with an imaginary version of free-market capitalism.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at October 21, 2005 2:07 PMTom:
No, they aren't. The Left all hate Bush, Blair & Howard. They still believe the Second Way will work if only we give it a chance. Their allies are the First Wayers, who prefer purity to reform.
Posted by: oj at October 21, 2005 3:57 PMdisillusioned
Posted by: tom at October 21, 2005 4:43 PM