It seems that the time has come to state the obvious: I am a liberal.
Not a Liberal Democrat.
Nor a neoliberal.
But a liberal.
This means that I believe that my neighbour is as important as me. And that this is true irrespective of the ways in which they differ from me. Whether that difference is because of our ages, genders, sexual orientation, faith (or none), race, ethnicity, place of origin, politics, or other basis for defining ourselves, my neighbour is still as important as me.
That means I must defend my neighbours rights whether they be personal, social, economic, political or other, including the right to be different for whatever reason it arises, including (as it might be in some instances, such as politics) when that is by choice. This is what I think it is to be liberal.
Note that there are two parts to this. It is not enough to accept differences, important as that is. Being liberal means defending the right to be different. And that means opposing those attitudes and structures within society that oppress not just our own interests, but those of others.
Saying that makes clear the third aspect of being a liberal. We must have a criteria for determining what is just, meaning that it requires defence. My logic is that justice is blind. Something is right when it would be considered just from whoever's perspective it is viewed. In other words, true justice must ignore the accidents of our birth, and the prejudices that these might bring with them, inadvertently or otherwise.
Saying this does, however, require that we accept that those accidents of birth exist. As does prejudice. And both can result in injustice. Justice does, then, require that these be corrected. In doing so we must also respect the fact that our individual rights are not independent of each other. For example, the right to hold wealth is important, and I uphold it. But when it oppresses another it has reached the limit of its usefulness. Some rights can then be relative, and not absolute, and we have to be able to tell the difference. Absolute rights need defence always. Relative rights need defence conditionally.
It is the virtue of a liberal society that it can differentiate these two issues. It can find and defend boundaries, and does so collectively. That is what law is for in a liberal society: to define the boundaries of the freedoms that we can enjoy. When it does that law is liberal. It is so when it permits each person to live a life that meets their needs - including the right to live as they identify themselves - without constraining the right of another to do the same. In saying that it is important to note though that liberalism does not respect the right to be prejudiced.
These liberal values are at risk. From Trump. From Putin. From Johnson. From Farage. And from many, many others, including many in our mass media. That is the reason why I think it is time to stand up and say ‘I am a liberal'.
You may be Green, LibDem, Scottish Nationalist, Labour, Welsh nationalist, Irish nationalist, and much more besides. You could even be a Tory, because some there have embraced this tradition in the past. But you can be, and I hope are a liberal too. And if that is what we have in common then the time has come to say it. Because liberalism - and the right to be different - is under threat within our society, right across our politics and in our media. And we'll all lose unless this curse is challenged.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
What is this this Sunday service Richard?
No, just reflections based on conversations I have had in the last day
Your treatment on this blog of those who disagree with you, or simply attempt to explain concepts with which you lack knowledge, alone proves your inability to accept or appreciate others point of view.
You are widely renowned as one of the most illiberal people in the blogosphere, and this particular article would be a brilliant parody, we’re it not for that fact that you actually believe what you have written.
I do believe what I have written
I know it to be true
Being liberal does not mean you suffer fools gladly
And it requires you to be intolerant of those who propose abuse
If you do not understand that you clearly do not know what you are talking about
Mr Van Day (real name?) clearly doesn’t get out on the net very much. This blog is renowned for the breadth, intelligence and reasonable nature of its discussion – and of the articles that stimulate it. I note that he has nothing whatsoever to say, i.e. related to the issues raised and number him as ‘trolling’.
Your clarion call for being “liberal” is, of course, not without philosophical problems, it being the nature of what you propose that it must include qualifications and caveats at every exchange of views – and, in my view, none the worse for that. People who want perfectly logically consistent, hermaneutically sealed definitions of their viewpoint, in my experience and observation of history, end up with valuing consistency and internal cohesion above the real world – which is messy, qualified and full of frail and inconsistent human beings. So, if we need to defend a ‘label’ – I guess that the ‘”liberal” one is as good as any going. Let’s at the very least fess up that it beats the alternatives hands down.
That’s about it!
Surely this isn’t the David Van Day who was in Dollar in the early 1980s, then briefly a member of Bucks Fizz, then formed his own “rogue” version of Bucks Fizz, then ended up a Tory councillor in Thurrock or somewhere like that? The quality of your commentators is falling off fast, Richard…
🙂
What is sad is that you know that……
I do not class myself as a liberal. I am not interested in liberalism because it has failed miserably.
It’s too heavily loaded as a concept and also (not wanting to sound superior) rather orthodox sounding for me thank you.
I am even surprised to see you describing yourself as liberal. You’re so far ahead of the curve in my view with your ideas I feel like asking you not to self identify as one because the label does not do you justice.
But that is just my opinion based on the utility and the hope that I have gained from being allowed to be here and because I know those virtues to be real to me. You may probably strongly disagree Richard since you quite rightly want to define yourself. I understand that and fair enough.
