The Observer commentator Nick Cohen is not much loved by many on the left it seems to me. That's because he is a liberal. But as one astute academic observer of my work noted a while ago, I might be on the left, but there is quite a lot of liberalism within what I write, and even how I run this site - where despite the trolls' claims most get a run for their money before they get banned and then not due to what they say, but for repeating the only idea that they have, quite often.
Let me be clear what I mean by a liberal. It is a person willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own and who is open to new ideas. Any democrat has to be that. It is a pre-condition for being so in my opinion, but you can disagree.
A liberal can disagree with another liberal, of course. They can do so noisily. They can accuse others of not telling the truth. They can want to win the argument. But as Cohen has argued today, there is now a real crisis for liberals. That crisis is that it is no longer acceptable to disagree in very many circles, which as he notes is just as much a problem on the left as it is on the right. I can confirm that I know from very personal experience that this is true.
All of this reminded me of a Jonathan Pie video from earlier this year, which was intensely laden with genuinely liberal thinking:
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:
Ok well in the interests of liberal debate here’s an article from Middle Eastern Eye (Peter Oborne’s) employer about the dishonestly of Mr Cohen and goes some way to explain why he is neither trusted. Personally I’m not interested in the views of people that run cover for a murderous state anymore than I’d be interested in Unity Mitford’s views on gardening but hey that’s just me.
Don’t see this as any kind of attack on you Richard because I think you’re a very clever man and right on a number of important issues – it’s just we on the left don’t trust the guardian and we don’t trust that the opinion columnists that are pay 6 figured sums to write one article a week are on our side of the class struggle. A struggle that leaves many of us facing homelessness.
Anyway here’s the article please do read, but British foreign policy propaganda is probably a quagmire you’ll not want your informative blog to get caught up in!
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israeli-support-two-state-solution-based-racism
Can we play the argument, not the man
For the record, I by no means always agree with Cohen. Or Larry Elliott. Or others. But I am saying engage with the issue, not the trope
I think people are pretty confused about politics. I know I was, and it’s taken a couple of years to understand my own politics. My first step was to use the political compass website to find where I stood relative to others and relative to political parties. I learnt that I was very left on economics and very anti-authoritarian on social values. My results were so extreme that it was unlikely any political party would represent my views. So this meant I needed to be realistic about my expectations. I also found that all political parties in the UK except for Greens (and briefly Labour under Corbyn) are on the right for economics and pretty extreme in terms of authoritarian values (New Labour were right next to the Tories on both dimensions). Unfortunately, social media is not good for nuance, and encourages a McCarthyesque guilt by association approach to politics. This is not helpful for learning about where your personal views fit in with politcal theory and policitical reality.
I also did some reading and watching lectures on politics. There are some interesting talks about the overlap between socialism and liberalism- particularly in relation to Rawls writing on liberalism and social justice. As you point out, a key element is the importance of democracy. Socialism in the 21st century has to include democracy, otherwise we’re back to totalitarianism. And those who support socialism are generally in the ‘more democracy camp’ – i.e. democratic socialists. The problem for liberals is that as a poltical force, it’s dropped the social justice element in favour of increasing authoritarianism. You can see this in action in the Labour party. And politicians, being dependent on the support of capital to govern, are invariably to the right of voters on economics.
I am not interested in the party political dimension
I am interested in the real politics of this
Sorry, I spoke.
I made a quite reasonable comment
What was the reaction for? I have long made it clear that this site is not about party politics
Well, here is a test of liberalism. Scots law has long possessed a distinctive characteristic principle, that requiring corroboration. I always believed it was a sound, and indeed fundamentally ‘liberal’ principle. This legal rule has applied to police officers in Scotland, who have always therefore principally been seen on the streets, accompanied by a second police officer. Around six or seven years ago there was a strong movement, led by the Scottish Government, by at least one judge, and by some pressure groups, especially those understandably representing women who have demonstrably been ill-protected by the law, to abolish corroboration. It met some resistance from within and without the legal profession, and this has produced a high degree of the modern trend toward hostility and intolerance unhappily directing the debate, which remains unresolved.
Now we have the Sarah Everard case, and Police Scotland has immediately produced a protocol, specifically with women who feel threatened of arrest by a lone police officer, that as far as I can see rests on the general principle of the requirement of the police officer to provide the accused with what seems to me a form of corroboration. This seems to me to reveal a recurring problem of liberalism, and the real difficulty of framing and debating difficult issues with real illumination in our fractured world.
I agree with :
“ A liberal can disagree with another liberal, of course. They can do so noisily. They can accuse others of not telling the truth. They can want to win the argument.”
