The influential version of communitarianism propagated by
Etzioni accepts the liberal legacy of individual rights and a pre-
sumption against extensive state intervention. However, he seeks to
balance this with a stress on the need for individuals to accept their
duties to the state and community and for the community ‘to be
responsive to their members and to foster participation and delibera-
tion in social and political life’ (p. 254). Sandel (1996: 5) speaks of the
need to resurrect the ‘Republican’ tradition ‘that liberty depends on
sharing in self-government’ which in turn requires ‘a knowledge of
public affairs and also a sense of belonging, a concern for the whole, a
moral bond with the community whose fate is at stake’.
Communitarianism can be seen as a reaction to the extreme
individualism of Thatcherism which also seeks to avoid the clumsy
state collectivism of not only Soviet communism but also some
versions of British socialism and American liberalism – a ‘third way’.
Bill Clinton popularised the ‘third way’ ‘as a combination of small but
progressive government, tight financial discipline and a programme
to secure economic freedom with social cohesion – countering critics
of both “tax and spend” and “permissive” liberalism’ (Butler, 2000:
154).
Whilst many writers have seen New Labour and the third way as a
decisive break with the past, Rubinstein (2000) emphasises that the
Labour parliamentary leadership, such as Attlee, Morrison and
Wilson, have often emphasised the need to appeal to the middle as
well as the working class and the virtues of individualism. They also
distanced themselves from organised labour when in office and
adopted a pro-US foreign policy.
Bevir (2000) sees New Labour ideology as a reaction from within
the Labour tradition to the three problems of how to control inflation,
the existence of an underclass dependent on the welfare state and
changes in the attitudes, nature and lifestyle of the working class.
The problem (or possibly advantage!) with the third way as a guide
to policy is that it lacks specifics. It can be seen as a route to colla-
boration with liberals and progressive conservatives and European
Christian democrats. More cynically, it can be viewed as a way of
making Labour more electable by opening up the way for pragmatic
compromise on any number of old Labour policies and values (e.g.
the redistribution of wealth and unilateral nuclear disarmament as
well as nationalisation).100 IDEOLOGIES