The ever-insightful Timothy Garton Ash was the author of an intelligent article in The New York Times last week, which considered the international fate of the word “liberal”. His stimulus is Obama’s inaugural address last week, which has already been debated on Lib Dem Voice. The speech was, in the historian and writer’s opinion,
in substance, a blend of classical constitutional and modern egalitarian liberalism. The thing, but never the word. Anyone who knows anything about contemporary political discourse in the United States understands why.
He concludes,
I don’t expect Mr. Obama to use that word any time soon. But those of us who believe in the universal, enduring value of liberalism are happy to see him start by vigorously restoring more of the thing.
Timothy Garton Ash is surely right to wish – but doubt – that the word ‘liberal’ will be reclaimed as a meaningful philosophy, rather than a pejorative synonym for ‘leftist’, in the USA.
I wonder what we think ‘liberal’ or ‘liberalism’ mean to people in Britain? On the one hand, the Tory leader is anxious to say he is a “liberal Conservative” and Tony Blair said he was a “liberal sort of a guy”. Yet tabloids and Labour Home Secretaries frequently rail against ‘liberal’ attitudes to crime and immigration. Outside of the Lib Dems’ membership, I wonder what ‘liberalism’ is popularly understood to mean?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Councillor defies council to install hedgehog sign
My view on a bland Lib Dem conference
Fascism?
Steve Trevethan
David Le Grice
Jack
Geoff Reid
Hywel
10 Comments
“Outside of the Lib Dems’ membership, I wonder what ‘liberalism’ is popularly understood to mean?”
I don’t think anyone IN the lib dems know what liberalism is popularly understood to mean, let alone outside.
Nick Cohen in the Observer is wont to use the expression “Liberal Left” in a pejorative fashion, but then I believe he is something of an old Trot.
I know I use the word in a totally different way to many members of the LibDems.
It would be nice if we could all revert to socialist (economic conservatives, social liberals), conservative (economic liberals, social conservatives) and liberals (economic liberals, social liberals).
Then everyone knows where they stand. Me, I’m a liberal. How about you?
No. I’m a liberal!
At least three of the above commenters are liberals.
Obama bloody isn’t.
Sam – I realise we have many more years to come of “I’m The Only Liberal In The Village” wars, but I think there’s a broad understanding of liberalism, even if the contradictions of Mill’s On Liberty remain (the conflict of state provision of public goods, like education, with “harm to others” individualism).
We should be more robust in our efforts to reclaim the liberal word. It encapsulates the enlightenment – freedom, a dislike of mindless conformity, innovation – and must surely rank as one of man’s greatest achievements.
We could begin by pointing out that the concept of liberal conservatives is a nonsense, an oxymoron, although there could be conservatives who are less backward looking than the main herd. Similalry, the idea of liberal Left, as in socialist/old labour is a nonsense too since these are statist ‘big’ government ideologies that dehumanise. That said, the idea of New Lab being liberal in any sense defies belief!
Not sure whether you could have liberal nationalists, however ? Any ideas?
I’m just unsure how easy it is to define liberalism from an objective point of view.
I like to “classify” if it helps at all, as a socialist but i know many other socialists would definitely say I wasn’t.
It’s just the suggestion that the lib dems have a collective term of liberalism I find hard to believe. Everything is about making compromises. Take 28/42/90 days, it was agreed upon as 28 days was ok and rightfully that 42 and 90 were wrong and illiberal.
So how can we say that 28 days is liberal? surely the lines get blurred?
I like to think that I am liberal but i believe in the use of CCTV cameras as they can provide accessible places where people before couldn’t go. I do think there should be tougher rules on where they can be used to prevent just spying but these lines get blurred by subjective perspectives.
Hope this is making sense, it’s getting a bit late and the argument isn’t clear but what i’m trying to say in a nutshell is… I don’t think the lib dems have an overriding philosophy when it comes to suggesting where these lines are especially when it comes to the economy!
My only problem with the post was that of the line I quoted “Outside of the Lib Dems’ membership, I wonder what ‘liberalism’ is popularly understood to mean?”
Seems to suggest that the lib dems have kept it as a philosphy and not as a campaigning slogan! When I think this is probably untrue. I think a mention of opposition positions being more liberal than the govt and that Labour will become more “liberal” when out of power is important.
Otherwise I agree with the rest of the post. In America you can be called “liberal” if you decide not to wear a tie!
Its worse than that
Last night the Daily Show (US comedy central) had republican commentators on Fox News slagging Obama off for being a ‘liberal democrat’ !
“Obama bloody isn’t.”
He’s primarily a centrist-leaning (American) liberal. American liberals are much different, as I’m sure you all know.