Serious question. Will Hutton likes Cameron's ideas. The current editor of the New Statesman says he takes Cameron's claim to progressivism seriously. The centre-left Prospect magazine has been carrying puff-pieces for Philip Blond's 'Red Toryism', the bland mood music for Cameron's leadership. Some liberals really want to believe the best about Cameron's conservatives.

Yet we have a man who is an ardent royalist, an opponent of multiculturalism and immigration, a supporter of war and an Atlanticist, a supporter of cutting taxes on the rich (he is particularly moved by government impingement on the unearned inheritance of rich kids), a friend of Murdoch, an ally of the most ferociously reactionary forces in Europe, a supporter of increased restrictions on abortions, a fairly traditionalist proponent of marriage (married couples will get tax breaks), and the current high priest of the small state. His shadow chancellor is an unreformed Thatcherite and union-basher. His closest allies in the Conservative Party are neoconservatives. He has, when opportunity arose, engaged in some fairly obnoxious baiting of ethnic minorities, specifically Muslims. Himself a descendant of royalty and child of a City stockbroker who got his first job with the Tories on the recommendation of someone at Buckingham Palace, his front bench is stuffed with venal millionaires. And he's basing his campaign on a line about a "broken Britain" which channels the most socially authoritarian Victorian moralising.

This has involved, among other things, disingenuously talking up the violent crime rate and massively exaggerating the rate of pregnancies among disadvantaged minors by a factor of 10. This article at the Economist systematically demolishes, with some detailed statistical analysis, Cameron's arguments about "broken Britain". But the Tories won't fret too much if their claims are shown to be fraudulent. After all, crime is an issue very akin to immigration in the sense that you can talk it up, bluster, lie, bully, and create a general sensation of crisis and deluge, with the assistance of the scum British press. Then you can deflect criticism by contending that you are merely articulating popular concerns that have so far eluded politicians living in the Westminster bubble. So, they won't mind if the liberal papers point out their little fibs. What is important to note is the ideological basis of the Tories' arguments. This is how Blair Gibbs, a senior Tory analyst and Chief of Staff for Nick Herbert's shadow environment office, explains the problem [pdf]:

The problem is cultural. The root cause is a combination of changing philosophical ideas . . and the long-term fundamental decay of conservative ideas and institutions in Britain. This includes an historically unprecedented collapse of belief in marriage and a consequent epidemic of illegitimacy and unsocialised offspring who, contra the expectations of our post-war intelligentsia, have not justified the age-old hope of Rousseau (that the absence of restrictions on humans produces happy peace) but have instead illustrated the truth of Hobbes (that the absence of restrictions on humans produces violence and despair.) The consequence of this collapse is welfare dependency, a rise in violent crime . . . .
There exists a large and increasingly violent underclass, because Britain suffers from a vicious circle: the collapse of belief in values (of family, marriage, self-responsibility) has now spread from the elites (where it has done philosophical and political damage) to the working classes (where it has done real physical harm). This is what has bred the underclass and the welfare system sustains it. Through the benefits system the welfare state pays the underclass to grow; poor state schooling cannot compensate for the harm caused by broken homes and absent fathers; inadequate policing cannot suppress the symptoms of crime and disorder.

This does exactly what it appears to do. It blames the poor for their situation because they have abandoned conservative values. By becoming liberal, by having abortions and the pill and free love, by not marrying or marrying less frequently, by having "illegitimate" children - illegitimate, mark you - they have caused their own downfall, and are now suckling at the welfare teat when they're not robbing, stabbing and raping their way through Broken Brittania. And it is precisely this kind of ideology, couched in more carefully selected terms no doubt, that were being invited to believe is progressive.

When David Cameron speaks of progress, he is consistent in equating it with attacks on the welfare state, support for 'stronger families', support for 'enterprise', etc. Asked by his would-be hagiographer-cum-amanuensis Dylan Jones about his position on Thatcherism, he ejaculates the following keyword-laden discourse: "[T]here were still big questions. Are we going to have a progressive amount of freedom and responsibility and independence and choice, or are we going to have a state knows best, know your place, rigid, class system? I thought that in all the big arguments, Thatcher and Major were on the right side, and Labour was on the wrong side." It's an idea that comes up a lot. Thatcherism is "progressive". To attack unions, cut welfare and bait immigrants is to mount an assault on the "rigid, class system". A high-handed social authoritarianism under the rubric of integration and cohesion is also progressive. And so on, and on.

The question is how did such claims even become vaguely intelligible? How did 'progress' as a discourse become a byword for reaction? The obvious answer is that New Labour made this possible. On every theme I've mentioned above, every objectionable facet of Tory policy, there is a New Labour counterpart - not exact, and not necessarily as extreme, but very real nonetheless. You want a party that baits immigrants, cuts taxes for the rich, allies itself with European reactionaries, trucks with neoconservatives, and calls all this progressive? It's been the ruling government for thirteen years. You want a party that prefers free markets and 'meritocracy' to 'the old structures', 'the old class systems', etc? You want a party whose matey populism abets an elitist agenda that adulates the rich and the unelected, pampered, scum royals? You want a party whose approach to crime is to sensationalise, and blame the poor, and ethnic minorities? You want a party of moralising and social authoritarianism, hedged with a modest concession to gay rights? And calls all that progressive too? Yeah, well, I think you've got the point by now. Tony Blair and New Labour systematically marketed every crackpot Tory idea they could lay their hands on as "progressive". And now David Cameron is a "progressive".

