Liberal Vision

Individualism in the 21st century

As the Liberal Democrat conference begins this weekend, a lot of thinking, and talking, will be happening about what direction the party should take while in government.

Nick Clegg has been working at developing a modern liberal narrative and more needs to be done in this area. If the party is going to rebuild its electoral base it needs to be clear about what it stands for, what policies are needed to implement what it stands for and how it communicates those policies.

One way to start could be with the individual. There is a commonly held view that rampant individualism has been the downfall of modern societies. Many lay the blame at the feet of Mrs Thatcher, some go further back to the Sixties when consumerism met the sexual revolution.

One could argue these things back and forth. So much depends on one’s political perspective. Of course, liberals rather like the idea that individuals are as free as possible to live their lives as they wish, be creative, spontaneous and free. But it is important to understand the context that this ‘rampant individualism’ has been operating against.

What we do know is that modern theories tend to see people as groups and not individuals. Sociologists put people in a class or ethnic grouping, management theory addresses employee behaviour as though all employees are the same and educational theorist don;t account for individual differences when planning how best to educate children.  All of these approaches measure things on the basis of the impact they have on a group not an individual.

This trend probably began during the Industrial Revolution and has become the accepted way of doing things. While the individual has a role in all of this, most of the time we think in groups.

James C Scott explains in Seeing like a State, the State needs to categorise, measure and differentiate people in particular ways in order for it to function. Once it has done this it can tax people, educate them and send them off to war.  We may approve or disapprove of these things but this is how the State operates.

All of this erodes the individual. As No. 6 says in The Prisoner, “I am not a number.” Ironically, we never find out what his name was.

If you believe that individuals should be able to live as they wish, voluntarily associate with whoever they like, flourish and achieve their potential (if they want to) then perhaps we need to change the way we approach all of this. Instead of assuming people are likely to be the same because of the group they are in, perhaps it is time to think about people as individuals who defy generalities.

That presumption of the individual may lead to different policies to the ones that are currently pursued. And what better party to champion those policies than a liberal one?

Tags: liberalism

Liberal Democrats “aren’t especially liberal – or even democratic”

So says Graeme Archer at the Telegraph..

“If the Liberal Democrats didn’t exist, under what circumstances would you choose to create them? I’ll assume that it’s the “Liberal” bit of their historical accident of a name that matters (not many anti-democrats run for election these days). If we did feel the need for a Liberal Party, I guess it would be because neither the Labour nor Tory organisations were being sufficiently, well, liberal in their policy-making….”

I recommend you go read it. I don’t agree with everything he says… you probably won’t either. But my god he has a point……

Tags: Graeme Archer, liberalism, Telegraph

A voluntary support system vs the Welfare State

Over at Lib Dem Voice, Mark Pack poses the question: Was Beveridge right to oppose the Welfare State?

This may seem an odd debating point as everyone credits William Beveridge with laying the foundation of the welfare system we currently have.

In fact, Beveridge laid out a liberal blueprint to tackle want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness.

The Labour Government under Clement Attlee took the report and responded by creating a centralised structure that became known as the Welfare State. The NHS, education system and social security system that many now see as representing all that is good about Britain was inspired by liberalism but built by Fabian social democracy.

It is impossible to know what would have happened if a Liberal Government had come to power in 1945 but it is likely that a support system would have been established that emphasised voluntary engagement and the decentralisation of decision-making.

Tags: liberalism

Finkelstein: LDs should be happy just to be in power

The headline (above) is, admittedly, slightly paraphrased–but this is essentially Danny Finkelstein’s message in The Times today:

The LDs may be dropping in the polls, but they’re IN POWER and should be happy with that.

For those who don’t have access beyond the pay-wall, the Fink argues that the whole point of being high in the polls is to get into government. Thus it’s better to be in government and on 14% in the polls, than out of government and on 20% in the polls. Popularity is simply a means to an end, so if you have achieved the end, this is what matters.

He also claims that a drop in popularity is inevitable when in government, especially for the “junior partner” of a Coalition.

With the rise in LD fortunes in recent times, the Party, he argues, had to make a choice–to remain a Left-ist protest vote (with the option of siding with Labour) or to position itself in the Centre, allowing the option of holding power with either “main” party.

I slightly disagree on the Left-Right model: it’s up to the LDs, surely, to promote the liberal elements of the “Left”–greater civil liberties, a fairer voting system, constitutional reform, tax reform, penal reform, liberal policies on migration (well said, Vince!), less reactionary views on the EU and so on. This is our raison d’etre.

Finkelstein does, in fairness, understand this. He proposes that liberalism can be seen as Centre ground, and that this can appeal to the electorate:

“There is an audience — and an agenda — for a centre party that offers voters a chance to liberalise the others” he says.

The issue of what happens in subsequent elections is extremely pertinent. The LDs should not simply be grateful for 4/5 years in power, and then crawl back to irrelevance. The Cons can’t have their gluten-free soya cake and eat it. Our presence in the Coalition changes everything, and the question of what we do at future elections won’t go away.

On this question, and the dilemma of the polls, I am (for once) on the fence. Affecting government policy is great–but the question is how to make this a more permanent affair. Thoughts below, if you will.

Tags: coalition, Finklestein, Liberal Democrats, liberalism, opinion polls

Burkan Nationalism

The fallout from France’s recent decision to ban people wearing the burka in public epitomises the irreconcilable divide between conservative (with a small c) and liberal ideology. Those truly committed to a liberal agenda should oppose calls for the government to further dictate what we can and can’t wear in public.

Firstly, this isn’t a debate about religion, security or multiculturalism. It’s about individual liberties. Many Conservatives opposed the smoking and hunting bans on precisely these grounds. They seem to have forgotten these noble principles when it comes to this issue.

But civil liberties don’t just extend to principles you agree with- they must be universal. As a lifelong non-smoker (and no fan of fox hunting) I will still defend the rights of others to do this. As I would defend a Muslim’s (or anyone else’s) right to wear whatever he, or she feels fit in public.

Which brings us on to the crux of the debate: the reasons for implementing such a ban. Very few commentators are taking the security concerns issue seriously; after all there are no calls to outlaw oversized hats or sun glasses in public. Private property, of course, is a different issue and the question of appropriate attire should be left to the discretion of proprietors.

In France, part of the justification was the threat to “Frenchness”. Which is fine–so long as you are not one of the anti-French that their all-knowing bureaucrats decide constitutes a threat to national identity. Neither is popular opinion a reasonable justification. The role of government is to protect everybody’s rights- not just those of the groups large enough to make themselves heard. The fact that this will only affect 2,000 French residents is as irrelevant as Mugabe arguing that only a small handful of white farmers will suffer as a result of his “popular” land re-distribution schemes.

The justification championed by Mr Sarkozy (and Andre Gerin- which is a good indication that it’s a truly terrible idea!) is that the burka represents a symbol of oppression of Muslim women: “The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience,” Sarkozy informed parliamentarians. Agreed- It most probably is. I, like many others, am not duped by the media focus on “happy-burka-wearers” into believing that there isn’t a deeper social issue at stake here. But since when has prohibition been the best way of approaching such egregious issues? Does anyone really think that banning black eyes in public will prevent domestic violence? If those pertaining to champion Muslim’s women’s rights are sincere in their virtues they should be looking much deeper than at outlawing a visual representation of that oppression.

Unlike some of the more vitriolic lefties I don’t see those calling for a ban as racist, ignorant or anti-Muslim. But I do see them as conservative. And it serves as a timely reminder that the ugly “nimby” side of conservatism will always be at odds with those committed to a liberal society.

Tags: bansturbation, burka, France, liberalism