It begs the questions – can they also themselves ‘not tell the truth’ – LIE?
Can they pretend to be something they are not i.e CHEAT?
Can they shut down and censor ARGUMENT so their lies and cheating propaganda remains unchallenged?
I personally don’t believe they can.
I was taught to believe a ‘natural’ left/right was all that existed & used the trope from an early age , with the Cold War and nuclear annihilation threat of Communists BAD/ us GOOD. Poor masses uprising – bad / owners and Kings and religions / good.
Black and Brown – bad / white – good (except these commies! Who aren’t really white!) etc.
Where did liberal exist in that equation?
I have come to realise and throw off the brainwashing that – There is ONLY the TOP and everyone else BELOW.
It has always been thus. Slave Owners, their Slave Masters and the rest of humanity , their Slaves.
There are many religious texts written to confirm it to every human born.
A continuous tension exists to keep us slaves chained, by splitting us into antagonistic us/them myriads broadly put on a spectrum so we don’t collectively grab the ankles of these feet that stand upon us and drag them down.
Many a gatekeeper stands there ready to whip us down often looking the same as us.
I think it is always beholden on us to tell the truth
I am aware that belief as to what is true varies
Which is pretty good news: progress is dependent upon that being the case
This is a bit off topic, and may just be my lack of understanding, but I was amazed at the line being taken by Johnson today on Andrew Marr.
We were told we have to move away from low wage, unskilled immigration. I couldn’t work out if he was equating HGV drivers with the unskilled (certainly not unskilled) but he has only ever worked as a journalist or politician.
I was left trying to work out the logic. On one hand we had the narrative of uncontrolled immigration taking our jobs and forcing down wages. On the other, we were told unemployment is the lowest since 1974. We can argue how true that is but if we do, then we needed the immigration. If a person has a choice between a job involving getting dirty, shifts and possibly hard physical work, and on the other hand, one which pays the same but doesn’t involve these factors, most will go for the easier one. So we needed these people and have driven many away by not issuing visas, and Brexit is responsible for the unfilled jobs. If we were relying on migrants to the detriment of our own people then we didn’t have the successful economy they claimed, and which Labour would ruin, or, we did and do need these migrants and just saying pay British people more, doesn’t solve the problem.
There was no logic
A child who was pretty good at childish semantic games got upset that Marr asked him questions
But there was not a single logical reply and even the BBC truth checked him afterwards
yes precisely .
But do people actually take note?
and will the opposition take him to task on it?
My hope is that the penny will drop at some point.
Great. I look forward to the government’s proposal to double the minimum wage, thus abolishing at a stroke low pay and forcing employers to invest in training to upskill their valuable and expensive employees. Not least care, retail and public sector workers. Everything involving labour as an input will be significantly more expensive as a result, but no doubt there will be a plan to deal with the inflation.
MPs earn a minimum salary of just over £80,000 which is about three times median earnings.
The Sarkar/Sultana video that follows Pye is also brilliant and inspiring.
Cohen has a long & inglorious history of linking “the left” to: the suppression of discourse specifically in areas such as “gender rights and racism”. His most recent article is of a piece which continues this discourse. He uses a series of examples to build his case – which is, at its base an anti-left case and links the left to the suppression of discourse.
When Corbyn was head of Labour, every single article by Cohen concerning Corbyn was without exception anti-Corbyn – this was in no little part due to the fact that Corbyn was/is concerned about issues surrounding gender/race. This para from Cohen’s article is particularly telling:
“If an organisation is dominated by white people, or underpays women, its managers must be to blame. When the Centre for Social Investigation at Oxford University found that applicants with names that marked them as members of an ethnic minority were far less likely to receive a positive response from employers than applicants with traditional white British names, it concluded the unconscious bias and micro-aggressions the diversity consultants are determined to stamp out were irrelevant. What held ethnic minorities back was the “overt and conscious racism” of people at the top, with the power to hire and fire.”
So it was not “unconscious bias and micro-aggressions” that held minorities back but “overt and conscious racism”. Moving to Paris: an empirical experiment in the city (changing the names of applicants for jobs) found that those with a muslim background stood a much better chance of a job interview with a name change. Sounds to me like “overt and conscious racism”. Perhaps Cohen needs to get out a bit more.
Sadly, the “narrative” from Paris does not fit in with Cohen’s world view which is that the left is a bad bunch and he will construct any argument to make is seem more like a bad bunch.
