Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mike Hind's avatar

Looking back I think that maybe it was Tim Farron's scrape with the moral police that made me first notice how the Liberal Democrats see themselves. Which is as a progressive, rather than centre, party.

Farron's sin was how he interpreted scripture, but as a genuine liberal he didn't let faith-based moral scruples guide policy. But being a liberal was neither necessary nor sufficient, which struck me at the time as ironic.

Expand full comment
Further or Alternatively's avatar

Yes. I think that embracing liberalism for the reasons Mill gave, i.e. because "it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living [etc]", involves espousing the view that minority opinions should be freely aired: it's not just about saying that people shouldn't be imprisoned or 'cancelled' for saying X, but saying that it is better, all things considered, if people get to hear X, and a culture or society is better to the extent that both people who believe X and those who believe not-X are (practically and in reality) able to air their views and get a hearing for them.

That is not the current thinking of progressives. They believe, as I suspect most people have believed in most places and periods, that there are better and worse ways of thinking and also that a culture or society is better to the extent that not-X (if right) is heard and X (if wrong) is not heard, and that while some penalties for saying X may be disproportionate (prison might be going too far), there's nothing wrong with the tyranny of the majority giving a firm steer towards thinking the right things.

I think pro-tolerance liberals have been too keen on 'process' arguments and too keen to say that they are not taking sides in what a good society looks like. In order to promote tolerance, liberals will have to embrace a view of a good society as one which includes diversity of views, even views now considered to be wrong/unacceptable/offensive, and they will have to 'lean' on both the state and private institutions (including the LibDems) to promote those kinds of outcomes. That's a tough sell for liberals who thought they were not advocating any kinds of outcome - but it's that or give up freedom of expression.

My thoughts related to this topic are here: https://furtheroralternatively.blogspot.com/2021/05/freedom-and-cancellation.html .

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts