March 10, 2010
Probably a bad idea
I’ve got a piece up at Comment is Free, trying to sketch a helpful way to think about what the term “liberal left” might mean, why New Labour doesn’t qualify, why a lot of “left liberals” are pissed off with New Labour, and why they’re nonetheless unlikely to find a home with the Lib Dems.
Yesterday I was all enthusiastic about taking political philosophy to the masses. Today I’m thinking it was probably not a great idea. Admittedly, I have to move fast on a couple of points (word limits are a pain), and so I do invite a bit of confusion. For which, apologies. But judging by the comments I’ve failed in my aim to get people to think about a few things carefully. Apparently I’m either a Tory, or an idiot who doesn’t understand anything.
Perhaps this is just a reflection of the nature of people who leave comments at CiF. (Though Tim ought really to know better than to throw such cheap snarks). But perhaps it shows that the Ivory Tower doesn’t mix well with the Real World.
Ah well.
Chris Brooke said,
March 10, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Compared with most CiF discussions, that one looks almost erudite.
Paul Sagar said,
March 10, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Pitty for me that I’d get an “F” in philosohpy and a mere 52 from Mr NotaTrot and his avatar of Kant!
Grace said,
March 10, 2010 at 8:40 pm
(There’s a typo in the 5th paragraph, “minimum standards of *descent* existence”)
Paul Sagar said,
March 10, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Grace,
That typo has been the bloody bane of me this month. Honestly, every time i go to write “decent” I write “descent”, and vise versa!
But you should apply to the Grauniad for a sub editor role: you’ve clearly got sharper eyes than they do!!
Peter said,
March 10, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Like Chris Brooke, I think that that comment thread is civil so far as CiF goes. Snarky, but that’s the internets for you.
Paul Sagar said,
March 10, 2010 at 10:39 pm
But Peter, you don’t understand the concept of the internet.
I demand that you expound your theory of the internet via the conceptual framework of claim-internets. This esoteric refinement is essential for the logic of your broad-brush comment.
p.s. you are an idiot, ho ho ho, I’m much cleverer than you
etc etc ad nauseum
Bill le Breton said,
March 11, 2010 at 11:01 am
Wow, what a strange experience publishing a CiF must be, Paul.
You have a really good handle on what the majority of Liberal Democrat activists are about (not to be confused with what Clegg is about).
This left liberalism you describe seems to take us up to the New Liberalism of the 1890s.
Liberal Party and now Lib Dem activists have as their ideology ideas set out in this extremely influential publication from the ‘70s, The Theory and Practice of Community Politics, that can be found here in all its glorious golf-ball typography and lettraset – a period piece. http://www.cix.co.uk/~rosenstiel/aldc/commpol.htm
I doubt Clegg has read it and probably hasn’t even heard of it (he is a fully paid up neo-liberal, the root of his ideas stemming from the period prior even to New Liberalism). But 80% of the Parliamentary Party and most of the Party’s councillors practice their community activity using this ideology.
It is worth opening – it is not, I stress, an election technique, it is a position that has evolved from Mill, Green, and Hobhouse/Hobson. I’d be really interested in views of it.
When there is no ideological debate, citizens actually get apathetic and hostile to politicians. Down with consensus!
Ste For Sure said,
March 12, 2010 at 12:41 am
Its bizarre that people just wade in with their own understanding of what terms mean, and then tell you you are confused, without actually reading the piece and appreciating how *you* are setting up the terms.
tis also bizarre that criticism of two political parties is taken as an argument to vote for some other one. People are bellends generally arent they?