On liberalism

[sebastienne]

It was a real bummer the other month to re-watch Ghost World and discover that Enid Coleslaw is not, in fact, an aspirational figure. Which is a shame, because I appear to have accidentally become her.



Why has the Grauniad gone all right-wing? Libertarianism is not liberalism. Letting your mate's corporation employ people below minimum wage and calling it "welfare-to-work" is definitely not liberalism. There are lots of good things which have come out of this coalition which would not have happened otherwise - but calling it liberalism makes me feel icky. Please stop. The word you are looking for is "neoliberalism" which, despite the name, has very little in common with liberalism. Neoliberalism is the charmingly implausible belief that the free market pixies will magically defeat social inequality.

I expect that smug people will comment on this post, telling me that I have misunderstood the term "liberal", and pointing out its free market aspects. But I understand liberalism to be, above all things, about maximising freedom, equality, and human dignity for everyone. At the moment, we live in a fucked-up world, which means that state intervention is required - in equalities legislation, in welfare, maybe even in quotas - to promote said freedom, equality, and dignity. Because our markets are full of people who grew up in this fucked-up world, and are awash with its attitudes, even the most well-meaning can still perpetuate damaging inequalities. I know I can. Maybe your libertarian utopia will work, when everyone living in it is completely free from pre-conceived ideas. I look forward to the libertarian utopia inhabited only by the Englightened. But, for now, stay vigilant. Do not be conned by nice-sounding talk of "freedom" and "liberalism" which is the cousin of "but you're all free to marry someone with the opposite birth-certificate-sex, what's the problem?"

And if you still don't understand what the problem is, here, ask yourself - do the pre-conceived ideas held by the majority of people who make up the markets benefit people like you? Are you white, male, educated, able-bodied, cisgendered, heterosexual, monogamous, have a white-sounding name? You have done nothing wrong by having some or all of these attributes - I have the majority of them! - but please be aware that you benefit because of them, that the "free market" will always fall out in your favour because of the juices of social prejudice we've all been stewing in. This is not liberalism.

(This post brought to you by a cracking Lashings opening night and 5 hours' sleep...)

Comments

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

Julian Glover is one of The Guardian's pet Conservatives, so he is licensed to hold opinions like this.

[glamwhorebunni.livejournal.com]

It's interesting, isn't it? Liberalism has had this big swing. First it was about minimal government free-marketism and reducing support for the poor (Classical Liberalism), then they realised that that just didn't work and you needed health care, welfare state et al (Social Liberalism) and now it's swinging back towards something more like Classical Liberalism (Neoliberalism).
"Liberalism" seems to mean just about anything :)

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

Then it sounds like I'm trying to reclaim it for Social Liberalism. I know very little of the history of the term I'm throwing around, it's true!

[the-whybird.livejournal.com]

I think it's because 'liberal' can refer to one of two things: economic policy and social policy. Traditionally, the Right has embraced economically liberal policies but also, paradoxically, socially restrictive policies. The left vice versa (though Labour did shunt themselves onto the socially-restrictive side, and libertarians -- at least, those who actually understand the term rather than just going "wurrrrgh I should be able to do what I like" -- are both economically and socially liberal.)

[ohmypersephone.livejournal.com]

randomly, I just discovered I'm in a play with one of your fellow Lashings people. I intend to come see you guys on Friday! (and def. let me know if you're auditioning for more people! I can do mean things with Bowie-drag, wigs and German cabaret)

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

Ooh! We're definitely in the market for expanding the cast for Edinburgh..

[ohmypersephone.livejournal.com]

when is the run? I'm up from April 13 to the end, and flexible about coming up earlier, and have accom. with the boyf. (albeit I'm directing a show 22-8 with a 7:15 pm run, but if you're earlier/later in the day)

I'm very flexible this term about rehearsal times, although I will be in Tbilisi and Copenhagen from 18 June to 1 August...

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

You are going to miss the bulk of our Edinburgh rehearsal time, then; but our run is 15-30th August, 9.35pm, and we are operating a very flexible show: different acts every night, with scope for "guest starring", people who haven't rehearsed much with the group doing their own 5 minutes, and so on.. so there is possibility here..

[ohmypersephone.livejournal.com]

hm...interesting stuff. Well, I'll certainly be there to check out the show on Friday, and I'm sure we can chat there! (I'm back for the 30th Jun and 1st of July, if that's any help whatsoever)

[vampire-kitten.livejournal.com]

"Two men, seemingly in love, and one piece of paper are a strange basis for a revolution."

Why are all the papers suddenly writing RPS?

