More Liberal than thou (I).

What's Wrong with the Liberal Party? by Greg Barns; Cambridge University Press, 2003, $29.95.

"When I use a word, "' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

ALICE COULD ASK the same question of Greg Barns. Barns attacks the Liberal Party for not representing "genuine liberalism". In itself, his scepticism about the Liberals' liberalism is uuremarkable. Most commentators see the Liberal Party as a mix of liberalism, conservatism and political pragmatism. What's unusual about Barns' account is that "genuine liberalism" appears to be whatever Barns agrees with, no matter how tangential its connection with liberalism as anyone else might understand it.

Take, for example, these sentences:

 
   The downshifters in the high-income bracket ... 
   are likely to be philosophically liberal. That is, in 
   rejecting the consumerist and economic growth 
   obsession of the Howard Liberals, they often 
   identify with issues such as reconciliation, the 
   republic, Australia's destiny, and even the 
   potentially negative implications for social 
   cohesion of "mutual obligation". 

What do any of these political positions have to do with philosophical liberalism? Philosophical liberals could plausibly take either side in the republic and reconciliation debates, since they have little to do with key liberal concerns about the individual and the state. Most liberals support economic growth, the usual by-product of liberal institutions such as property and the market. "Mutual obligation" can easily be justified within a classical liberalism that emphasises individual responsibility and low taxation. Social cohesion is a conservative value, as liberals accept that civilised co-existence may be as much as diverse societies can manage.