His concluding para includes “The maintenance of the progressive consensus overcomes all other principles” tends to overlook an inconvenient fact: that when universities or groups within a uni propose to host a speaker covering Palestine, the event is often cancelled because of threats of disruption from Jewish or Israeli-connected organisations. But you will never ever hear of such examples which directly concern “free speech” and the right to disagree in any article written by Mr Cohen, because that would start to erode his narrative (i.e. move it from gender/race to more hard-edged areas).
And for the avoidance of doubt, I have run a range of companies over the years. These have employed a wide range of people from a range of ethnic backgrounds and a range of genders. The over-riding concern for me was: can you get on with your colleagues and can you discharge your responsibilities to the best of your ability. The rest, for me is noise. Sadly, I’m not a journalist & thus obviously lack the real life experiences of Mr Cohen & his ilk.
I have to admit some of your logic here is a little hard to follow so strong is the dislike of Cohen, which feels unbecoming if I am honest
Leave him aside then
What about his argument – and that of Jonathan Pie?
Of the simple fact that what I think Cohen suggests about the left suppressing debate in this case is true?
“the left supressing debate” – the Cohen PoV tends to lump everybody with “left views” (in itself a bit of a spectrum) in the same boat. According to Cohen we (the left – whatever that means) suppress debate. Which is nonesense. He makes no attempt to define what he means (by the term “the left”) & then uses some examples to build his case. One of which is, frankly, daft.
Although not a member of the Labour party, I campaigned for 2 weeks in the 2019 election on behalf of Labour. I had a chance to talk to many Labour members – who for the most part were & probably still are left wing. His opening sentence was an insult to these fine people: “Where once the left fought the bosses in the workers’ name, today its loudest voices lobby bosses to police workers”……utter and complete garbage. An absolute insult to the people I met. The article like some many he writes aims to demonise people with, for want of a better phrase “left wing views” i.e. views different from his. The difference between Cohen and the people I spoke to is: he has his bully pulpit – they do not. He claims to be “liberal” & thus in the right and thus by definition the “left wing” (in all its variations) has got to be wrong. I know another Cohen – & he would agree with every word I have written.
Mike
We will have to agree to differ
My experience of the so-called left chimes very strongly with what Jonathan Pie had to say, and Cohen’s argument – and I can differentiate the message and messenger
Richard
I take your points about liberalism Richard, and agree with your excellent definition but also concur with others that at best Cohen is an utterly wretched example of one: you can’t spout the biblical quantity of dishonest invective that Cohen has before it utterly ruins whatever other bona fide credentials you possess. His mendacity (like that of Johnson) has come to define him and will often halt discussion of other topics because of it.
I read his article that you’ve linked, and yes this difficulty in disagreement using honest terms must (or at least, will hopefully) reach a tipping point soon as it is closing down debate across the political spectrum, left, right and centre. However, I note that his piece was laden with lop-sided arguments and attempts at finger-pointing which is a real pity. The message is a desperately important one (as I have discovered also) but as ever, this particular messenger performs his task poorly as he demonstrably lacks the self-control and honesty to deliver an argument with any genuine sincerity – which does close people’s minds to his causes: a liberal who diminishes the spread of liberalism.
But is his argument wrong?
Seems odd that Nick did not write this piece three years ago in regards to people in Labour disagreeing over what is or is not anti-Semitism, or around the adoption of the IHRA definitions.
That apparently is a line he is willing to draw. A silencing he is happy to be on board with or justify due to the hurt it did to a marginalised community. It impacted him personally and he listened to other Jews and concluded what was happening was a bridge to far. I think he was right to speak up.
But when it is his friends in the media or people he thinks of as worthy of being peers being criticized by another marginalised community he clearly has little connection to, he has decided the right to disagree is paramount. Does he seek guidance from members of that community as to why they are so hurt by what is going on in the media? No, with all the confidence of a white male member of establishment media, he has decided the problem is actually those people fighting for their lives to simply be treated with dignity and respect.
As I said before, please play the argument, not the man
Dislike Cohen intensely. He is a left gatekeeper. This far no further. He played his part against Corbyn and the left over the last few years shutting down conversations and amplifying the antisemitism scam. Both him and Freedland. This from Billy Bragg. ‘Taking the line that reactionaries adopt when they want to claim victimhood for the perpetrators of discrimination, he grumbles that “contacts to tell me in confidence that they are frightened of speaking their minds”. Well, welcome to the modern world, Nick. Try making a critical argument about the behaviour of the state of Israel without being subjected to a pile-on of people accusing you of anti-semitism.’
Whilst I agree partly with his article, his claims of victimhood ring hollow. He is a bad faith actor.
