Australasian Political Studies Association Conference 2003
Hosted by the School of Government
University of Tasmania

Political Theory Stream

The third way: Post-ideology or Politics as Usual?

Kris McCracken
PhD Candidate. University of Tasmania

Abstract:

The third way is very much an ongoing conversation among politicians, political strategists and political theorists about governing along a centrist course between (or beyond) the ideologies of left and right. In policy terms, it has meant finding some passage between socialism and neo-liberal approaches.

Understanding the third way can be difficult though, because it is often defined by what it isn’t. The problem with this is that such a position forces you to caricature other views, without a full appreciation of the depth and history of ideas (either Right or Left).

Historically we have seen that those on the Right have wanted to shrink the state, social democrats generally seek to expand it. Anthony Giddens argues that the third way intends to reconstruct it. For both Blair and Giddens, social democracy can prosper on both a practical and ideological level only if social democrats are prepared to revise their pre-existing views more thoroughly than most have done before. This is the task of a third way, as they understand it.
For Blair, “...what matters is outcomes, what matters is what works.” This phrase is so prevalent within new Labour that pragmatism has been elevated virtually to the status of a philosophy. In this environment, ideology is irrelevant and becomes the refuge for those who refuse to face up to the realities of the modern world.

Yet a world without politics, where the focus group replaces democratic consultation and political activists are viewed as part of the problem rather than the solution, is problematic. Couple this with the intrinsic lack of clarity of third way thus far. As it dismisses the relevance of most ‘old-style dichotomies’ which offer a degree of precision in political life, the third way is firmly rooted in the idea of ‘fuzzy edges.’

In practice, it is clear that pragmatism and policy reform at the micro level, rather than unconnected theorising at the macro level dominates the third way agenda. The ethos of the new managers has become the new common sense of politics itself (Clinton/Blair’s “modern” approach). The managerialist approach has become the new organising philosophy of governance and has served to justify the restructuring and modernising of a range of institutions.
With this in mind, the question needs to be asked: does our current understanding of a third way reflect a distinctly modern phenomenon, or is it postmodern? If so, can a ‘postmodern’ third way have any ideological foundation or does it offer a post-ideological approach to politics?