As Professor
Joad used to say on the Brains Trust,
(a popular, if somewhat patronising, discussion programme on BBC radio in the
1940’s), it all depends on what you mean by “liberal”. Here are three different
ways in which the word has been defined in recent times:
1.
By
supporters of the free-market right, to mean maximum economic freedom for
businesses and individuals, with the minimum of state spending, intervention
and regulation
2.
By
civil and human rights activists and social libertarians, to mean the maximum
possible personal freedom, especially in regard to sexuality, abortion, drugs,
religion, free speech and the rights of defendants
3.
By
Americans – by the Right as a term of abuse, by progressives as a badge of
pride – to mean federal laws and spending to build a more equal society, and to
defend the rights and advance the interests of less well-off Americans
I am
definitely a liberal in terms of definition 3, and mainly one in terms of
definition 2. I am not a liberal in terms of definition 1. So why do I say
that, all in all, I am probably not a liberal?
For a
start, I dislike labels whose meaning is either unclear or ambiguous. And in
the contest to define “liberal” my sympathies are with the European mainland
concept of a philosophy that puts personal autonomy ahead of collective
decisions. To me, a thorough-going liberal is someone who wants the state to
keep out of both private morality and business decisions.
On that
definition, few people are true, 100 per cent Liberals – some libertarians,
perhaps, but not many others. Quite a few people are economically liberal and
socially conservative (the new Right in Europe and the US); lined against them
are those who are economically interventionist and socially liberal (most of
Britain’s left, including the Greens).
I belong
broadly to the second group – except that I am queasy about taking an absolute
position on the rights of defendants accused of terrorism. It’s not that I want
them to lose their freedom without a proper trial, or to be convicted on the
basis of secret evidence that can’t be tested: we lose the right to call
ourselves civilised if we abandon habeas corpus and punish them too readily.
But I do believe that we must balance the rights of suspects and the rights of
the potential victims of terrorism – that is, all of us, or society as a whole.
And that is
the point, for it has a wider application. Balances must be struck in all kinds
of ways between the liberal rights of individuals and the collective rights of
society. In strict terms, the minimum wage is an illiberal policy, as it
interferes in the freedoms of employers and workers to negotiate pay. So is the
ban on smoking in offices, pubs and restaurants. Speed limits curb our right to
drive as fast as we like, and taxes curb our right to spend what we want. Race Relations Acts and the laws of libel and
contempt restrict our freedom of speech. As I support the minimum wage, smoking
bans, speed limits, generous, tax-funded state provision, and some checks on
what we can say in public, I am reluctant to claim to be a liberal.
Now, there
are many people, including good friends of mine, who share these views and
insist that they are good liberals. Their argument, as I understand it, is that
liberalism has never been a purist doctrine, and that it is perfectly happy
with restrictions on personal liberty where the benefits of collectively agreed
restrictions outweigh the virtues of individual freedom.
The trouble
is that this approach dilutes the definition of liberalism so much that it
embraces virtually everyone except crooks, sociopaths and some recent bankers.
Who, from the Thatcherite Right to Old Labour’s left-wing, would NOT defend
their policies in terms of finding the right balance between personal freedom
and collective rules? They would differ sharply about WHERE to strike that
balance but not about the FACT that a balance is needed.
If
“liberal” is to be saved from being diluted to death, it must revert to its
proper, indeed noble, concept of a philosophy that values individual liberty
above all else. I want a society in
which there are plenty of such liberals, perpetually questioning arguments for
collective rules and challenging accretions of state (and, indeed, private)
power. They are vital irritants,
ensuring that the proper quest for balance does not tip into
authoritarianism. However, I believe
that many of the biggest problems we face today – from poverty to climate
change – require collective action. So while I want liberals to question
everything the state does, to probe the motives and measures of every government
minister and corporate mogul, and generally kick up a fuss, I don’t actually
want them in charge.
And if I
don’t want them in charge, I can’t really call myself one of them.
Peter Kellner's YouGov blog
No comments:
Post a Comment