March 11, 2010
Whoops Mr Kampfner
Yesterday I had a CiF piece arguing (amongst other things) that John Kampfner has probably made a mistake in thinking that the liberal left can find a home with the Liberal Democrats.
Check out my powers of prophecy.
Advertisement
Gavin said,
March 11, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Your CiF piece is impressively confused.
If it’s supposed to be an argument for sticking with Labour, it’s a pretty weak one. The last 3 terms were anathema, but…hey…the 4th might be better (I don’t see where you see that hope coming from, for what it’s worth).
Let’s see what the Spectator actually says before we buy Fraser Nelson’s spin hook, line and sinker.
I think you’re actually a bit unfair to communitarianism. Blair and Brown are not very consistent communitarians, and most decent communitarians would not subscribe to the view that all rights are void if you don’t behave as the community wants you to.
Kampfner is much closer to the mark when he says Blair and Brown are (were) whatever Rupert Murdoch, and to a lesser extent Paul Dacre, Richard Desmond etc al, wanted them to be. They believed that was what it took to win. We’ll find out soon if they were right, but either way their cast of extremely dubious media supporters has dragged them far from any coherent intellectual or moral purpose. When you look at who they are and how they behave, it is hardly surprising.
Paul Sagar said,
March 11, 2010 at 11:01 pm
“If it’s supposed to be an argument for sticking with Labour, it’s a pretty weak one. The last 3 terms were anathema, but…hey…the 4th might be better (I don’t see where you see that hope coming from, for what it’s worth).”
Er, no.
It’s an article explaining some ways to think about rights, and casting doubt on Kampfner’s optimism that left liberals can find a home with the Lib Dems. I mean, the article is pretty heavy on why Blair and Brown are a pair of shits, I think.
I then make a fairly standard point that New Labour is on its way out, and the Labour Party post Brown will have to find a new direction. Maybe that cashes out as being pro-Labour. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
“I think you’re actually a bit unfair to communitarianism. Blair and Brown are not very consistent communitarians, and most decent communitarians would not subscribe to the view that all rights are void if you don’t behave as the community wants you to.”
Well it all turns on what a “decent communitarian” is…an irony of somewhat delicious intellectual proportions and relish, I find. But a major point about (rightist American) communitarianism (which is what the Blair/Brown tribe plugged for) is that it is hostile to the Liberal tradition of natural rights as checks on government. The very weird and wonderful story of how that attitude got mixed up with the Lockean/classical liberal/libertarian tradition in American is a fascinating one, that i’d love somebody else to write a book about for me.
“Kampfner is much closer to the mark when he says Blair and Brown are (were) whatever Rupert Murdoch, and to a lesser extent Paul Dacre, Richard Desmond etc al, wanted them to be. They believed that was what it took to win. We’ll find out soon if they were right, but either way their cast of extremely dubious media supporters has dragged them far from any coherent intellectual or moral purpose. When you look at who they are and how they behave, it is hardly surprising.”
Right. Fine.
But then, isn’t this completely compatible with my piece?
One thing I do find incredibly tiring about the internet is people turning up to tell me i’m confused, before moving on to either repeat my points, or confuse them, or claim that I’m saying things that I’m not.
I’m all for you disagreeing with me, Gavin. That can be incredibly constructive and also fun. But it’s a bit irritating when your opening salvo is “your confused”, when upon further inspection you don’t make good on that claim at all.