A while ago someone was looking for what they called a brief non-wonk’s guide to liberalism. In a fit of activism I wrote one. Once I had fleshed it out, I was surprised by the centrality the idea of debate had to my entire presentation.
The logic is quite simple. Liberalism has at its centre a broad brush of principle – that each should be free to do whatever they want provided they do not harm others in exercising that freedom. There is relatively little else that is central to the principles. That means that every strategy, position, rule or practice has to be worked out in the light of current circumstances to align as closely as possible to that principle – which means that all those practices, strategies, etc, have to be worked out anew again and again. (“When the circumstances change, I change my mind.”) That means we need to be able to talk to each other continuously and honestly, and yet sensitively and with respect.
It takes quite a lot of self discipline to do that. No doubt many would argue that we have lost that ability – social media, echo chambers, the weaponisation of lies, the practice of bullshit. I do not believe that; the ability to listen and speak respectfully has to be learned anew by each generation. And that is perhaps more important for us than for other political parties because it is so central to the practice of liberalism.
Arguably, we in the Liberal Democrats are not very good at it (though we’re certainly no worse than other parties). Debate descends into argument too quickly and too often. Perhaps we need to revive the practice of teaching the skills of debate as a central part of being a Liberal Democrat, so that we can converse most productively both among ourselves and in other fora. Perhaps there could be a new section on the Campaign Hub. (Yes, I’m being a bit mischievous, but only a bit.)
I planned the non-wonk’s guide to be an evolving document, a kind of permanent work in progress, but it took me a long while to get back to it and make the improvements suggested by some of its first readers. It can be found in this folder:
https://app.box.com/s/cz7o5qx5j5k3kbpb0qkkilcw4rzblg0y
I will welcome comments and suggestions on both the thoughts above and the guide itself.
* Rob Parsons is a Lib Dem member in Lewes. He blogs at http://acomfortableplace.blogspot.co.uk. He curates Liberal Quotes on Facebook
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
A bargain at 23 guineas?
20C night
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
24 Comments
Rob; Nobody and no institution has the right to live their lives protected from offence and hurt feelings. Who decides what constitutes harm ?
All too often this has been manipulated and used to silence perfectly held protected beliefs.
Sadly, too many progressive voices have hidden their intolerance in the name of diversity.
I’m not sure how comfortable Liberals should be with the concept of orthodoxy (i.e., “correct” belief), particularly when it comes to those within our own movement.
Orthodoxy is a concept that’s – at least for those of us in the West – deeply bound up with religion, and Christianity in particular: the idea that only if you believe the right things, shall you be saved.
(forgive the inadvertent premature posting)
In the ancient world, orthodoxy was not the aim, but ortho*praxy* – i.e., correct action. People didn’t really care what you believed so long as you acted correctly – the idea being that if you made a mistake in the sacred rites, you started over and did it properly, because if you invoked the wrath of the gods, their anger would probably affect your whole community.
The idea of acting in a way to protect the community chimes much better with Liberalism, I think, than the idea of us all having to believe the same things. As Liberals we shouldn’t care what others believe provided they don’t conduct themselves in a way that harms others.
The difference is subtle but, I think, allows the coexistence of different creeds, beliefs, etc. within Liberalism provided the fundamental values – as reflected in our words and actions – are upheld.
@Craig Levene
I would be curious what Craig’s examples of this is.
Andy; I can refer you to recent court cases, but I’m confident you’re aware of them. It seems those that espouse certain principles – when faced with the reality in front of a judge, they cannot or will not defend them. It’s a mask of intolerance that sadly all too often some on the left hide behind. Liberalism it is not
@Craig Levene
That I do not know so you will have to explain the details to me.
“Orthodoxy is a concept that’s – at least for those of us in the West – deeply bound up with religion, and Christianity in particular: the idea that only if you believe the right things, shall you be saved.”
Liberalism is arguably the bastard child of [protestant] Christianity; and Christianity can, like other religion, provide useful time tested guidelines about how people should interact with each other,. Happily liberals don’t have to follow any particular religious orthodoxy any more than we have to follow atheist orthodoxy.
The difficulty I have with the idea that one should not be allowed to say things that hurt people’s feelings is that that rule prevents others from describing the world as they see it. It seems that Ed Davey has hurt Elon Musk’s feelings by saying he knows nothing of Britain’s democracy and stop interfering, but so what?
