British Liberalism - The Grand Tour

[Lat-Literal]

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 In the UK it used to be based on Christian ethics and that has now been replaced by Political Correctness (titter ye not!).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 ...?

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?

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.

Thanks for your comments.

I did listen to the last of the series and have to say it made me wonder quite what they had for filling up all the earlier episodes. Anyhow, there is certainly a strand of outlook in the modern way that is ageist. The need of the softly-softly middle aged middle class to protect their own offspring is so pronounced that they couldn't care less about any strong emotional impacts on older people. From one who hasn't offspring and yet did sign up to youth culture at an appropriate age, I see that as a flaw in those who also signed up to youth culture and then entered parenthood. It is so obviously an extension of their cultural upbringing and personal development. They want to protect their sense of youth too and from the perspective of never having been in a war. There is also too much here and now in policy. It is all far too short-termist so that many who just love to dictate "ever-so-liberally" have no knowledge or respect for social history. That is, in many respects, everyone eptomises earlier Government policy as well as being whatever was in their personal background. Government organisations enjoy pretending that point away to such an extent it can be like trying to relate to a mind police. Actually I find it stomach-churning that a gentler approach is taken towards people who break the law on the grounds that there are legal sensitivities. The ex e generation? We understand and we care. Hell, many pros were those very people. The obese? Shove 'em in the dustbin if they won't accept the attacks. It makes my blood boil and upsets me deeply. I don't actually have anything against people who "partied" on illegal substances. But where there is an attack on people who abide by the law then I will really, really, turn, not that it helps them or me in any way.

Liberalism to me should mean fairness.

The reason why I don't like what is happening one jot is that (a) I see venom in it and (b) it is nearly all financially driven. Those of my age who have considerable clout wield it in a way that they think is macho and frankly most of them could do with 48 hours in the trenches. They are manipulative, brutal and so ringing wet that any sane society would have them labelled not as strong but ludicrously flimsy, at least in moral fibre. That's all of them, albeit they are clever as in conniving. Owing to their own outrageous treatment of younger generations re student fees, housing etc. the scapegoat is the so-called older and privileged when many of a certain age in truth are just not in that boat. Most older people are not financially well-off. Even if they were, there is an attitude thing here. We cared for the elderly. Genuinely cared and beyond financial considerations. My feeling is that society is more inclined these days to want to bump people off. Ours was, hey, good on you to feel young at 75. Theirs is 50? Things, as my own GP said, start to go wrong. And they will do when that is said. They know it and deep down they revel in it. I have no gripes whatsoever about ordinary people, young or old. What I don't like is the influence those with intellect have on them. I've studied with them, I saw how they changed for gain and, sorry, but I despise that transformation. It's fascism disguised. The worst of it is at the commercial end of the so-called caring sector because it has no arm around the shoulder as it purports. It has one hand on the wallet and another on the crotch. The silent feel it.

Now, of course, you could ask what has anything to do with liberalism? First, we live in a supposed liberal society. Secondly, you can legislate all you like against racism, sexism, homophobia, prejudice against the disabled and every part of that will be right. But what is blatantly obvious is that the powerful bash the weak and the weaker the weak the more they bash. Attitudes towards, for example, the overweight - you can do something about it whatever you say - it's the equivalent in many cases of attacks on black and gay people in the 1950s. No difference whatsoever in terms of people who cannot help who they are except in one respect. Rather than Government as it was then not intervening to limit it, it actively promotes attacks on people via the media. That is not to say the advice isn't right but it's in the tone. It's greed-based bullying and reveals it's true instinct in that delivery.

[P. G. Tipps]

I almost posted a 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?"

Yes, that's precisely the question, 'how' indeed!

Firstly we must differentiate between Freedom & Complete License. The former, like democracy, needs some rules to work, the latter merely leads to anarchy.