So what about what Jonathan Pie has to say?
Why not address the argument?
Or is suppressing debate OK?
I think one of the problems is lack of “relationship”. I have friends with whom I have profound disagreements over many issues but our relationships go deeper… and we respect each other for other reasons. I have a Telegraph reading Brexiteer friend with whom I sailed for 2 weeks this year…. but he is also a generous, kind retired GP. We are all a complex mix of contradictions and these can only be understood by developing relationship.
Unfortunately, in the media (social and other) there is rarely relationship between reader and author so we end up defining a complex human being as a one dimensional caricature. We also find it easier to be hurtful and rude to people with whom we have no relationship.
Now, I don’t know how we solve this. 5,000 years of technological development has taken us from “face to face”, via writing, telephone etc. to Social Media which allows incredible possibilities for communication….. but there has been very little change in our ability to manage relationships.
Very good point…
And it is very easy to take offence on line
I do, incidentally, have quote a number of right of centre friends. I very firmly draw the line at racism, misogyny and homophobia but disagreeing on politics is life
I have no time for liberalism as a political argument to create end of use policy. Not these days – sorry.
This is because for me, liberalism in that sense could never overcome the problem of individualism and it onus on ‘the rational self’. It’s view of human nature that is just too naïve, as it never came to terms with things like greed, partiality and what extreme wealth does to one’s outlook and opinion of others.
However, if your postulate is that liberalism is an intermediate state of human relations that allows dissent, challenge discussion, debate and resolutions that all sides can live with – then hell yes – sign me up. I’ll go with that.
I am doing the latter
“There are normal people who don’t hold an extreme view in their body, could end up in prison . .”
In Scotland.
That’s from that Jonathan Pie video.
Chilling.
And true
Hence the point I am making which most seem to be ignoring
I spent my weekend watching golf at Carnoustie and St Andrews. Piers Morgan was one of the celebrity amateur players a decent crowd of spectators braved the elements to follow him round Carnoustie. He birdied the 1st hole by making a monster putt, much to his and the fans’ enjoyment. He was jolly and engaged well with his audience. All good.
I pretty much despise the man, not for his views but for his actions whilst he was EDITOR of a national newspaper, when he sanctioned illegal phone taps of other celebrities in order to make money, through extra paper sales, for his employers. Totally unacceptable in my view. He deserves all the critivism he gets for his actions. I don’t care a jot what he says about the royals.
Then I bumped into Janet Godley, a comedian whose career has been ruined because of a years old tweet, for which she has unreservedly apologised. Ok, her manner is ultra brash and her language may upset some, but she is defo on the side of the good guys.
Morgan still gets his mega money tv slots whilst Janey loses out. There’s the problem in a nutshell.
Yes
She has been cancelled
I agree with you. Mr Cohen clearly does not. He’s a hypocrite.
I think this is a generation thing. Ortega y Gasset referred to different generations as varieties of the human race, not just as successions. As an old colonial brought up on the copper mines in Northern Rhodesia I can well remember in the mine club very loud voices of very big people pronouncing on all sorts of things from different beers to hunting vs conservation. They mostly ended amicably and those that did not usually ended with the words: “Have it your way, dammit.” which basically ended the discussion.
Although quite intimidating it was very engaging as onlookers took sides. When I first came to the UK in the 1960’s it felt just the same.
So, what the heck happened?
Nick’s piece is a little, weak?
He is an established columnist in the established media, this gives him a platform few in Britain will ever have. He might get upset about ‘being cancelled’, but he chooses to ignore what people have to live with elsewhere in the UK. Much of the ‘open debate’ that people like him and Jonathon Pie adore is more of a fantasy, when you have a platform and an audience of millions and your opponent doesn’t, it isn’t a debate but more like bullying. I’d disagree that it is really possible to separate the man from the argument, the two are intertwined, like Boris and his politics.
I’ve largely given up on the UK media, partly because of people like Nick Cohen and papers like the Observer, I just don’t trust them anymore.
Lets not forget that the Guardian is no stranger to censorship when it suits them, like challenging their golden goose of transphobia:
https://novaramedia.com/2021/09/14/judith-butlers-censorship-by-the-guardian-shows-whos-really-being-silenced-in-the-fight-for-trans-rights/
I hear what you say
Now, what do you propose? And how would you manage the media without, for example, there being columnists with a platform?
Might you offer a realistic response?
There are people of renown in the media that have a long standing history of being on the right side, people like John Pilger for example, should be elected to manage our public broadcasting service, rather than all those Tories stacked from top to bottom.
