Fulminating against the government’s economic policies, the Observer complained recently that:
Gosh, is there nothing that can’t be blamed on those dastardly neoconservatives? I suppose the term has now been detached from its original meaning and is instead a catch-all label for nasty right-wingers. Nevertheless, even if this is so, trying to protect neoconservatism from this kind of attack is worthwhile since the distinction (chiefly in the United States) between neoconservatism and other strands of conservative thought is both useful and worth preserving.For a generation, business and finance, cheered on by US neoconservatives and free market fundamentalists, have argued that the less capitalism is governed, regulated and shaped by the state, the better it works. Markets do everything best – managing business and systemic risk, innovating, investing, organising executive reward – without the intervention of the supposed dead hand of the state and without any acknowledgement of wider social obligations.
This being so it’s a shame the Observer’s leader-writer forgot that Irving Kristol – the persuasion’s godfather – wrote a passably famous treatise called Two Cheers for Capitalism.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in