Inspired by this post and discussion on Lib Dem voice, here are my views on whether the Lib Dems are basically left-wing or basically right-wing.
We should be (and basically are) a progressive party. That term isn't always terribly helpful - but here is what I mean by it. It is about using politics to shape tomorrow because of a vision about what tomorrow should be like. The obvious distinction is with conservatism (as an ideology, not a political party) which is fundamentally about shaping tomorrow into something a bit more like yesterday.
Progressive politics recognises that society is changing, embraces that change, and uses it to do good. As a liberal, I believe that that good springs from a thriving community of diverse beliefs and interests where everyone is in control of their own lives. Here I part company from many socialists; tomorrow should not be about a new Jerusalem, where every person's life is fulfilled by being part of a solid community with closely shared values.
What's more, tomorrrow will show new challenges. I do not believe human society will or even can reach a fixed, steady state (or if it does, not for many generations). Utopian socialists have been saying this since the days of Aristotle: "there is enough, all we have to do is share it out fairly and live in a happy and united society where everyone knows their place". There's no point; it won't.
Progressive politics doesn't necessarily imply more tax, less tax, less rights for workers, more rights for workers. In the Britain of 1905 progressive politics was clearly on the side of the labour movement, because of the power of employers and the poverty of the masses. However, in Denmark today (for instance), calling for an increase in the basic tax rate from 70% to even higher does quite the opposite. It does mean always looking closely at the distribution of power in society - economic power, political power, and the power of 'normal' people to make everyone else conform; and ensuring that power is limited, used responsibly, and never subtly increased.
I would say genuinely progressive views are more present on the 'left' of the British political spectrum, though probably outweighed by the legacy of British socialism which is all too often still trying to build the New Jerusalem. Any genuine, ideological conservative isn't progressive, by definition. However, there are plenty of non-conservatives in the Conservatives - you cannot at the same time be a true conservative and present yourself as the party of aspiration (not without lying anyway).
Obviously this isn't a complete answer (what did you expect in six paragraphs?) but it's the way I approach it. Not particularly left, not particularly right - but ahead, always ahead, one small step at a time.
Thursday, 8 November 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Precisely--we're for progress, and against reaction. If reaction is right, we're the opposite.
And no one has got the tennis court reference yet, most disappointing.
The trouble with the notion of progressiveness is that it can so easily be appropriated, and has been by David Cameron. It's the only word he's said as much as "change" of late. To us it means exactly what you say, but I think the common meaning still has associations with shiny corporateness, extreme right economics, tory-style individualism etc etc.
Every politician of every stripe could and does appropriate your definition: "it is about using politics to shape tomorrow because of a vision about what tomorrow should be like". The Conservatives do it, New Jerusalem-building socialists most certainly do it.
I know what you mean by progressive. But I wonder if our best shot at self-definition that everyone will get and no-one will be able to steal is more in the appropriate balance of powers idea. I think you describe this very neatly - the actual fluid dynamics of what shouty pop-eyed plonkers will call "fence-sitting". It's why they can't get their heads round the idea that we are a localist party who are not opposed to the EU.
By attempting to be unceasingly fair and honest we liberals often shoot ourselves in the foot tactically by failing to attack where necessary and relevant.
I dislike the oppositional form of debate as it tends towards reductivism and two-sidedness. So where matgb says progress is opposed to reaction, I disagree - but that alone doesn't help.
Progression is opposed to regression, action to reaction - it is a degraded politics that allows these kind of automated responses to seep into our language - but I don't mean to be hurtful, as I'm sure I know what he means and I'm pretty sure I agree with what he means.
But while we're into partisn politics I've got to admit that even (or more correctly, specifically) because I'm a liberal I'm still not against those who oppose liberty.
We seek common cause for shared advantage; we are prepared to accept less power for more control. We understand that there is a trade-off between ideas; that the exchange process is the driver of advantage.
The structure of ideological and public debate is framed by inescapably liberal instincts, ie that the context is open and universalist. Furthermore because the offer of a choice will create an understanding of how to improve your subject at hand, the destructive impulse will prove self-defeating.
Liberty is the objective, because 'true' liberalism is objective. Liberalism is the means to the end because it is the striving towards objectivity.
It is because the our society and our politics has failed in many areas that we liberals are seeking to reclaim liberty from the less liberal, so that we can disestablish the death, destruction and dread that they have wrought by their illiberalism.
Post a Comment