I have just finished reading Waleed Aly's interesting Quarterly Essay, “The Future of Conservatism”. Aly strikes me as one of the more interesting thinkers in Australia, particularly in the way he is trying to reconcile the Western intellectual tradition with Islamism and Multiculturalism.

His quarterly essay is a bit of a curate's egg, good in parts. It is difficult to get a handle on conservatism and Aly tries to do so by a reading of some of the traditional conservative thinkers such as Burke, Oakshott and Hayek (who of course did not consider himself a conservative) as well as the some of the liberals, notably John Stuart Mill. The problem with conservatives is that they are not all of a piece. Burke (as Connor O'Brien shows in his wonderful biography) had trenchant disagreements with his conservative colleagues, particularly about the American Revolution and the impeachment of Warren Hastings. Oakshott and Hayek disagreed philosophically. Hayek actively disliked Ayn Rand and thought her neo-liberal philosophy was ridiculous.

Aly does not tease out the various strands that make up contemporary conservative philosophy and this leads him to a confused position on neo-liberalism, which he claims originated with Hayek. Perhaps he has been mislead by the Prime Minister's distortion of Hayek's position. This seems to have been based on a Rudd reaction to the approach of Thatcher and Reagan both of whom claimed Hayek as an influence.

Hayek certainly did not believe that all social interaction should be based on the marketplace, a philosophy that Aly sees as leading to something akin to the social Darwinism espoused by Ayn Rand. Hayek believed that economic interaction should be governed by the market but that social interaction should predominantly occur through social networks that developed organically. Hayek believed that attempts by governments to impose networks on their citizens would limit freedoms and result in unintended consequences, moreover they were likely to extinguish the networks that had been developed by the citizens themselves.

Hayek accepted there was a role for governments in regulating both the economy and society but that this should emphasise broad directions in which the economy and society could move rather than micro-management. Wolfgang Kasper describes this as ordo-liberalism which is a more accurate title than neo-liberalism.

As Andrew Norton has pointed out there is no group in Australia that adheres to the neo-liberal

view as presented by Aly. John Howard was not a believer in a market based society he was constantly criticised by institutions such as the Centre for Independent Studies and the Australian for his predisposition to middle class welfare. Aly draws an analogy between Howard and the neo-liberals in the United States like Irving Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz which is more interesting. Their view was that democracy should be imposed on foreign states (although for pragmatic rather than ideological reasons) and Aly sees this as analogous with Howard's attempt to impose post enlightenment British values on immigrant groups. He describes both sets of policy actions as “progressive” neo-liberal policy as opposed to tolerant circumspect conservative policy. At least in the case of Australia it is difficult to know how progressive Howard really was. His attempts to assert values have to be seen in the context of a massive influx of migrants necessitated by the economic boom. Howard's objective may have been to maintain social stability while this migration occurred. It is difficult to fit policies that are not explained in abstract philosophical terms, into categorical boxes and Howard was sufficient of an astute pragmatist to avoid being categorised.

However there is a case to be made for Howard along Hayekian lines. Practical empirical evidence exists that shows that society operates best when there are multilayered social networks linking different groups, in operation. From this perspective multiculturalism is likely to be a negative if it encourages the existence of autarkic ethnic groups within society but a positive if it encourages links between people of different ethnic background (through sport, school, community or commerce). For that to occur there has to be not only common points of contact but also an acceptance of the broad rules within which the economy and society functions.

Finally having rejected the left right divide Aly has precluded the possibility of saying anything about the contrast between conservatives and social democrats. There are real distinctions. Social democrats believe that the public sector should be a significant participant in the economy and that it should be used to reform the economy. From this perspective the fight over the National Broadband Network will become a real test of the difference between progressive and conservative positions. Conservatives do not believe in plans for society and so reject social democrat notions of soft paternalism inherent in centralised control over the health and education system. In relation to the machinery of government social democrats want to use government to reform society whereas conservatives want to reform government itself to make it leaner and more efficient. Whether it is these distinctions or simply that of the romantic versus the pragmatic this battle of ideas will continue.