Skip to main content

Defining Liberalism

Stephen Tall, in a terrific post at Lib Dem voice, has made a challenge: to sum up the idea of the Liberal Democrats in a single phrase or sentence.

He points out that Conservatives can sum themselves up as supporters of "wealth creation", and Socialists as supporters of "equality".

It is of course very difficult and may be pointless to try to sum up the richness and power of liberal ideology in a single phrase, after all the Wikipedia article on the subject of Liberalism is one of the largest.

Nevertheless, in response to challenge from the former Deputy Lord Mayor of Oxford, I will give it a go:

"Liberals believe in the perfect right of the individual to control their own destiny"

Comments

Anonymous said…
"perfect right of the individual to control their own destiny"

Nice one, but it could perhaps be even shorter (as compared to "equality" and "wealth creation"), and perhaps more intelligible for all. How about "individual freedom"? "Individual autonomy" would be also good, but perhaps less intelligible for all.
Cicero said…
I thought about "Empowerment", but it has become rather cliched, more's the pity.
Newmania said…
I would say the key to the Liberal Party is its valuing of 18th century Enlightenment thought above all others . International, sceptical of tradition, the spiritual and the emotional Liberals optimistically apply ‘reason’.They think that man is rational and therefore is entire alone. They are concerned with atomised “individuals “in that sense.

Suppose the three Parties are faced with path across a field .Let us say it meanders attractively but perhaps inefficiently to its destination.


The Conservative will like it and seek to defend and maintain it placing great store upon the fact that it has provably worked .He will be affectionate about every imperfection even to the point of allowing traditional rights of access to moderate use .
The Liberal will immediately see that it would be a far better Path were it straightened and sent directly to its destination .He will work out that by this rationale access can also be improved even if the danger of erosion is factored into the reasonable solution.He will hope for reasonableness in usage

The Labourite will detest the restricted access of the many and build numerous paths so all can have the same access .

The Liberal straight path will disappear into a swamp which unbeknownst to anyone was the original reason for the meander. The Labour paths will mostly disappear into swamp but in any case such is the ugliness of the stroll with the churning of the fields that no—one bothers with it.

The Conservative will once again be encouraged to see evidence , were any needed , that change is bad.


How about that ?
Liberal Polemic said…
Newmania,

It's not a single phrase, is it!

Cicero,

If Labour can say "equality", why can the liberal not just say "freedom"?
Charlotte Gore said…
Because Freedom is actually a very vague and imprecise word.

Most people would assume Lib Dems are only really interested in "Freedom From"
Anonymous said…
The right hand says the means confer the ability to decide the end.

The left hand says the means are justified by the end.

I say that the means determine the end; we are each the architect of our own downfall.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...