Are there Liberal thinkers for good times and Liberal thinkers for hard times?

Politicians can be divided between those suited to good times and those suited to hard times, or so I suggested in a post I wrote here back in 2008.

Looking at some leading politicians of the day and of past days, I divided them like this:

Good times: Tony Blair, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osborne, David Miliband.

Hard times: Gordon Brown, Margaret Thatcher, Vince Cable, Denis Healey, Alistair Darling

We have lived in hard times for so long now that it's hard to know who among today's politicians would be more suited to good times, so I'm not sure this categorisation is useful today.

But I have been wondering if, among Liberal thinkers, there are some suited to good times and some suited to hard times.

The growing threat of Russian aggression in Europe makes Karl Popper and Isaiah Berlin look more relevant than they did 20 or 30 years ago. It's unfair to dismiss them as 'Cold War Liberals', as many on the left do, but their views were formed as a reaction to tyranny and the threat of tyranny.

By contrast, I am an admirer of the postmodern Liberal philosopher Richard Rorty, yet when I came to write about him for Liberator in 2017, I found I had growing doubts about him. I did question Rorty's account of George Orwell, but there was a more fundamental doubt that I steered away from.

It was whether postmodernism's relaxed view of truth was so appealing in a word where Trump was US President and the internet was choked with lies and conspiracy theories.

Rorty, it seemed, was a Liberal thinkers for good times, not hard times.

You might think of Mill as a believer in progress, and thus a good times man. But I remember writing a seminar paper about On Liberty in which I commented on its pessimistic tone. One reason Mill wanted freedom of thought and speech was that he was dissatisfied with the intellectual climate of the day.

There is definitely an element of "All great men are dead, and I'm not feeling too well myself", in Mark Twain's words, about On Liberty.

So if I put Mill in the hard times column, it's more about his temperament than the fine details of his philosophy. 

And, for the same reason, he is joined there by Charles Masterman. Though Masterman was a practical politician - he was the minister who spent countless hours taking Lloyd George's health insurance act through the Commons in the face of implacable opposition from the Conservatives and the medical profession - there is an air of melancholy about his writings - notably The Condition of England.

Jo Grimond, by contrast, has a sunny temperament and that gets him into the good times club.

What do you think? Is this distinction useful?

Six of the Best 956

"The story of Solidarity should also provide some hope for those of us who, four decades later, believe ourselves to be in politically impossible positions. There cannot be many more unlikely stories than the triumph of Solidarity, and the total collapse of the Communist empire it helped to bring about." Andrew Page marks the 40th birthday of the trade union that changed Polish history.

Oz Katerji argues that Jeremy Corbyn’s blunders over the Salisbury poisonings were central to his polling collapse.

"Cults, extremist political or religious ideologies and closed communities of all kinds draw their strength and their toxic influence by drawing people into an unhealthy relationship with leaders." Stephen Parsons looks at the mentality that lies behind recent scandals in the Church of England.

The New York Review of Books has an audio recording of a 2013 conference celebrating the work of the philosophers Isaiah Berlin, Stuart Hampshire and Bernard Williams.

A new archaeological dig began today at Shrewsbury Castle. Nigel Baker discusses what it may find, from  pre-Conquest chapel.to Thomas Telford's landscaping.

Luc Roeg discusses his father Nic's 1971 film Walkabout, which he appeared in as a small boy.

Six of the Best 899

"We need an agenda that’s more like an unconference – an opportunity for us to have open discussions, big and small, about where we are, where we want to be, and why we want to get there. Let’s have a blank slate and talk properly about what we’re doing." Nick Barlow believes the Lib Dem spring conference should not see business as usual.

Johnny Lyons argues that Isaiah Berlin's ideas have lost none of the bit of relevance.

"Prehistoric sites cannot, and should not, be viewed through a Brexit lens, whether leave or remain." Kenny Brophy does not appreciate seeing Jacob Rees-Mogg in a stone circle.

The lost rivers of London are well known, says David N. Lerner, but all cities have them. Opening them up offers a way of bringing back water and nature.

Katy Waldman of the New Yorker chooses her best books of 2019.

"The first songs most people hear as children are nursery rhymes and lullabies. The first songs Ahmet Zappa heard as a child were the shock-treatment tracks on Hot Rats." Jim Farber on the 50th anniversary of the Frank Zappa album.

How some Lib Dems misunderstand the rise of Justin Trudeau

Embed from Getty Images

Ed Davey writes on Liberal Democrat Voice:

If you compare our recent slow recovery with Canada’s Liberals’ fast-track to power, you’ll of course find quite a few differences – but for me the biggest is that Canada’s Liberal Party went big on reform – and grew massively as a result.

But how similar were positions the Canadian Liberals and the British Liberal Democrats faced a few years ago?

The answer is that they were not similar at all.

As the new issue of Liberator reminds us, the Canadian Liberals are their country's natural party of government, having been in power or the official opposition for all but four of the last 144 years.

