Skip to main content

Peace, Retrenchment, Reform

Much discussion in the blogosphere about political identities. In particular much discussion about party political identities. In a world where politicians become followers of opinion, rather than opinion formers, it becomes inevitable that there is much pressure to conform and thus create identikit policies. The problem with this Uberpragmatism is that it effectively undermines ideological coherence. As for the origins of this huge social change- we can point to the increasingly individual way that people are choosing to live their lives. The group ethos of the industrial society has been undermined by our increasing ability to use technology to create tailored solutions for individual choices. As we create ever greater choice in television, diet or leisure, then we should expect to see ever greater individuality in politics too. Certainly the first casualty of the end of the industrial society was the intellectual death of Socialism. The fall of the Soviet system- that non plus ultra of group society- reminded us that "class" could no longer be used as a meaningful signifier. Fukayama's "End of History", could equally have been titled: "The end of Class struggle".

So in hindsight we can look back at the1970s, which seemed to prefigure the triumph of Communism- with the Soviets gaining in South East Asia Africa and the Middle east- as the point where the Soviet system reached Paul Kennedy's "imperial overstretch". The West, faced with the economic meltdown of the twin oil shocks, was forced to reinvent itself- smaller companies, more rapid product cycles and above all, a more individual response to customers. Thus, the emergence of a post industrial "service sector". As information technology has evolved, the ability to process information about customers has grown exponentially. The result has been that political parties in common with the rest of society, knowing far more about their potential supporters, are trying to offer tailored solutions.

It won't work though. It looks false, because it is false.

The increasing individuality of personal choices makes politics far more complicated, yet political leaders have been afraid to engage in debate on key issues, because there are few clear messages that can be given. The mass ideologies at least had the advantage of clarity.

Yet I remain an ideologue. Liberalism is not a universal ideology as Socialism was.Neither is Liberalism a prescriptive ideology, as Conservatism remains- and yes, Social Conservatives do believe in quite strong limits to freedoms. In particular Liberalism recognizes the limits to the freedom of action of political leaders- these are both practical, because the state is now too complicated to master, and moral, since it is to be desired that personal freedom should not be abridged.

As a result, it proposes to reduce the activity of the state to a manageable level. This was what the nineteenth century Liberal Party used to call "Retrenchment". The 2005 manifesto of the Liberal Democrats contained more proposals to abolish laws and regulations than any other political party. Now we propose to restrict the state by reducing its call upon taxation. We continue to be socially Liberal: No ID cards and reducing discrimination against groups. We continue to believe that War was the worst option in Iraq. We remain political Liberals: changing the structure of administration and government to bring greater accountability. This is what the Liberals used to call "Reform".

Peace, Retrenchment, Reform- and always with the rights of individuals at the heart of our ideas. These key principles are what make modern Liberalism such a potent force. I believe that they will only grow, as the directionless Conservatives and the intellectually pointless Labour party fails to understand the nature of our post modern society.

As I write this from the post-Soviet City of Tallinn, I feel more confident than ever that the ideas of Liberalism have much practical validity- as I have said before, Estonia is the poster child of a modern Liberal Society. Liberalism Works .

Uberpragmatism has already failed under Blair- and would fail under Cameron.

Comments

agentmancuso said…
It's refreshing to see an openly ideological approach to politics, and one where a sense of pride in liberalism shines through. The analysis is sound too. But I'd suggest that we have to find a way to say the same thing in simpler words!

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo