If what we’re against, above everything else, is cruelty and the abuse of power… then are we for kindness?
But before I get into this article, I want to address a few points.
I’m talking about a kindness that is radical in the change it demands. A kindness that fights when facing down cruelty and those looking to concentrate and abuse power.
We also need a vision of what a kind society could be. I’m not only talking about the how of doing politics. That radical, standing-up-to-cruelty type of kindness must flow into our policy and campaigns.
I don’t think I’m suggesting kindness as a slogan or headline message. And we don’t have a monopoly on kindness in our party, policies, members, or voters.
What I do think, is that there is space for a politics that grasps and leads with that strong, radical kindness.
“What do the Liberal Democrats stand for? I don’t know”
That most of the public don’t know what we stand for has become a dominant and tiring narrative. But we must keep addressing it.
We stand for so many things. And that’s often the problem.
Liberal Democrats struggle to create an instinctive subconscious reaction where people feel connected with an overarching story.
I wrote recently about that challenge and the idea of a platform. I’ve come to view my own liberalism as trying to give people the platform to thrive and live their unique version of a best life. Genuine freedom and opportunity. Without accepting that there must be winners and losers in society.
But despite standing by that platform as a guiding beacon for politics, policymaking, and as a vision for society, I wasn’t fully convinced in it as a clear answer to what we’re for.
That’s where kindness comes in.
I have Jacinda Ardern’s autobiography A Different Kind of Power partly to thank. For some time, kindness has been my simplest explanation for why I’m a Liberal Democrat. But more recently something else crystalised that belief.
On “Time”
Like many of you, I’ve been watching Time, the BBC prison drama. I hope you shared the same revulsion at what we’re capable of doing, systematically as a society, to other people. And it’s not only the justice system. We’ve seen similar visceral reactions to (both deliberate or unintended) cruelty in TV depictions of the Post Office scandal, factory farming, environmental destruction, and beyond.
Of course, it’s not only injustice on screen that causes that reaction against cruelty.
Our welfare system forces the least advantaged to constantly justify their meagre support. Our housing system absolves itself of responsibility for families in danger, including from life-threatening domestic violence or maintenance failings, because boxes aren’t ticked. Our economic system concentrates power in the largest firms and wealthiest individuals. They are rarely kind.
If we’re against cruelty, then is kindness “what the Liberal Democrats are for?”
In Being Liberal, David Howarth lists hating cruelty, bullying, and the abuse of power as perhaps the deepest, most consistent tenets of British liberalism.
So, at our best, do we stand for kindness above anything else?
Jacinda Ardern proved that a kind approach – combined with strength and standing your ground – in politics is possible and popular. Despite the subsequent rightward shift in New Zealand politics, my interpretation is that it was not due to her approach, and rather, like so many countries, a broken economic system leading to a desire for change.
We therefore need kindness to flow into politics and policies that work for people.
What does a politics based on kindness look like?
If kindness is the opposite of cruel politics, then let’s consider again our welfare, housing, and economic systems.
A kind society would have a welfare system that actively supports individuals to thrive, not trap them in an endless cycle of poverty.
A kind society would provide safe, secure, and affordable housing as well as the resources for local authorities to empathetically and enthusiastically help every resident with their individual problems.
A kind society would mean an economy providing the platform individuals need to thrive within a stable, ideally flourishing, environment.
Back on Time
“A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.”
This quote is usually (it seems with some uncertainty) attributed to Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Variations touch on judging societies by their treatment of animals, and the most vulnerable more widely.
To finish with another brief outline of what a society based on kindness would look like, I want to come back to Time and our justice system.
In this piece published by The Conversation, the authors argue for forward-looking justice. A system that centres on the future. That doesn’t mean ignoring what has happened. It doesn’t mean de-prioritising victims. It doesn’t mean excuses. But it does mean understanding. And it means a justice system that asks what is best for individuals and society moving forward. Not revenge. But kindness in the hardest of circumstances.
We’re all trying, in our different spaces, to decipher what we stand for – and how to communicate it
Whether you agree with kindness being what we ultimately stand for, or that a variation of the phrasing might work better… or that kindness exists somewhere else in our values. Or even if you disagree totally… I would love to hear your thoughts.
Just be kind about it!
* Josh works on climate and sustainability across research, consulting, convening, and advocacy, focusing on systems change and new economics. Josh is a member of the Lib Dem Federal Policy Committee (FPC). He is a former PPC and Cambridge City Councillor with the opposition portfolio for Climate, Environment, and the City Centre.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A 14-year-old Mick Jagger demonstrates rock climbing on television
Prisons
Why Kierkegaard should be the official philosopher of Scotland supporters
Labour makes by-election gain in PM's own constituency
An extended period of silence is called for
PM
Denis Mollison
Mick Taylor
David Evans
Tristan Ward
15 Comments
If the Lib Dem’s don’t know what they stand for then you can’t blame the general public for thinking the same. This is where the party leadership ought to be clear and transparent …… and radical. At the moment it isn’t. People must draw their own conclusions about what the remedy for that is.
You raise some difficult issues. For example, how much ‘understanding’ should be shown towards someone who has chosen to sexual abuse children for their own sexual gratification?