Just checking in. Apologies for the few days of absence, but I have been ill, exhausted and also rather busy. I have been enjoying Marxism, though, and I will do a write-up of some of the talks and festivities at some point.

By far the best talk at Marxism yesterday was Gary Younge's discussion on Obama's election and the fall-out for the left, with much of the discussion following up on last year's assessment. One has to wade through mixed feelings. Testimonials of massive, spontaneous celebrations on Obama's victory in the US, and enthusiasm for his success in the UK, were supplied amply by speaker and audience alike. (I don't mind mentioning that there were a couple of speakers from the audience who were still out of their minds with Obamamania, or so it seemed to me.) Younge reported that in Chicago on the night of the election, cops drove up and down the streets yelling Obama's name through their speakers, while crowds stopped traffic. For days after the result, he swore, white people wearing Obama badges actually smiled at black people. Determinedly. Until they got a smile in return.

It is easy, and enjoyable, to mock this kind of mania. But it is also worth thinking about why it should be. Younge suggested one possibility: it has been a while since white people were asked, in a significant way, to be anti-racist, or to think that things could be better. And when asked, it turned out that there were more anti-racists than people might have suspected. It was a close-run thing: had it not been for Obama winning the mostly white state of Iowa, and proving that enough white Americans could get behind him, there were probably a lot of black voters in places like North Carolina and elsewhere who would have tactically backed Hillary. More importantly, Younge argued, there was a success worth celebrating. In a country with a disgraceful criminal justice system where one third of black males spends time in jail, proving that there could be a black president was important. Moreover, as he also pointed out, it was a comparatively progressive result, and not just because Obama is black - had black voters been asked to rally behind Condoleeza Rice, they would not have done so. Indeed, according to Younge, Obama's campaign marked a divergence - in presentation at least - from the trends in European social democracy and Third Way Democrats. He was not the DLC's man. He was not relying on 'Third Way' rhetoric. He raised expectations. And it was up to the left to gauge how much of the promise was purely symbolic, and how much was real; how far Obama would widen the margins for the left to operate in, and how much he would ultimately fuel cynicism about any progressive agenda by failing to deliver.

Some of us hoped that the frenetic popular activity during the election campaign could somehow be carried on into a movement to keep pressure on Obama. from the left. Younge reported that such hopes have, with some exceptions, not been borne out. Moreover, the success of the Obama campaign also makes it less likely that an independent class-based third party could emerge. So, with people demobilised, the pressure from the public is mainly passive - Obama knows he needs his popularity, and so has to offer something. The healthcare and climate change bills are inadequate, but are broadly in the right direction. Some parts of the stimulus package offer a modicum of support for ordinary Americans. There is some very mildly progressive talk of immigration reform, with pledges to reduce ICE raids and so on. I think one of the better moves recently has been from a right-wing Democrat, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, who is pushing for a National Criminal Justice Commission to review the whole system and lower the appalling rate of incarcerations. I could be wrong, but I don't think such a move would have been feasible under the reign of Ricky Ray Rector's executioner.

You could add to that list, but you could also compose another, lengthier one, outlining the ways in which Obama has pursued a right-wing imperialist foreign policy, and pandered to ruling class interests. The current, more conciliatory posture of the US in the world takes us back to Clinton-style imperialism, with an attempt to restore the US as the 'indispensable nation'. The absence of some Bush-era excesses, in the context of escalation in Afghanistan and the bombing of Pakistan, are "small mercies, indeed". You could add another list of Obama's compromises and betrayals on even his most limited progressive agenda. Whether there is a 'net' amount of 'progress' over the next few years, however, isn't the only point of interest. Younge points to the emergence of an electoral coalition that will give the right some cause for reflection. The increase in turnout among black voters and Latin Americans, and the coalition with left-wing whites, especially unionised whites can provide, should it prove durable, a check on the kinds of racist dog-whistling that characterised the McCain-Palin ticket.

There were some good lines as well. Obama's solicitous efforts to win over white voters by avoiding too explicit association with African Americans made him "The Incognegro". The Euston Manifesto group were casually satirised as "the white boys' fight club". Asked about the right-wing argument that Obama's success proved that black people could succeed, he reminded people of the presidential tradition of pardoning a turkey on thanksgiving: "so you see, if this turkey can make it, there's no excuse for the rest of you." I paraphrase. Anyway, just to remind you, I'll be speaking on Monday morning, 10am at the Friends Meeting House main hall, with David Edgar, on the topic of 'left-right defectors'. Be there, or be a filthy apostate running dog of capitalism.