But honestly Richard – you’re no liberal – you’re off the scale in terms of your thinking and your approach. Other than calling you heterodox we need to think up a new, catchy name for your approach! It may also help to outmanoeuvre the ‘Opinion-oids’ out here – you know the ones who regurgitate the same old crap or want to shut down exploration of problems and new ideas, who confuse opinion with fact.
Oh – and here they come – Bless! – I see that the detractors have turned up again. Oh dear – how very predictable.
PSR
You flatter
But some labels do work and whilst I am willing to interpret I still think I am a social liberal, based on Rawlsian interpretation of justice that I hope is clear in this
Richard
I think you burst through the boundaries of liberalism a long time ago – in fact you have superseded them a long time ago and gone beyond them. You’re an outlier.
This what your work means to me – it’s not flattery. I value it is all I’m saying.
Thanks
I’d call Richard and myself social liberals but not economic liberals. I’d place us as economically left/left of centre; in a similar place to the Green Party of England and Wales but I was more socially liberal and economically left last time I did the political compass questionnaire. Thoughts welcome.
After hearing you speak, a Friend recommended your work five years ago. Most days, your blog is the first thing I read. The notes of Kings Rifle and David Van Day are pitiful. Your writing is nearly always uplifting.
Thank you for offering your insights, for the range of your creativity and for your commitment to truth and justice.
Thanks Joe
Appreciated
David Skertchly You are of course right but when the numbers are counted there are just too few of us. Unfortunately we who are largely the technical elite have created systems that disadvantage the unskilled majority, possibly sponsored by the wealthy elite. It is no surprise therefore that when their time came they chose to kick us in the teeth. Your previous reply to my question about Management accounting rules shows how inadvertently we have created this situation. We can and should do something about it, what is stopping us changing accounting rules, and following the teaching of Taiichi Ohno which was in itself based on Taylor and Gilbreth, instead of a blind rush into capital intensive robotization.
I’m just wondering if one can be a radical liberal or if that drifts into oxymoron territory 🙂
I cannot see how a liberal cannot be radical – not in the social sense, anyway
@Andy
Possibly the only situation in which one couldn’t be a liberal radical would be if one was living in the perfect liberal nirvana. Last time I checked we (in the UK) were quite far from that place 🙂
I agree with everything you say, but I have to add one thing that, for me at least, to make this complete. I am a Secular Liberal.
I will stand by anyone in every way that you say above, and I will also respect my neighbour’s right to believe whatever they want to believe, to freely pray, to freely worship, to freely congregate, to freely celebrate their faith, to bring up their child in that faith (and as long as they receive a balanced education in other faiths and no faith, I don’t regard that as abuse like Dawkins seems to). I will do all of that and support them as long as they stay within the law – which should never be written based solely on religious doctrine. We need to break the final bonds between the state and religion in the UK, btw.
“If you want diversity then you need a secular state with a godless constitution. Secularism is the only guarantee of religious freedom.” Christopher Hitchens. You listed a number of people above that were a threat to freedom: I want to name a thing. Theocracy, whatever flavour it comes in, from the rednecks of the morally bankrupt US Republican Party, or the mullahs of the Middle East or the ‘extreme’ versions of Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, etc, is a threat to Liberal values. There has been proselytizing to reintroduce blasphemy back onto the statute as an offence in the UK, and that must not happen. A good but simple example is the very real problem of anti-Muslim hatred, prejudice, harassment and violence (exponentially increased in three years) being labelled as Islamophobia, where the offence should be Muslimophobia to protect people, but to continue to allow the religion itself to be scrutinised, critisicised and even satirised equal to any other religion.
I am a Liberal. I am a Secular Liberal.
“That is what law is for in a liberal society: to define the boundaries of the freedoms that we can enjoy”
Yea gods, no!, That’s the exact opposite of liberalism.
Liberal law defines the boundaries of what you are ****NOT******* allowed to do, not what are allowed to do.
Nonsense
A liberal knows that just because it is legal does not mean it should be done
Jonathan –
Aren’t you mixing Liberalism up with Libertarianism?
Liberalism = I am free to do as I wish, but my freedom to swing my fist ends at the beginning of your nose.
Libertarianism = I am free to do as I wish. Get out of my way.
Small but significant distinction!
Geearkay.
I’m not qualified to discuss the differences between Liberalism vs Libertarianism – however
I’m not sure your example of swinging a fist is entirely correct. For example, under the law I am entitled to hit your nose in self defence e.g if I was about to be stabbed.
Also, more generally, isn’t the entire basis of common law that unless something is defined as illegal under the law, then it is legal and can be done? Whether is should be done is a matter of choice.
One request…
Please ensure that Willie Ronnie, LibDem ‘leader’ in Holyrood, receives a copy of this…. He needs help & guidance & this may assist him.
I have heard the rumours
Doesn’t he reinvent Scottish Liberal Democracy every fifteen minutes?
Sometimes within the space of one sentence..!
Apologies for the mis-type…
Willie Rennie, not Willie Ronnie..(!)