The Economist’s main Christmas leader is something of a cri de coeur to liberals to feel not defeated but invigorated by events of 2016:
For a certain kind of liberal, 2016 stands as a rebuke. If you believe, as The Economist does, in open economies and open societies, where the free exchange of goods, capital, people and ideas is encouraged and where universal freedoms are protected from state abuse by the rule of law, then this has been a year of setbacks. Not just over Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, but also the tragedy of Syria, abandoned to its suffering, and widespread support—in Hungary, Poland and beyond—for “illiberal democracy”. As globalisation has become a slur, nationalism, and even authoritarianism, have flourished. In Turkey relief at the failure of a coup was overtaken by savage (and popular) reprisals. In the Philippines voters chose a president who not only deployed death squads but bragged about pulling the trigger. All the while Russia, which hacked Western democracy, and China, which just last week set out to taunt America by seizing one of its maritime drones, insist liberalism is merely a cover for Western expansion.
Faced with this litany, many liberals (of the free-market sort) have lost their nerve. Some have written epitaphs for the liberal order and issued warnings about the threat to democracy. Others argue that, with a timid tweak to immigration law or an extra tariff, life will simply return to normal. That is not good enough. The bitter harvest of 2016 has not suddenly destroyed liberalism’s claim to be the best way to confer dignity and bring about prosperity and equity. Rather than ducking the struggle of ideas, liberals should relish it.
At least some of the blame for liberalism’s failure this year is self-inflicted, argues the piece: whereas liberalism has in the past been responsible for bold and truly transformative answers to big questions, liberals have failed to do the same now:
If it is to thrive, liberalism must have an answer for the pessimists, too. Yet, during those decades in power, liberals’ solutions have been underwhelming. In the 19th century liberal reformers met change with universal education, a vast programme of public works and the first employment rights. Later, citizens got the vote, health care and a safety net. After the second world war, America built a global liberal order, using bodies such as the UN and the IMF to give form to its vision.
Nothing half so ambitious is coming from the West today. That must change. Liberals must explore the avenues that technology and social needs will open up. Power could be devolved from the state to cities, which act as laboratories for fresh policies. Politics might escape sterile partisanship using new forms of local democracy. The labyrinth of taxation and regulation could be rebuilt rationally. Society could transform education and work so that “college” is something you return to over several careers in brand new industries. The possibilities are as yet unimagined, but a liberal system, in which individual creativity, preferences and enterprise have full expression, is more likely to seize them than any other.
But it concludes with the a dose of the liberal’s typical optimism:
After 2016, is that dream still possible? Some perspective is in order. This newspaper believes that Brexit and a Trump presidency are likely to prove costly and harmful. We are worried about today’s mix of nationalism, corporatism and popular discontent. However, 2016 also represented a demand for change. Never forget liberals’ capacity for reinvention. Do not underestimate the scope for people, including even a Trump administration and post-Brexit Britain, to think and innovate their way out of trouble. The task is to harness that restless urge, while defending the tolerance and open-mindedness that are the foundation stones of a decent, liberal world.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Chris Cory
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
17 Comments
Many countries like France are protectionist at heart. Hence the EU’s protectionist Common Agricultural Policy and the 10% tarrifs against Japanese cars.
UK liberals have failed to convert these protectionist elements in the EU to be free trade supporters.
By joining with free trade supporters outside the EU perhaps this will result in more influence over EU protectionists in the long term than arguing from inside the EU.
Liberals could start with actually focusing on Liberalism and stop chasing silly new fads like trying to claim to be “progressive,” which appears to basically be cover for identity politics. Combined with being meaning less to the general public (every party appears to be this) makes Liberals look vacuous.
Also actually arguing for Liberal ideas while treating those who disagree with respect rather than assuming the worse of others, if you behave that way expect the same back.
I don’t see any progress coming on this front any time soon. We’ll see.
If you believe, as The Economist does, in open economies and open societies, where the free exchange of goods, capital, people and ideas is encouraged
Then you’re a Liberal right?
OK But what about the free exchange or free movement of people?
A “free exchange” we could nearly all accept but what about if the ‘free movement’ is primarily one way?
Is it reasonable to allow the population to increase as rapidly has it has in recent years?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/uk-population-grew-half-million-net-migration-ons
And what about free movement of people from non EU countries? India, China, Nigeria, Brazil etc? Are we in favour of that too?
Difficult questions which we all struggle to find liberal answers to.
We should not allow Liberalism to be confused with neo-liberalism, which is the real culprit.
Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair? Wrong party.
Unquestioning faith in free markets? Not us. Free markets only when they deliver for all.
Privatisation? Not us.
Prioritising property over people? Not us.
