August/September 2019 ●Philosophy Now 33lead to excessive bureaucracy and taxes whilst stifling enterprise,
causing economic stagnation. Meanwhile, the left often claims
the Third Way does not direct the economy sufficiently well,
leading to huge disparities of wealth and opportunity between
the richest and poorest in society.
Arguably John Rawls offers the closest thing to a theoretical
basis for Third Way values. In his influential book A Theory of
Justice (1971), he put forward a thought-experiment, the ‘Origi-
nal Position’. Imagine, he said, that a society’s values were to be
decided by rational individuals behind ‘a veil of ignorance’ which
would prevent them knowing anything about what their own
place in that society would be, even of their own social status,
gender, ethnicity, etc. Rawls thought that concern for their future
wellbeing would impel them to create a society that was free-
market but with a strong sense of social justice. It would there-
fore outwardly resemble a society modelled upon the Third Way.
Social inequalities such as great wealth would be permitted if
and only if they also benefited the least well off, through high
taxes, or more employment. However, Rawls himself has been
criticised both by those arguing that ‘social justice’ leads to uneth-
ical impositions by governments upon individuals, and by those
who remark upon the potential problems of a society ultimately
established upon self-interest, as opposed to shared social and
ethical values. Nor has ‘Third Way’ ideology appeared overly
successful in practice. Governments who endorsed it (such as
the UK Labour Party under Tony Blair) largely failed to avoid
economic recession after the credit crunch of 2008. Again, opin-
ion is divided whether this is due to excessive government inter-
vention or to endorsing overly free-market economic policies.
It seems Third Way politics are confused, prone to criticism,
and have been largely ineffective. It may be better if their advo-
cates decided to be wholly socially democratic or wholly neolib-
eral instead of trying to integrate such contrasting political ide-
ologies. At least then they would be criticised from just one side
of the political spectrum rather than both.
JONATHAN TIPTON
PRESTON , L ANCASHIREI
f only we could ditch the left-right-centre-populist ideologi-
cal splits and focus on a Third Way based on reasonable
rethinking and strong ethical, humanistic beliefs.
Let us all first agree that the free market concept cannot be
done away with, as it seems to relate to very basic instincts of
human nature – self-interest, competitiveness, and creativity.
Destroy the free markets and the incentive that sparks human
progress is killed. At the same time, it has to be acknowledged
that humanity cannot do without some form of state. History
proves that unregulated markets lead to vast inequalities in wealthI
n political philosophy a ‘Third Way’ is usually taken to mean
a position that rejects the extreme views to be found at either
end of the left/right spectrum. It is commonly seen as occupy-
ing a middle ground, rejecting radicalism. Its proponents often
say it offers the best of both worlds, whilst detractors see it, unsur-
prisingly, as the worst of both. Since 1945, the Third Way has
tended to be associated with groups nominally on the left,
although conservative Harold Macmillan in The Middle Way
(1938) advocated a centrist politics that drew upon several ideas,
such as nationalisation, that were usually the preserve of the left.
So far so conventional, but this definition relies on the polit-
ical spectrum being drawn up on a single axis – right (free unfet-
tered market) to left (state control of enterprise). It is possible
to draw other axes of political distinctions, primarily authori-
tarian/libertarian, but also nationalistic/cosmopolitan,
secular/religious, or pluralist/monist. To further complicate the
matter, some parties have different attitudes between home and
foreign affairs, or economic outlook and social outlook. And
why should a Third Way be centrist at all?
I believe Third Way proposals should reject the (monist) idea
that there is one all-embracing solution to the problems of soci-
ety, and instead accept value pluralism as its guiding principle.
Values are vitally important to people, but they can be contra-
dictory and indeed incommensurable. So society often has to
embrace both widescale toleration and oppositional politics in
order to flourish. This does suggest that political extremes are
best avoided, and that some form of inclusive liberal society is
best placed to accommodate as many views as possible. Look-
ing again at some of the pluralist theories that were unfortu-
nately set aside in the earlier days of the socialist movement
might be fruitful. The quaintly named Guild Socialism of
G.D.H. Cole and others, with its radical extension of democ-
racy into many facets of life, comes to mind, alongside Proud-
honist ideas of mutualism and co-operative forms of ownership.
So my Third Way would involve a radical extension of demo-
cratic control into a largely devolved society.
STEVE FOULGER
LEYTON , L ONDONI
n the last twenty five years, the ‘Third Way’ has denoted a
distinct political ideology that argues in favour of the free-
market, entrepreneurship, and against the nationalisation of
industries, whilst still endorsing radical policies of social jus-
tice. It is commonly seen as a compromise between right-wing
neoliberalism and leftist social democracy. However, it seems
compromises are fated to be criticised from both sides, and the
Third Way is no exception. The right-wing criticises it by claim-
ing that governmental policies designed to create ‘social justice’How to negotiate a path between capitalist & socialist excesses? Each answer
below receives a book. Apologies to the many entrants not included.
?
?
?
uestion of the MonthQ
Question of the MonthWhat is the Third Way?