My view is that, when it comes to speech, regulation should only cover actual incitement to harm others and property, as I've already indicated. Some favourite 'liberal' terms of abuse like 'racist' 'sexist' 'homophobe' and 'warmonger', for example, are now routinely used to cover some who hold perfectly moderate opinions, and which were perfectly mainstream not so long ago, but which now conflict with the modern idea (erroneous in my view) of being 'liberal'. The thinking seems to be that if you do not agree with my line of thought you must be BAD, and you must be prevented from saying it. That is not 'liberalism', it is quite the opposite!

However, if someone wishes to call someone else nasty names for saying what he/she says I believe that is the price of freedom of speech. Put simply, we have to take 'the rough with the smooth' when we say we believe in freedom.

So my simple contention is that the one who defends to the death the right of others to say exactly what they think (short of incitement to violence) is the true 'Liberal', whatever his/her politics and/or religion!

There seems to be some confusion whether Voltaire actually said as much but he was certainly one genuine 'Liberal' if he did!

[Serial_Apologist]

My view is that, when it comes to speech, regulation should only cover actual incitement to harm others and property, as I've already indicated. Some favourite 'liberal' terms of abuse like 'racist' 'sexist' 'homophobe' and 'warmonger', for example, are now routinely used to cover some who hold perfectly moderate opinions, and which were perfectly mainstream not so long ago, but which now conflict with the modern idea (erroneous in my view) of being 'liberal'. The thinking seems to be that if you do not agree with my line of thought you must be BAD, and you must be prevented from saying it. That is not 'liberalism', it is quite the opposite!

So if I call you a black so-and-so that's OK, because I'm not inciting anyone to harm you physically, or anyone else for that matter, as I presume you to mean? Precision is of the essence in determining the limits of the permissible in speech or writing when we're talking of one person's freedom being another's peril.

[french frank]

Some favourite 'liberal' terms of abuse like 'racist' 'sexist' 'homophobe' and 'warmonger', for example,

I accept that you enclose the word 'liberal' within quotes, but it's still a nonsense. No one is 'liberal' because they claim to be liberal, nor because other people label them 'liberals', but because they hold to liberal ideals. A liberal philosophy exists regardless of who may propound or criticise it. Is this not what the programmes are about?

[Serial_Apologist]

I accept that you enclose the word 'liberal' within quotes, but it's still a nonsense. No one is 'liberal' because they claim to be liberal, nor because other people label them 'liberals', but because they hold to liberal ideals. A liberal philosophy exists regardless of who may propound or criticise it.

I would have thought that the same could be said of any personal description beliefs-wise, e.g. I am an agnostic.

Is this not what the programmes are about?

Well the gap between holding and following given principles was brought out in the programmes, and rightly so if one holds the view that we are what we do, and what we do is driven by the beliefs we hold, I would say (in a somewhat tautological fashion! ).

[P. G. Tipps]

I accept that you enclose the word 'liberal' within quotes, but it's still a nonsense. No one is 'liberal' because they claim to be liberal, nor because other people label them 'liberals', but because they hold to liberal ideals. A liberal philosophy exists regardless of who may propound or criticise it. Is this not what the programmes are about?

So, rather than being 'nonsense' you are in fact agreeing with me that some who claim to be or are labelled 'liberal' are not actually 'liberal' at all?

Isn't it wise to separate the genuine article from the phoneys before we begin to discuss liberalism?

We must all agree on what is meant by the word and the philosophy beforehand, surely?

[ahinton]

He meant "obviously Scottish" - it's not funny.

Oh - well, I should have been able to figure that one out, being a Scot myself - but my experience has never prompted me to equate Scottishness with shortcomings in a sense of humour...

[ahinton]

I don't think "jocular" is automatically equatable with funny, though it might intend being so.

See my response to Beefo; OK, so perhaps he meant "Jock-ular"...

[french frank]

So, rather than being 'nonsense' you are in fact agreeing with me that some who claim to be or are labelled 'liberal' are not actually 'liberal' at all?