We should have a properly elected regulatory body to regulate all media unlike today with IPSOS.
We should also have publicly funded independent social media that may have smaller audiences etc., but need finance to enable them to exist. Real journalism is suppressed today and those brave enough to speak up are immediately silenced, or side-lined. Government subsidisation as a right would give open opinion a broader reach and increase trust in the information produced.
You know the BBC is publicly funded?
And how would a regulator avoid capture?
These are genuine questions – how do you get to your outcome is my real question?
In all cases we should elect regulators, rather appoint,
We all know people we can trust, so we should have a process whereby we can openly debate why we support certain people and not others.
I’m sorry – but this is fantasy land stuff
I live in the real world
I’m not really sure how to address it.
1) Give the regulator some teeth?
2) More diversity in the industry? Adults who have direct experience of the worst of universal credit would be useful at the moment, as an example.
3) Encourage learning and growth to avoid stagnation? Being in the mainstream press and having that platform brings both power and responsibility. Sadly some in the media don’t understand the issues they write about and show disinterest in how they shape public opinion. An example being the “benefit scroungers” from 10 years ago?
So we need better journalism
I agree
But what about governance? How is that addressed?
Excellent video from Jonathan Pie – he is often very good. Sadly so many of the responses illustrate the very point that you are trying to make. Quickly moving to tackle the person rather than the ball.
For those with a genuine interest and prepared to have an open mind, I’d strongly recommend Ian Dunt’s book How to Be a Liberal, which goes back to its roots with reflections on the English, French, and American revolutions. Much of what is referred to in attacks on Liberalism, in practice refers to neo-Liberalism. Put a little simplistically, the difference is between freedom but not ways that damage the freedom of others vs freedom regardless of the consequences for others. I’d also refer to Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom, in arguing that without a basic set of ‘entitlements’ there can be no ‘freedom’.
Liberalism as in the political party that claims it, is like any other political party – a moveable feast. I’d argue that under Clegg the LibDems acquitted a distinctly neo-liberal tinge with their Orange book brigade. Very different to say Charlie Kennedy – a reminder that they were the party that voted against the Iraq war as Labour trooped through the lobbies. Great respect to Robin Cooke. Much the same can be said of Labour or Conservatives. As others have said, even the blessed Margaret would be embarrassed by the antics of Today’s Tories.
As for naivety, the history of socialism as practised rather than in theory, is pretty grim. I’m old enough to remember those shot trying to leave East Germany (so called Democratic Socialism, where JC chose to go on holiday at the time…). Ive also travelled extensively in those central Europe countries and seen the impact first hand. You got the freedom the ‘party’ decreed that you should have. Woe betide you if you disagreed.
In practice, nailing colours to the mast, Id argue that the Scandinavians have got closest, but maybe that is as much about innate culture as politics. Maybe too many Anglo-Saxons just don’t have those instincts in them. In contrast, I’d argue that the further North you go in Scotland the more Scandinavian the underlying culture becomes, Shetland very much so. Note that the Borders are the Tories stronghold in Scotland. (I was brought up in the Borders, with family from far N of Scotland).
Thanks
Richard: you can’t have it all ways, if you ask for ideas on how we address the lack of accountability within the mass media, to in fact circumvent the proprietors of mass media and the BBC which has been stuffed from top to bottom with Tories, then these are alternatives.
It may not be possible to achieve in the current state of affairs, but at least they can be proffered as an alternative when the time comes for real change.
I have some experience in campaigning for change
It really helps to ask for what is possible
And we can’t have national referenda for members of the BBC board
Please get real
Fear prevents people being “willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from (their) own and who (are) not open to new ideas”.
Fear is endemic in the UK and is becoming more prevalent.
In no particular order – Fear of
• Having to make decisions on food or heat
• Having to work long hours to keep a home for self and family
• Eviction or the inability to afford house purchase
• Impending climate change
• Losing power, status and wealth
• The ‘other’ when because ‘they’ are different
• Our economy because it is so difficult to understand
• Cooperation
• Poor health and a failing NHS and the unknown future of Covid
• Politicians who don’t work for a just and fair society
• Powerful people and organisations who rig and wriggle around regulations in their favour
• The wealthy who can pay for whatever they want
Anyone reading this could add to the list – it’s not unique – it just needs to be said. People who live in fear become angry and find ways to express it.
I agree with Robin Stafford about the Nordic countries, but that begs the question what do they have which we don’t? Is it a long history of collaborative decision making and cooperation within local economies and an expectation that successive governments believe in that also?
There’s nothing to fear in a fair and just society.
I have always thought I am working for the freedom from fear