In the above situation, we should focus 100% on extending kindness towards the victims. As for the perpetrator, he (usually) should spend a considerable period of time incarcerated, with release back into society dependent on him participating in courses, therapy or whatever, to address his underlying issues, and only once his risk of reoffending is no greater than for males of his ago generally. Perhaps he would not think we are showing him kindness – sorry, all kindness goes to the victims, including ensuring that they know they will not face him again for a considerable period of time.
I do think kindness is a good quality, and we need more of it in politics, but attaching ‘kindness’ to particular policies is more complex than I think you acknowledge. You seem to be arguing for more generous welfare provision in the name of kindness, but that is not being kind to the people who would have to pay for it with higher taxes. You also seem to be arguing for more kindness towards prisoners, but that is not being kind towards their victims.
The kindness I’d like to see more of is the kindness that means you listen to and respect people who disagree with you – that is very sorely needed in UK politics. Perhaps we could do better at demonstrating that in how we LibDems do politics?
But in the end, surely what we stand for is liberalism? So we really need to invent something else that we can stand for. Wouldn’t simply being clearer about what liberalism means suffice?
For goodness sake?!? Can we PLEAsAE stop this stupid handwringing.
“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.“
Yes, Tristan Ward. I am losing track of how many years we have been saying this – the preamble encapsulates things well.
Yes, David Raw.
The level of ineptitude we aren’t dealing with within the party is mind-boggling.
I’ve been thinking about this alot too, because what is very clear, is that we are not being.
It’s about more than kindness; we are not a charity, politics is about tough choices most of the time.
I tend to be with Tristan on this one regarding the hand-wringing, except a 39 word slogan just doesn’t do it either, it’s fine for the constitution but not for the doorstep, and whilst we all know exactly what we stand for, no-one else does.
As we live in the world of the three word slogan how about ‘every person matters’
No! What are you thinking about?
The constitutional preamble has two big problems with it as a statement of “what the Lib Dems are for”
1) As a statement of principle it doesn’t distinguish you in any way. Most other parties and activists won’t find much to disagree with on the principle and yet they’re not all Lib Dems and don’t all express policies you agree with. Not many politicians are going to openly claim to be in favour of ignorance or inequality or an unfair society.
(“Kindness” has the same problem, certainly)
2) As a result it says absolutely nothing about what the Lib Dems would do if they had power in furtherance of those aims, and completely opposite policies can be tied back to it, so even Lib Dems don’t seem to be able to agree on much there (and the things you generally do agree on – STV for elections, rejoining the EU – are ones which are at best extremely indirect consequences of the principles set out).
cim: I disagree. There is a consistent failure to understand the differences between principles and policies.
Some non LDs might like to kid themselves that our preamble mirrors what they stand for because, ironically, they can see it makes them appealing – something our leaders seem blind to!
Thanks for this. Kindness – to people, businesses, whole communities, our environment and to nature, to our past, present and future – requires us also to be brave and curious change creators. To be brave in a radical, responsible risktaking sense. To be curious not in a trivial, inappropriately inquisitive sense, but recognising that to be curious has the same etymological root as to curate, to care. For LibDem leadership it’s not about so much requiring people to accept both our analysis of the challenges we face and our answers to those challenges. It’s leadership that’s about asking the right questions, not least about what more can we do together, with each other and with the communities we serve.
This article is arguing for a version of kindness that is as idelogically charged and specified as a socialist party’s notion of justice.
It’s nice to be nice, its profoundly unhelpful to engage in Orwellian new-speak.
@Graham Jeffs
“Some non LDs might like to kid themselves that our preamble mirrors what they stand for”
Do you think that this might be a serious problem for the party – worse than it merely being vague platitudes that no-one much will disagree with – if, outside of your own members, anyone who thinks that they agree with the broad principles of the preamble is actually deluding themselves because they don’t understand what LDs specifically mean by it?
At some point they’ll figure out that their interpretation of “a fair society” or “no-one should be enslaved by conformity” bears no relation to what LDs mean when they say those things, and stop voting for you.
Obviously the party should be telling people what we mean by it. But we don’t refer to the essence of the preamble in the first place!
Chucking out a policy for this or a policy for that isn’t going to harness support unless it’s understood as a part of an overall approach.
cim, The one thing too many Lib Dems don’t understand fully is what is meant by the word balance. That is the key and is the opposite of dogma – which is where people won’t give an inch on what is good for them and their friends, irrespective of any sound Lib Dem counter arguments.
This is a good article with a good discussion following, it seems to me. Can I contribute three words which I think the public may sense and like about us? They are Consistency, Stability and Trustworthiness. Lib Dems don’t generally fly off to join other parties, unlike some leading Tories who apparently change principles even more readily than policies.
A notable example: in a coffee bar this morning the owner, who has a negative view of politicians generally, volunteered to me that it was still a bit of a shame for us that, according to him, ” Your Tim Farron chose to put religion above politics”. I was able to assure him that Tim is still very active in politics, both in his locality and nationally. Consistent, stable and trustworthy, you might say, and not forgotten.