JD Vance’s critique of the liberal consensus at the Munich Security Conference touches on an uncomfortable truth: the liberal project, while achieving peace and prosperity on a global scale, has left many working-class communities behind. Economically, politically, and culturally, these groups feel abandoned, leading to resentment and distrust of the ideals that have propelled progress.
For decades, the liberal elite has prioritised building a brave new world, but in doing so, it neglected to build consensus with the people it sought to serve. Programmes designed to alleviate poverty or reduce inequality often came across as top-down mandates rather than collaborative efforts. While well-intentioned, they failed to engage the communities most affected, leaving many with the impression that they were receiving “handouts” rather than opportunities for self-sufficiency.
Many of the measures introduced – whether to address poverty, climate change, or inequality – stemmed from noble intentions and represented the best instincts of humanity. Yet they were often implemented without meaningful consultation with the electorate.
The liberal tradition, at its best, is about empowerment. It is about giving individuals the tools to build their own futures, fostering both economic and personal dignity. Yet many of the programmes introduced in the name of progress – however noble – were perceived as undermining the very dignity they sought to preserve.
For instance, work is more than a pay cheque; it is a source of status, respect, and identity. Lack of meaningful work has left people feeling invisible and devalued. And most people, in my experience, support diversity and equality, but the programmes to support these goals rings hollow for the the people who feel sidelined in their own community.
While this was going on, those at the top – the architects of the liberal consensus – were too consumed by their own success to notice or address the growing income gap and cultural dislocation. Liberal elites, for all their good intentions, ignored the lived realities of working-class families, allowing resentment to build.
Liberalism aspires to equality and fairness, but its leaders failed to live up to their own ideals, allowing political and economic inequality to spiral. And now we’re seeing the backlash.
We the People
Now, under the banner of “We the People”, Vance and the MAGA army seek to sweep away the apparatus of the state. Liberals can carp from the sidelines and claim, often without evidence, that they are acting out of self-interest, but the fact is that millions of people in America – and around the world – are cheering them on because they are not invested in these structures. To them, they are malign monoliths, disconnected from the real world.
Good governance relies on accountability, a value that populists like Vance and Trump claim to uphold but refuse to apply to themselves. While they demand accountability from the liberal elite, they ally themselves with figures who reject the very concept, from autocratic leaders abroad to far-right extremists at home.
And yet millions of voters support this helter-skelter plunge to unaccountability – why? Perhaps because they don’t see any difference between the current structure and that envisioned by the right. To them, liberals are claiming a virtue which doesn’t exist, so what is there to lose?
There’s no doubt that we are on a journey to a very bad place, led by ideologues who are prepared to bulldoze their way through everything that we hold dear. We can either continue desperately, vainly grabbing for the handbrake or start to siphon off the fuel by addressing the electorate’s valid concerns.
We must accept that the grievances of the working class are real and must be addressed. They feel disenfranchised – powerless – but the answer is not to embrace authoritarianism or to abandon the values that have underpinned Western success. Instead, we need to bridge the gap between elites and the working class, ensuring that economic policies not only promote growth but also deliver dignity, respect, and opportunity for all.
That means guaranteeing fair wages, empowering communities to shape the policies that affect their lives, and fostering a culture of accountability – all the while remembering that we cannot do that for the people, only with the people.
This, I posit, is a key step in defending liberal democracy against those who seek to undermine it, whether they come from the far-right populist fringe or authoritarian regimes abroad. And I believe we, as Lib Dems, are well positioned to deliver this change.
* Tom Reeve is a Liberal Democrat councillor in Kingston upon Thames
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1339
Kemi Badenoch vs the Conservative Party: how the polling compares - The Week in Polls
F10 is passed overwhelmingly. Now the work begins...
Blackness Road - 1967 #dundeewestend
Torchwood is now a Cardiff Bay institution
Zachary Adam Barker
tom arms
Neil Hickman
Joe Bourke
11 Comments
I would accept the basic thrust of this argument but for one thing – the problematic creed you identify is not liberalism, though I agree it gets mislabelled as that frequently. It is corporatism. In some places the unavoidable and domineering corporation is the state, in some places it’s multinational companies. Often it’s a combination of both. They are elites (in the Altered Carbon ‘Meth’ sense, not the master blacksmith sense) but they aren’t liberals and should never have claimed to be. Liberalism is communitarianism without uniformity, and individual liberty that is umbilically linked to equality and economic justice. It is seeing a direct and uncontroversial link between human rights and John Stuart Mill and getting a dangerously damaged bollard repaired or a park pond cleaned up. You are dead right that liberalism properly applied to community need is the answer. With those caveats, interesting read Tom, thank you 🙂
Might it be more accurate to describe thé referred to group as the “Neo-Liberal elite”?