We can build a solution to this crisis, but only if we make it clear that we reject neoliberalism.
Andrew Toye
“We should not allow Liberalism to be confused with neo-liberalism, which is the real culprit.”
I’m coming round to Matthew Hunbach’s position of saying LibDems should reject the term “neo-liberalism” whenever they see it. It sounds far too close and is not clearly defined as people define it differently. You appear to object to what others call “corporatism” or “crony capitalism” given the choice would you really choose the term most easily associated with the ideology you claim to want to defend?
I can’t see creating a generalised caricature of what is wrong and naming it something close to your own position is helpful.
neo- liberalism is just old Conservatism. The economists idea are at least in the right ball park – what is needed is the two liberal pillars of redistribution of wealth and power.
A lot of confusion here over whether we are liberals or Liberals. I suggest that as a party we are Liberals in the traditional British meaning of the word. This means we are also liberals, but so are lots of people who we do not agree with on many things, (including the Economist). It is time for us to define what we stand for much more carefully and use this amazing moment, when half the world are coming out as liberals, to provide the Liberal leadership that is now needed so much.
Peter Martin 29th Dec ’16 – 12:12pm
The British population is still increasing more slowly than the global population (or to put it another way, the proportion of the world’s population living in UK is falling). Population growth is a problem, but a global not a local one. If we didn’t have immigration, our population would be getting older even faster than it is – that’s a pretty big problem too.
The Economist says they believe in “open economies and open societies, where the free exchange of goods, capital, people and ideas is encouraged and where universal freedoms are protected from state abuse by the rule of law”. I just knew when I saw this thread posted on LDV that some people would come along and call it Thatcherite, neo-liberalism and that Lib Demmery is and should be something entirely different. Bravo.
Our party has a moral obligation and a political opportunity to be a strong liberal movement in the UK. We should look for inspiration in Guy Verhofstadt’s strong European leadership and to the messaging and activities of our sister liberal parties like D66, Radikale Venstre and of course the Canadian Liberals. There is no future for us as a party which doesn’t share that raison d’etre, which at the moment the Lib Dems don’t.
err the Canadian Liberals are not into free movement of Labour.
Peter Bancroft
“some people would come along and call it Thatcherite, neo-liberalism and that Lib Demmery is and should be something entirely different”
I have noticed that the term “Thatcherite” has become less popular for those who prefer labelling to positive arguments (hence the updating to include Blair references), perhaps they are learning it makes them sound like they are stuck in a 20 year old rut? There are plenty of new labels now, so a stylistic step forward but not much else.
Lot of thrashing around here, what are we all about stuff.
I believe we need 10 (max) clear statements of beliefs and policies that would transform our Nation, the EU and the world.
Anyone provide me with that?
I recommend a brief look at this website: http://www.libdems.org.uk/constitution
Antony Watts:
When you make a comment like that, you should at least make a start.
You could have had: a properly representative electoral system; less concentration of power in Westminster; democratic local involvement in how health, education and policing is organised; commitment to work constructively with our neighbours to deal with protecting the environment, security, protection in the face of the large multinationals and to facilitate a fair and open market for trade and employment (preferably within the EU, if not as close as can be). But there are other areas I have not mentioned, so you have scope to put in your contribution.
Based on his policies, the Liberal Prime Minister Gladstone was a neoliberal.
There is a degree of confusion here between Liberalism and what one might as well call Americanism. Americans are having difficulty yet again adjusting to the idea that the power of the US is limited and in all likelihood will diminish. Obama understands this, which is why he didn’t intervene more strongly in Syria. It’s even possible that behind the rhetoric, Trump understands it, but his solution is different (do deals with Russia, abandon people the Russians don’t like, zap them if the US dislikes them too). It’s bad that the international order couldn’t bring peace and justice to Syria, but it couldn’t stop the crushing of Hungarian or Czech revolts against Communism or the US overthrowing uncooperative regimes in Latin America or oppression in South Africa.
Liberalism must be defined as far more than free trade or traditional democracy, far more even than peace. To return real power to the people, WITHIN the UK – and Scotland – and to pull communities together in common effort are basic Liberalism.
As for respecting people who disagree with us, I agree to an extent. We certainly should not be disrespecting all LEAVE voters. But there are some political positions, if not people, that deserve no respect. Blaming immigrants for every frustration and excusing racial attacks, for example, deserves no respect. Neither does pretending that all opponents of an oppressive regime are terrorists.
James, North America has no EU so there is no direct equivalent, but the Canadian Liberals are unabashedly pro-NAFTA which extends free movement of Labour within North America to a whole range of different professions. It is fair to say that we can expect the Canadian Liberals to defend NAFTA against Trump’s protectionism.