This is a great series at about 1345 on Radio 4. Today's episode was entitled 'Cold War', but ranged widely over the socio-political scene of the middle part of the 20th century. In particular Eleanor Rathbone's remarkable travels and career were highlighted. The word 'liberalism' itself was discussed. It has two shades of meaning, the first and most obvious being to do with freedom of thought on moral, religious, racial and social matters. It can also be used in the sense of Margaret Thatcher being a liberal, i.e. advocating the free market. So it can be a weaselly word!
-
-
Material good. Can't stand the presenter. Sorry. -
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]Comment
-
she would appear to come from the right wing - one time deputy editor Spectator + writing for the Torygraph - I've always found her presentation to be rather partial - in past programmes often pushing a rightwing agenda and actively preventing any criticism from the leftwing.Originally posted by DracoM View PostComment
-
-
That wasn't apparent to me in today's episode. I must catch the rest.....Comment
-
I agree - no overt right wing bias that I've managed to detect, though this is easy given the hold of traditional liberal models of history on education being to present class as non- or minimally germane to historical narrative, and abstract "ideas" of good and bad as policy-defining mediators between competing socio-economic determinants. Thus there are necessarily simplifications and omissions, most notably of the elephant in the room throughout history represented by class. It will be interesting to see how Ms McElvoy treats with this issue in dealing with the limitations of liberalism, the topic title of the final programme to be broadcast tomorrow (Friday 18th).Originally posted by ardcarp View PostComment
-
Yes.Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
Perhaps she might ask to what extent are obsessions about terrorism in the news media the true exercising of freedom and to what extent they - and hence we - are in the grip of those terrorists given there is less scope for hearing about everything else. The point does go further - immigrants, benefits cheats, health issues, law and order, cuts. Take that stuff out of the equation. Several stations would immediately close down because of having nothing else whatsoever in their dull collective heads. There was a time when politics, religion, bank balances, sex, illness and death were not to be mentioned. People gamboled like lambs across the fields. Far fewer had depression or dysfunctional relationships.
Incidentally, this has been the year when with one thing after another and another I have convinced myself that I am in a 15-20% cohort labelled Highly Sensitive Person and more significantly that most of our society is run at every management level by a 4% who are sociopaths. Needless to say, these two groups do not get on especially well. While the experience has been fraught in so many ways, what I think tipped the balance was a comparatively small thing. Halfway through "George and Mildred" I was anticipating a block of commercials for stair lifts, have you slipped on a paving stone - want compensation?, life "assurance" and all of the rest that used to be banned before we all became a wing of America. But the one that really did it - "Are you over 50? In just three months you could go blind. Text RNIB for a booklet". I'm sorry but to my mind that isn't care. It is money-grabbing intimidation. Oh and then donate £22.50 for a Christmas dinner for a homeless person. No I won't. I will decide how much I am able to give thank you. It disgusts me.
In short, I am instinctively a regulator for freedom. I believe good regulation where it is subtle leads to a quality and an equality of freedom that doesn't exist when it is absent. Not only does it remove the narrow soviet style uniformity that arises in simply chasing the pound but it waters down the survival of the fittest tendencies of economic animals.Last edited by Lat-Literal; 17-12-15, 23:25.Comment
-
For myself, the most striking thing about 'liberalism' in general ... not just British ... is the complete and contradictory lack of tolerance by many who loudly claim to be 'liberals'.
One simply has to observe the hysteria over absurd comments from right-wingers like Donald Trump and the obviously jocular and deliberately provocative views to the media of boxer Tyson Fury to realise the truth of this.
'Ban him' ... 'Don't let him into the country' ... 'racist' ... homophobe' ... etc etc etc ... the exact mirror-image of the proverbial foaming-at-the-mouth letter writer from Tunbridge Wells! Remember, it's not what either of these two did but what they said and the resultant hysteria is from precisely the same folk who claim they are against all forms of censorship ... my goodness, they'll be burning books on bonfires next!
Of course freedom has to regulated in some way or it simply becomes a free-for-all, where the strong triumph and the weak perish. I'm not sure there is any 100% satisfactory form of regulation but there certainly has to be some. In the UK it used to be based on Christian ethics and that has now been replaced by Political Correctness (titter ye not!). Whatever our views on either of these forms of regulation most sensible folk will agree that a free-for-all. do-exactly-what-I-like sort of society is not a particularly attractive third alternative.
However I'm uncomfortable at trying to stop people saying what they truly believe merely because it upsets our own sensibilities and offends our personal morals. Only the incitement to deliberately harm people and property should be considered an offence, imv. Tolerance, even when it goes against the grain, should be applied in other cases. Surely that is true 'liberalism' and if that's the case I'm quite happy to be described as one.
Btw, I wholly agree with Lat about those dreadful charity adverts on TV. Some of the dire warnings from cancer charities are clearly insensitive towards those already suffering from the disease and as for that truly awful Save the Children one which uses kids to tell us how many of them will die unless we put our hands in our pockets ... UGH!!
Still, that takes us right back to the thorny subject of personal tolerance, doesn't it ...?
Comment
-
Whereas therefore you would let people spout all sorts of racist and homophobic jibes at people who have no choice as to their ethnicity or sexual orientation, that is where I would draw the line. You can call me a liberal, intolerant liberal or leftie as much as you like. It's up to me to defend my choice of beliefs, chosen rather than innate to my being as they are. But remember that howevermuch sticks and stones may break my bones and words can never hurt me, a lot rests on inculcating manners because children, who trust in words and automatically mistake description for the described, grow up to never become free of the literal-mindedness which pervades many so-called advanced cultures; and in any case rudeness is so inelegant, wouldn't one say?Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View Post
As to the final episode of the programme, its somewhat gratuitous introduction of class seemed to be to allow it some kind of token mention, assuring listeners that all boxes had been ticked. Other than that, I thought the series was rather a good resume of liberalism in its twin guises, and demonstrated well its contradictions and limitations.Comment
-
Yes YOU would draw the line there and, on a personal level, I might even beat you to drawing that line in the sand somewhat earlier. Certainly, I wouldn't ever even dream of calling you anything apart from a self-confessed line-drawer.Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
However, free speech is not without costs and hurts. I think we all have been deeply offended by what others have said sometime in our lives. It is not a pleasant experience and I'm not wishing to make light of just how cruel and inconsiderate some humans can be and often are.
However I do believe there should be as little control on what is regarded 'acceptable' in speech as far as possible. Foul language of course is an obvious exception but I'm referring to people's beliefs and opinions here. Remember those who are genuinely 'liberal' in the matter must be prepared to be offended themselves as well as having the freedom to offend others, though being truly 'liberal' they would surely never, ever wish to do that would they?.
Genuine freedom of speech is not an ideal state for everyone all of the time but it is a lot better than the alternative, imv.
That is why I refer to myself as being 'liberal' though I'm undoubtedly socially conservative in some matters. As has already been said it all depends on one's definition of 'liberal'?
Back to my dictionary!
Comment
-
I almost posted aOf course freedom has to regulated in some way or it simply becomes a free-for-all at this profound utterance...well I did obviously, but don't mean it to be disrespectful. But with respect it could be uttered by the far left or the far right but not, surely, by a true liberal of any stripe. He might think it but not utter it. So maybe the 'Turing Test' of liberalism is simply the question, "How would you regulate freedom?"
Comment
-
Jocular? Who's laughing? Where's the joke? Hysteria? No more than might be encountered from the audience in any given edition of Strictly Dumb Prancing...Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View PostComment
-
-
I don't think "jocular" is automatically equatable with funny, though it might intend being so.Originally posted by ahinton View PostComment
Comment