It seems to me that one should be able to say what one likes as long as doing so is not bullying. One should be able to say what one likes as long as what one says is said with care.
.
prove useful in thiking about how soceity should run itself, thnakfully
Rob – thank you for some very interesting thoughts. I’ve just read your wonk’s guide albeit very quickly and I probably agree with every word in it. I had never formulated in my own mind what liberalism actually is. So, once again, thank you.
A question: there is no explicit mention of social justice, which is a big part of what the Lib Dems are about. The idea lies somewhere beneath what you say under some of your subheadings (markets, government, and the conclusion) but you seem to be focussing chiefly on power and imbalances of power. These are obviously important from a social justice perspective, but my question is: do you think social justice is an important part of liberalism that deserves its own subheading, or do you think it is important to us because we are the Liberal Democrat Party and not merely the Liberal Party?
Thank you for your work and initiative.
Might foregrounding the “Why” and the “How” ahead of the move easily publicised” What” be a more honest, longer lasting and realistic approach to political theory/philosophy/communication?
“When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, Madam or Sir?”
“It is better to be roughly right rather than precisely wrong.”
(Both John Maynard Keynes)
P. S. Neoliberalism is the astounding belief that the most greedy will do the greediest things for the greater good of everyone.” ( From John Maynard Keynes)
John 3.21 – social justice. That’s a very good point. The original guide was almost literally a brain splurge – one of those moments when energy, ideas and inspiration came together all at once. (Quite rare at my time of life.) So some things went in and some things just didn’t occur to me. I’m hoping that the guide will improve over time. I’d like to keep it short – one of its main advantages, in my opinion – so if I put something else in, I either have to do it very elegantly or chuck something else out. I shall add social justice to the list of things to consider for version3. I am also working on formulating a change log so that people can see what may have been suggested and how I respond. Thanks for the point.
Rob, I think your guide is worthy attempt to explain liberalism in plain speech. The first section on the basis of liberalism seems spot on. After that, to my mind, it’s good but seems to mix liberalism (as a philosophy) with the particular policies of the LibDems in 2025, so I’m wondering which you’re trying to explain? Liberalism, or the LibDems?
For example, you treat the EU as being synonymous with internationalism and therefore with liberalism: It isn’t. Rather it’s an example of a particular way that some people envisage internationalism. Internationalism might equally be, more cooperation between sovereign countries – it doesn’t have to be a bureaucratic body like the EU and there’s no reason per se why liberals should have to support the EU. It just happens to be the way the UK LibDems have gone recently.
Another example: You have a whole section on trans rights – and you do write about it in a fairly balanced way. But while it’s a big debating point within the LibDems, in wider society that issue is only of serious interest to a tiny minority of the population. It’s topical right now, but in historical terms, it’s not a big motivating factor for liberalism.
I’d also question your assumption that white people today have more power than black people. Don’t confuse liberalism with today’s popular cultural attitudes!
I definitely applaud your efforts though: Easy to understand guides to liberalism are hard to find.
@Rob Parsons
Regarding your piece and document; I think your guide is a very good handbook guide on Liberalism. I think I would agree that it should be seen as the “knows and whats” of Liberalism, in other words to be kept short and simple. I think it’s a very worthy guide for people.
It might be worth considering a sort of “brief history” of British Liberalism and how those ideas identifies/evolved with our Party today, as well how certain policy achievements (when we had those opportunities in Office). Might just be worth considering as it can sort of link between the philosophy, the history and how it shapes our current understanding of Liberalism/LibDems; as well as tying it.
I think the plain speaking and fancifulness in the writing definitely needed so I appraise you for that.
Simn R 4.23pm I think the conflation is almost ineviable in my approach. The Liberal Democrats are today’s and here’s application of the harm principle.
On the EU and internationalism I agree with you – if my words in the guice say different, I’ll have to examine my language.
On the trans issue, I did say it’s “an example” I chose it partly because it’s a live issue, hence it needs solving, and partly because it’s an illustration of us not doing very well at solving it.
Re white people and black people. White people undoubtedly do have more power than black people. Intersectionality explains that “some”white people have less power than “some” black people because of other factors, but if you look just at the issue of colour, it’s the white people who have power. (Our big problem in that regard is treating white working class people as being powerful when it’s clear that, being working class, they are nowhere near as powerful as those who own the means of production. Same mistake made, big time, by the Democratic party in the States.)
