|
I recently came
across
the writings of political futurist James Bennett. He is an
advocate of a new political alignment, which he calls the
Anglosphere.
I cannot support
his project. I can never be a loyal member of an Anglosphere,
and I wish to explain why.
Three
states
In one of
his articles, James Bennett spells out the three kinds of nation states
that might survive into the future. In effect, these three states are
right-liberal, left-liberal and traditionalist conservative.
Bennett
describes the features of these different states very well. For instance,
he accurately describes the right-liberal state as,
"The
classical-liberal civic state, which seeks to carry out most social
functions through voluntary institutions of civil society rather than
through the state, seeks to minimize the percentage of GDP devoted to
remaining core functions, and in general seeks to maximize the prosperity
of its citizens as individuals."
This very
ably describes the ideal state of right-wing liberals. Right-liberals
ideally want a free market economy and a small state. The state can be
kept small because many of the functions of society are carried out by
small voluntary associations instead of by a central state.
Bennett
describes the left-liberal state as,
"The
social democratic civic state, which maintains a high tax rate relative to
classical-liberal states, intervenes more frequently in its market
economy, delivers more elaborate social benefits, and seeks to maximize
the economic and social security of its citizens."
Again,
this is an intelligent description of the ideal left-liberal state, in
which there is a greater emphasis on deliberate intervention by a central
welfare state, such as you find in the Scandinavian countries.
Finally,
Bennett describes a more traditionalist conservative state as,
"The
nationalist-conservative or religious civic state, which generates a
strong nationalist, religious or ideological narrative and places duty
obligations on its citizens, yet maintains a relatively open market
economy."
This is
perhaps the least tidy description, but it does attempt to describe a
state based on what he calls a "positive, self-affirming narrative ...
provided by religious, national or ethnic identity."
Which
one?
So I
agree broadly with the alternatives set out by James Bennett. Which leaves
the vital question: which one do we wish to follow?
Bennett
gives us a clear answer: he wants the English speaking countries to go
with the first, right-liberal option.
Bennett
points out, correctly enough, that the English speaking countries have
tended to adopt a right-wing form of liberalism, in contrast to the more
left-liberal continental European countries.
He
therefore wants the English speaking countries to form a kind of
right-liberal alliance. This alliance would develop around trade
agreements and defence treaties.
The group
of English speaking nations would form a "network commonwealth" which
Bennett has dubbed the Anglosphere.
Civil
society
So what
is wrong with a right-liberal Anglosphere? It's important to remember that
right-liberals have a particular understanding of a civil society. In
Bennett's own words,
"A civil
society is one that is built of a vast network of networks. These networks
start with the individual and the families, community organizations,
religious congregations, social organizations, and businesses created
by individuals coming together voluntarily. Continuing up through the
local, regional, national, and international networks, the tying together
of local organizations creates civil societies, which in turn beget civil
states."
At first
sight, this might seem like a conservative view. Conservatives too believe
that a central state should remain small so that the natural institutions
of civil society can flourish.
But
there's a key difference. Bennett insists that the institutions of civil
society be strictly voluntary. It's no accident that he specifies a
voluntary arrangement.
All
liberals, whether of the left or right, believe that the individual must
be created by his own will and reason. This means that the individual must
rationally consent to membership of any social grouping. That's why
liberals so much like the idea of individuals making a contract or
covenant to form social groups. It's also why liberals contrast a "good"
voluntary organisation to a "bad" one which is inherited or otherwise
unchosen by the individual.
Listen,
for instance, to Bennett describe one of the "successes" of modern civil
society,
"One of
the quiet success stories of strong civil societies, particularly the
United States, has been the manner in which the compulsory family and
religious affiliations from the Old World were transformed in the New
World into voluntary associations of civil society, and the immigrants
themselves changed from members of traditional societies into
self-actualized individuals."
This is
one of those pure expressions of liberal belief. According to Bennett we
become a "self-actualized" (self-created) individual only when we leave
behind a traditional society with its "compulsory" (unchosen) affiliations
in favour of purely voluntary forms of social organisation and identity.
Not
surprisingly Bennett also praises the early settlers of America for their
support of individual contract and covenant as a basis of social
organisation. He writes,
"In fact,
Anglo-America was a particularly strong civil society from the start,
especially in New England and Pennsylvania, where Puritans and Quakers,
both of whom were strongly dedicated to the fundamentals of civil society,
brought particularly robust institutions. Above all, they elevated the
sanctity of contract and covenant to central places in their moral
universe, a critical advantage in fostering civil society."
So
Bennett takes very seriously the idea that social organisations are to be
built around the voluntarily contracting individual. Hence his insistence
on the following:
"It is
important to make clear that at the root of civil society is the
individual. People who define themselves primarily as members of
collective entities, be they families, religions, racial or ethnic groups,
political movements, or corporations, cannot form the basis of a civil
society.
"In a
true civil society, individuals must be free to dissociate themselves from
such collectives without prejudice and reaffiliate with others. Societies
that permanently bind individuals under the discipline of inherited or
assigned collectives remain bogged down in ethnic, racial or religious
factionalism ...
"It is
likewise important to make clear that a family in a civil society is a
voluntary association."
Illegitimate
Perhaps
the problem with Bennett's vision of civil society is now clearer. For
Bennett even the family is only allowed to exist as a "voluntary
association".
What's
important for Bennett is that there are no necessary or natural
allegiances binding us in particular ways to certain groups of people.
Yet we
are bound in a natural way to our own families. Ties of kinship
are strong, and ought to be encouraged to help preserve a stable family
life.
Again, in
Bennett's view there is a problem with ethnic allegiances, since these are
inherited or "assigned" rather than purely voluntary (self-chosen).
Bennett,
it is true, does not wish to forbid individuals from associating with an
ethnic collective. But this is to be a private matter, a kind of personal
choice or preference. The state is to only recognise the individual.
This
effectively rules out the survival of an existing ethnic identity. It
means that the state can't consider ethnicity in determining its
immigration policy. And so you reach the point at which ethnic mixing
occurs and the original strength of an existing ethnic identity begins to
weaken.
Not that
Bennett is too fussed by this. He believes that right-liberal societies
can prosper and triumph by reducing impediments to foreign immigration,
thereby attracting the best and brightest from around the world.
He
claims, for instance, that America has powered ahead of Germany because
America was more willing to recruit South Asian computer programmers and
that Japan will miss out on the "next stages of the
scientific-technological revolution" because its restrictions on foreign
immigrants are too "rigid".
So
Bennett can be described as nothing less than an immigration enthusiast.
A high
cost
The cost
of James Bennett's Anglosphere is very high. You get the promise of a
technologically dynamic society. But you are only allowed to maintain
voluntary associations.
This
rules out a stable family life, at least for a great many people. It also
rules out the survival of existing ethnic groups, including the Anglos
themselves.
I don't
want to be part of such an Anglosphere. I believe that our task is not to
extend right-liberalism internationally, but to oppose it and drive it
back within our own countries.
To do so,
conservatives need to carefully distinguish our own view of civil society,
in which human associations are allowed to grow naturally, "organically"
and deeply, from the right-liberal one, in which only voluntary
associations made by covenanting individuals are permitted.
Related articles:
Costello's vision
|