Hyper-liberalism is the ideology of an aspirant ruling class that aims to hoard wealth and position while flaunting its immaculate progressive credentials. Intractable culture wars and an epistemic crisis in which key factual and scientific questions have been politicised are a part of a bid for power by these counter-elites. But except in New Zealand and English-speaking Canada, there is no sign of them achieving hegemony.
John Gray, “The West Isn’t Dying, Its Ideas Live On In China”
IT IS SOBERING to see your own country identified as offering the world a seriously bad example. New Zealanders are accustomed to seeing their country as the home of good examples, full of instructive role models who consistently “punch above their weight”. John Gray’s words, taken from his latest offering in The New Statesman, force us to look at what is happening in New Zealand through a very different lens.
New Zealand (and English-speaking Canada) says Gray, are in the throes of a “hyper-liberal” revolution. It is dedicated to overturning the existing cultural infrastructure and erecting in its place a wholly new set of institutions dedicated to radically “re-educating” the unenlightened majority and bringing them to the point where they are able to recognise and atone for their historical sins.
The work of a highly-motivated minority – what Gray calls “an aspirant ruling class” – who regard the present system as a sham, this revolution seeks to overturn all of the most cherished traditions of classical liberal democracy: the rule of law; freedom of thought and expression; the separation of church and state; sexual and racial equality; majority rule. These “counter-elites”, as Gray calls them, come not to praise the Western tradition – but to bury it.
The hyper-liberal revolution is already well-advanced in “Aotearoa”. Its promoters are deeply entrenched in the Labour and Green parties, the public service, the mainstream news media, the universities, and even in the executive ranks of some of this country’s largest businesses. From these commanding cultural heights, they have unleashed a bewildering series of policy initiatives which, if carried to their logical conclusion, would produce a society very different from the one in which most New Zealanders have grown up.
It is important to remind ourselves, at this point, that this revolution is not yet a “done deal”. Gray’s article acknowledges only “signs” that the “hyper-liberals’” bid for “hegemony” is edging towards success in New Zealand. In other words, it can still be stopped. The bleak prospect of an essentially powerless majority of New Zealanders, trapped inside a thoroughly racialised and undemocratic constitution, and ruled over by a cynical alliance of Pakeha and Maori elites – may yet be averted.
To halt the headlong rush towards hyper-liberalism, however, it will be necessary to re-state and, in a very real sense, embody the values and traditions of classical liberalism. Gray, however, doubts that the West any longer possesses the stomach for such an ideological counter-attack:
“While Western liberalism may be largely defunct, illiberal Western ideas are shaping the future. The West is not dying but alive in the tyrannies that now threaten it. Unable to grasp this paradoxical reality, our elites are left looking on blankly as the world they have taken for granted slips into the shadows.”
In New Zealand, however, there may yet be the strength necessary to assert the values and traditions that most Kiwis still believe in. The real question is whether in the parliamentary and/or organisational wings of the National and Act parties there exist political leaders equal to the task of standing up for liberal democracy?
The recent performance of David Seymour certainly suggests that Act – at the very least – understands that there is a case to be made. Seymour knows that neoclassical economics was born out of and exists alongside classical liberalism. That one cannot be separated from the other without fatally compromising the efficacy of both.
The National Party, by contrast, shows little sign of any longer being moved by any kind of strong philosophical conviction. It is neither a coherent conservative party, nor a believably liberal one. Its present leader seems incapable of articulating the core beliefs of either – let alone putting on a convincing personal show of conservatism or liberalism.
This is especially unfortunate given the unwillingness and/or incapacity of both the Labour and Green parties to openly advocate for their hyper-liberal revolution. Both parties clearly prefer to rely on their revolutionary comrades in the public service and the media to do the heavy intellectual lifting for them. This is not, however, a strategy that allows for more than a top-down revolution by stealth. Called out, and forced to endure the rigours of public interrogation, Labour and the Greens have both revealed a damaging inability to either explain or defend their hyper-liberal ambitions.
A National Party leader capable of incorporating Labour’s sequence of policy outrages into a much broader ideological critique would quickly attract the support it needs to win. A party genuinely driven by the principles of liberty and equality would make mincemeat of government ministers seemingly determined to undermine both. In doing so, that party would also be giving voice to the liberal values that most New Zealanders share. Values which they find increasingly difficult to identify in three year sentences for “hate speech”, or racial vetoes over health and education.
If Gray’s grim predictions are to be refuted by events; if the West’s legacy of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity is not to be supplanted by the totalitarian systems born out of the disastrous twentieth century, then politicians are going to have to relearn the art of inspiring people to believe the best about humankind and its capacity for doing good in the world. If New Zealand is not to become a cautionary tale about citizens acting too late to save their freedom, then National and Act are going to have to draw their rhetorical swords in earnest.
From the deep chests of Western history, philosophy and science, genuine liberalism can arm itself with ideas and arguments of such strength that the hyper-liberals will flee from them in terror. After all, it was against tyranny and superstition that these intellectual weapons were first forged and wielded. How wonderful it would be if New Zealand, far from leading the world towards hyper-liberal totalitarianism – led the charge against it.