Yes, of course. In this country now, as in the USA for a long time, people have adopted the habit of labelling people 'liberal' because they perceive them to be 'left wing'; so 'leftie' and 'liberal' are synonymous. To me, the criteria which constitute 'liberalism' are totally different from those which constitute, for example, socialism - notwithstanding that some views on some issues may be shared, as they may be shared with people who call themselves, and are, conservative.

Isn't it wise to separate the genuine article from the phoneys before we begin to discuss liberalism?

Yes. I don't confuse them.

We must all agree on what is meant by the word and the philosophy beforehand, surely?

On a technicality, 'we must all agree' is indeed a prerequisite for debate, but before that each individual should understand: there's not much use everyone agreeing if they are agreeing on a false premise. A convenient textbook would be Mill's On Liberty

[P. G. Tipps]

See my response to Beefo; OK, so perhaps he meant "Jock-ular"...

I feel remarkably confident that's what 'Beefo' did mean, ahinton ....

[ahinton]

I feel remarkably confident that's what 'Beefo' did mean, ahinton ....

It's what you meant that I referred to; I didn't see the joke then and still don't now.

[P. G. Tipps]

It's what you meant that I referred to; I didn't see the joke then and still don't now.

I wouldn't worry too much, ahinton, as I'm not myself particularly aware that I made any noticeable attempt at trying to crack a 'joke' in the first place ... ?

[Serial_Apologist]

To me, the criteria which constitute 'liberalism' are totally different from those which constitute, for example, socialism - notwithstanding that some views on some issues may be shared, as they may be shared with people who call themselves, and are, conservative.

That's interesting, because those of us who became socialists of one sort or another in the 1960s saw socialism as inseparable from increasing human freedom - the latter being curtailed by inequality granting greater freedom to those at the top of the tree, by the unequal distribution of jobs and incomes geographically and over periods of overproduction that are themselves the product of capitalism's anarchic mode of production, and by the ways by which demand is artificially stimulated and then quoshed by attributions of greed and the collective outpricing of wage labour when the unplanned system overproduces and has to lay people off, having blamed some of them in the first place, even using religiously-inspired attributions of "human nature" to justify this!

Liberalism is not so much opposed by socialists as seen as inadequate because it overlooks the role and power of the ruling class in defending the system that benefits themselves more than anybody else, polluting and using up natural resources and then creating levels of insecurity inherently inimical to freedom by divide-and-rule and restricting market availability on essentials like housing and health to those with the readies to pay for them.

[french frank]

Liberalism is not so much opposed by socialists as seen as inadequate

Just looking back in after a couple of hours of getting supper and mulling things over, I'd guessed that your view might very well be that you can't have liberalism (or rather a liberal society) without something like socialism. Others may see socialism as deviating too far towards authoritarianism, at which point it become anti-liberal.

[Serial_Apologist]

Just looking back in after a couple of hours of getting supper and mulling things over, I'd guessed that your view might very well be that you can't have liberalism (or rather a liberal society) without something like socialism. Others may see socialism as deviating too far towards authoritarianism, at which point it become anti-liberal.

The anti-liberalism attributed to socialism is because the two main brands of "socialism" have been top-down authoritarian: either the form known as Stalinism that came about and subsequently spread to E Europe and China as a result of the Russian workers' state being won through civil war and consequent shortages requiring policing; or, on the other hand, the more benevolent Fabianism introduced in Britain after WW2, similarly top down (just like paternalistic capitalism!) and subject therefore to disillusionment as it only went so far in terms of economic planning and left capitalists free to invest abroad. (Some) socialists see capitalism as unholistic insofar as it has all the characteristics of an organic interdependent system but is one which puts a premium on mutual mistrust as a pretext for its apologists who argue for human nature needing the kinds of control thereby exerted, (you'd better comply 'cos you'll be out of the loop if you don't, sort of thing). So capitalism is holistic, but running on leaks that deplete the functioning of its parts, whereas a socialistic system would operate on a basis of involving everyone, sharing out work on the "from each according to his means to each according to his needs" principle. People would still have expectations of themselves and each other, but not besmirched by envy.