“White people undoubtedly do have more power than black people”
Really? Always and everywhere? True in the “West” today perhaps but what about South Africa, Zimbabwe, Congo etc? It seems most Europeans 5,000 years ago had “dark” skin. How did power relations work during the transition to “white” skin? Where do people with brown skin in (say) India, or yellow skin in say China fit in?
It seems to me that the big problem of identity politics is lumping everyone into categories rather than treating them as individuals. But lumping people into categories is a vey human thing to do.
Tristan 9.31 am. Yes, in general white people have more power than black people. I did make the point very clearly that in some circumstances, that does not hold true. But overall it remains true.
@ Rob 9.41
“Yes, in general white people have more power than black people. I did make the point very clearly that in some circumstances, that does not hold true. But overall it remains true.”
My point is that these kinds of generalisations cause considerable difficulties and one has to tie oneself in knots over “Intersectionality” or whatever the jargon is at the time.
The Labour Party may behaving the same debate about identity politics and concluding the only identity that matters is (working) class. (*) Surely a liberal’s answer is that the most important unit is the individual?
(*) https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour/2024/07/keir-starmer-labour-returning-class-centre-politics
is havvign the same debate
Tristan 1.49 pm. It really isn’t that complicated. Intersectionality doesn’t tie people in knots unless you want it to. It is a very clear explanation of where there are divergences in an overall pattern. And I do state very clearly that the most important unit of value is the individual, but also that we have to consider the reality of all individuals living in communities and in particular relations to sources of power.
I’ve said enough on this topic now, so I won’t comment again.
> there is no explicit mention of social justice
This leads to understanding that *classical* liberalism has two shortcomings.
* it does not have social justice as an aim, but rather freedom (that was c18, after all)
* it does not deal with the physical limits of the planet, so is open about limits to growth
It just so happens that the Lib Dems today have Social Democracy, and also a Green streak a kilometre wide.
It does not really matter which tradition individuals started with. However it is initially confusing when people discuss social liberalism. But we know what we mean. Karl Popper pointed out that requiring exact precision in politics would be foolish, as it would take eternity to make a speech (The Open Society and its Enemies). A quick hack could be to write a section in the paper, start with the sub-title Social Liberalism, think about Social Democracy, and start writing. You can always fix it later.
@Rob Parsons
I read “John 3.21 – Social Justice” and thought it was a biblical reference. I checked and it says “But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”
That sounded as though it could be related to the idea of social justice….then I saw that John McHugo posted at 3.21…
Let us hope that the apocryphal books of Rob and Tristan are rediscovered so we can decypher those references.
@Peter thank you very much indeed for that very thoughtful contribution.
@Mary I noticed that when I’d written it, but I decided to leave it there. Didn’t look it up though; what an apposite verse it turned out to be 🙂
@Simon R
“ For example, you treat the EU as being synonymous with internationalism and therefore with liberalism: It isn’t. Rather it’s an example of a particular way that some people envisage internationalism. Internationalism might equally be, more cooperation between sovereign countries – it doesn’t have to be a bureaucratic body like the EU…”
A number of points about this:
1) “Internationalism might equally be, more cooperation between sovereign countries…” – The EU is THE organisation where sovereign European countries choose to cooperate, so arguing against it in a European context is in reality basically arguing against internationalism.
2) “ it doesn’t have to be a bureaucratic body like the EU…”
No one in Europe is going to set up a new European organisation to appease the U.K. just because we refuse to cooperate within the EU (or even within EFTA) – so the UK’s choices basically boil down to sulking ad infinitum or swallowing our pride.
3) The EU isn’t very “bureaucratic” by normal standards. In reality, the EU Commission employs circa 32,000 civil servants which compares very favourable with our three civil services – for instance, the Northern Ireland Civil Service employs circa 29,000 just to deal with Northern Ireland. And both are tiny when compared with the (Great British) Civil Service which employs circa 543,000 – and those numbers has expanded by roughly 130,000 since the Brexit referendum, so draw your own conclusion about how many of them were hired to deal with the myriad of new Brexit generated “red tape”.
“Perhaps we need to revive the practice of teaching the skills of debate as a central part of being a Liberal Democrat.”
I’d go further. I think we should include teaching the skills of debate as a central part of education. The ‘What would Paddy do?’ discussion paper suggests that the UK education culture should shift from regurgitative learning to teaching critical thinking. Teaching the skills of debate should fit easily with teaching critical thinking.
@Chris Bowers
Learning the Socratic Method should be an essential part of everyone’s education.