As Michael Hudson points out, there are three basic power groups in nations:
1) The government
2) The rich and powerful elite
3) The rest of us
Neoliberalism results in 1 and 2 combining against 3 to exploit them.
Liberalism is a combination of 1 and 3 to restrain 2 and achieve a reasonably equitable and efficient society.
Social liberalism stands for a mixed economy resulting in a fair balance between “freedom to” and “freedom from”, which Neoliberalism opposes.
What Mr. Vance and his associates, here and abroad, seem to offer is a reduction of the power of 1, which, if genuinely democratic and transparent, could restrain 2 and so have all citizens and their children treated fairly.
Might an appropriate objective for L D.s to strive for making our nation more genuinely democratic?
“It is wiser to travel with those who are trustworthy and say what they really mean.”
A good read, but while being clear that “the grievances of the working class are real and must be addressed”, I do not see any real understanding of what those grievances are or of how they should be addressed.
Perhaps we should be employing an opinion pollster to survey a representative sample of the quarter of the electorate that is currently indicating support for Reform UK to identify what the issues are that has driven them to reject the mainstream political parties.
Great article, I accept your broader definition of liberal as people like the Clintons, starmer, Blair, Obama are often characterised as that and they are people who have genuinely contributed to our cause. We take credit for their successes at least.
I don’t think increasing the accountability of government to make it more transparent will necessarily make governments more popular. I worry that people want vague sentiment that they can
Tom writes of “empowering communities to shape the policies that affect their lives, and fostering a culture of accountability”. I’d like a second article explaining how he is doing this in his (and my) home turf of Kingston-upon-Thames. For example, what lessons have been learned from the saga of the Kingfisher Leisure Centre, which was demolished on the basis of rebuilding costs which turned out to be seriously underestimated?
@Mary: No need to do a survey. The information is already out there. For example, https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49887-what-do-reform-uk-voters-believe seems to give a pretty good idea of what Reform voters believe. Looking down the list, it seems clear to me that it’s a mixture of left wing views on economic issues and traditionalist views on cultural issues, plus opposition to immigration. I would argue the issues of immigration and cultural issues/identity politics are the big areas where liberal thinking has got completely out of touch with many peoples’ lives (and it doesn’t help that too many liberals don’t even tolerate debate on these issues). I think Tom’s article is good in principle, but to the extent that he’s suggesting policy changes, he’s putting too much weight on economic issues and not enough weight on cultural issues.
I think a key phrase in Tom Reeve’s post is “. . . all the while remembering that we cannot do that for the people, only with the people. ”
Our general elections have become auctions in rival offers of “Vote for us and this is what we well do for you,” rather than “How we will work with you. . . .”. Or, as President Kennedy put it:” Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” (That may be a misremembered paraphrase.)
Labour’s current policy of abolishing local councils and re-shaping local government to become better engines of carrying out the centre’s instructions are the opposite of what is needed. Liberal Democrats in local councils have been very good at working with people: we need more of it, not less.
“That means guaranteeing fair wages, empowering communities to shape the policies that affect their lives, and fostering a culture of accountability”
The author should realise that Vance and his ilk have absolutely no intention of do anything remotely like that – their goal is quite the opposite.
At times like this, it is important to remember Churchill’s comment that democracy seems the worst possible method of government – until you look at the alternatives.
As such abandoning liberalism (or democracy) because yet another popinjay pops up to criticise it is just dead wrong.
Don’t forget that the minimum wage in the UK is one of the highest in the world, relative to average wages, following the last govt’s acceptance of the Dube review – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dc0312940f0b637a03ffa96/impacts_of_minimum_wages_review_of_the_international_evidence_Arindrajit_Dube_web.pdf
In the context of this discussion, this Guardian article just published today seems very relevant: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/19/leftwing-activists-less-likely-work-political-rivals-other-uk-groups-study. It reports a survey of peoples’ attitudes from the group, More in Common, and argues that, Lack of understanding by ‘progressive activists’ of other voting blocs has led to rise of far right.
One legacy of the previous Conservative’s governments that is less discussed is its total abandonment of the educational sector. In today’s world victory is gained by those countries that invest in excellent basic primary education, building on this to create students with the sound knowledge to progress to university or skills training that allows them to find meaningful and well paid jobs and worthwhile lives.