[foreverdirt.livejournal.com]

Did you see The Evening Standard's headline? (http://ruthi.dreamwidth.org/306759.html?#cutid1)

[crouchinglynx.livejournal.com]

inhabited only by the Englightened

"England for the Englightened"?

[dreamstothesky.livejournal.com]

Hey hey,

I certainly tick all of your boxes. I try not to be too smug, but have been found lacking in that respect many times. And I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I have a couple of points to add.

Freedom (like most things as you point out) means very different things to different people. I met a Chinese guy on a train once who just could not grasp why I thought that their internet filter was an abhorrent creation. His point of view was that if it created a more cohesive society and greater economic wellbeing, then that was more than worth the price of being able to find out what really happened on Tiananmen Square. That stuff was in the past, he said. It was better that everyone trusts the party because then they are happier and more productive: in many ways that genuinely do matter, more free.

Now I could just not fathom that at all – for me the ultimate freedom is the freedom to inquire about the truth. For him, it was the freedom for him and his countrymen to be lifted out of relative economic poverty; to be able to enjoy things like not being constantly hungry.

In my smug mind, I thought my freedom was certainly better – a much higher and purer ideal. I wonder how my mind might have been changed had I ticked a few less of your boxes.

But here’s the rub: I’m selfish. I mean, not ‘fuck everybody except me and my cronies’ kind of selfish, but a rather more graduated scale. I care about society, but not nearly so much as I care about myself, my family, my friends etc... I pay (a lot!) of taxes with only mild begrudgement [possibly not a real word], and that is fine. What I am trying to say is that the whole thing is a balancing act between what different people think is freedom.

To a smug, white, middle class banker freedom is not having your money taken away from you and essentially given to charity.

But a reasonable smug, white, middle class banker might realize that to an unemployed single mum freedom might be free childcare one day a week so she can get out of the house (which white, middle class bankers by and large bankrolled in the first place).

The ‘correct’ mix of these two kind of extremes is utterly subjective. We’ve all got a conflict of interest one way or another. I’m not really well versed enough to make a decent argument either way; but my tuppence worth (based on not very much evidence at all) is that I think we’ve got it just about right.

I’m actually really happy with the outcome of the election. For me Tory economics and Lib Dem civil liberties are a potent combination that sit very well with my own views.

But then, as you pointed out, I would say that!

PS: I voted Lib Dem :)

[mejoff.livejournal.com]

But then... The 'equalities minister',

(not that Labour's option for the same role was actually much better, as has been pointed outelsewhere.)

[pozorvlak.livejournal.com]

my tuppence worth (based on not very much evidence at all) is that I think we’ve got it just about right.

The trouble is that at each stage of the history of reform, those who've been at the top of the system have said "the reforms of stages 1..n were all wise and just, but things are fine now! This reform you propose for stage n+1 is totally unnecessary!" So those of us who tick all of sebastienne's boxes (plus many she missed - no criminal record, literate, non-immigrant, and native speaker of our region's dominant language, just off the top of my head) have to be very careful when making statements like that.

[foreverdirt.livejournal.com]

Libertarianism is not liberalism.

This. So very much this.

[pozorvlak.livejournal.com]

"Liberalism"'s a term that gets (ab)used to mean all sorts of things, unfortunately. And often, even people who agree on the definition disagree on what it means in practice!

I'm with Charlie Stross (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/05/meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the.html) on this: I'm going to wait for six months before I decide whether I like the situation or not. There are some good things and bad things in the coalition agreement; as a NO2ID activist, I am cautiously cock-a-hoop about the civil liberties stuff, for instance. After thirteen years of authoritarianism, we could really use some social libertarianism right now. Economically, I'm too illiterate to interpret the proposals - I was very surprised how regressive the £10,000 income tax allowance would be, for instance.

But grand announcements are one thing, and actual implementation is often something very different. We'll see.

LGBT rights: are there any ConDem plans to infringe/reduce existing ones? Appointing Theresa May obviously bodes ill, and I'm guessing the pace of improvement will slow way down - is that what you're upset about, or is there more?

[I voted and campaigned for the Scottish Greens, FWIW. I think you'd like most of their policies.]

[pozorvlak.livejournal.com]

You may find this screed on liberalism (http://www.zompist.com/predic.htm) interesting.

[subservient-son.livejournal.com]

Personally I still haven't forgiven the Guardian for saying 'Labour has an impressive record on poverty and commitment to social justice, but voting reform is more important so vote Lib Dem!'

[me-ves-y-sufres.livejournal.com]

I dislike the label 'liberal' when applied to me and wish people would stop using it as a synonym for 'left winger.' I'm a socialist. They're different things. I'm sure a lot of liberals get as irritated by being called socialists as I do as being called a liberal.