So you could well argue that it would have been remarkable if the Canadian Liberals hadn't bounced back significantly after coming third in 2011.

Sadly, all this is a world away from the history of the Liberal Democrats and the parties that merged to form us.

There is an irony here. The Canadian Liberals' debacle at the 2011 federal election came after they had adopted another of the ideas being urged on the Liberal Democrats by the leadership. They appointed a leader from outside the political bubble.

Michael Ignatieiff - a distant kinsman of Nick Clegg - was an academic and broadcaster, known in Britain ("the thinking-woman's crumpet") from his spell as a television arts presenter. He also wrote a good biography of Isiah Berlin.

The Canadian Liberals' bounce-back from their unprecedented third place in 2011 was to turn to a leader who was so deep in the bubble it's a wonder he could breathe.

Justin Trudeau, of course, is the son of the former Canadian prime minister and Liberal leader Pierre Trudeau.

The Lib Dems should be open to new ideas from every quarter, but I am sceptical of the idea that the recent experience of the Canadian Liberals offers us a blueprint for guaranteed success.

Karl Popper on not tolerating intolerance

When the Soviet Union collapsed it seemed that liberal philosophers who came to prominence in the Cold War years, such as Karl Popper and Isaiah Berlin, would go permanently out of fashion.

But the rise of the far right across Europe, and the election of Donald Trump in the US, suggest that we can learn from thinkers who understood tyrannies of right and left.

Here is Karl Popper talking about the paradox of tolerance. The passage comes from volume 1 of The Open Society and its Enemies:

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. 

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. 

In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. 

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. 

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Six of the Best 644

"I believe that the Liberal Democrats provide a strong platform for building a centre-left politics in rapidly changing times. The Party’s mission of seeking to create a society that balances fundamental values of liberty, equality and community recognises that sound politics is not about the rigid implementation of political dogma but the struggle to find practical ways of realising our (sometimes conflicting) values." Gordon Lynch has left Labour and joined the Liberal Democrats - he has also made me see that the preamble to our constitution embraces Isaiah Berlin's argument for the incommensurability of liberal values.

Lucy Kellaway explains why she is leaving journalism to become a school teacher.

"Eric Tucker, a 35-year-old co-founder of a marketing company in Austin, Tex., had just about 40 Twitter followers. But his recent tweet about paid protesters being bused to demonstrations against President-elect Donald J. Trump fueled a nationwide conspiracy theory - one that Mr. Trump joined in promoting." Sapna Maheshwari offers a case study of how fake news goes viral.

Peter Bradshaw reviews a new documentary on Frank Zappa.

Two big mistakes led to the troubles of Durham County Cricket Club, argues Tim Wigmore.

Beyond the Last Man tells the strange tale of Haiti's appearance at the 1974 World Cup finals in West Germany.

Six of the Best 639

"We are living in dangerous times and it is the duty of all of us who believe in freedom and the rule of law to make our voices heard. I may be branded a 'remoaner' or even a traitor but now is not a time for liberals to be bullied into silence." Stephen Williams on why the judges were right - and the Daily Mail wrong - about Article 50.

"The Leave campaign has had a monopoly over the value of freedom at the rhetorical level. but when it comes to actual arguments, the campaign’s understanding of freedom is one-sided and misleading." Alexis Papazoglou sends us back to Isaiah Berlin.

More than half of local newspapers do not have a court reporter, finds Jon Robins.

Arestia Rosenberg visits Liberland, a libertarian enclave between Serbia and Croatia she says is on its way to becoming the world’s newest recognised country,

Paul Dobraszczyk takes us under Liverpool to explore the Williamson Tunnels.

"The opening scenes of A Matter of Life and Death are among the most audacious and moving ever confected by the cinematic magicians Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger." Brian Dillon celebrates the film's 70th birthday.

Happy birthday John Stuart Mill

Embed from Getty Images

Time to post a link to an old Liberator article of mine:

So read Rorty, Popper and Berlin. Read L.T. Hobhouse if you want and pretend to have read T.H.Green if you must. But above all read the Mill of On Liberty.

Individuality is not the opposite of belonging to social groups

I was rather pleased with my post "Why Twitter doesn't work, Labour won't win and the Lib Dems are irrationally cheerful."

But I was aware there was what looked like a weak point in its argument:

[Brooks] goes on to say we should "scale back the culture of autonomy," which makes my liberal hackles rise and suggests Brooks too is in danger of wanting the state to eclipse every other social authority. 

As a liberal I believe in individuality, and we express our individuality through the groups we choose to join. There must be a liberal route to the revival of social bonds.

What I had in mind there is something that turns out to have been written in 2004, the first year of this blog's existence.

There I said:

I am increasingly aware that what I value is not so much individualism as individuality - the flourishing of different sorts of people and different ways of life. (I believe I came across this distinction in Michael Ignatieff's biography of Isaiah Berlin. It is a useful one.) 

It is a concept that has something to do with the old schoolmaster's ideal of "character" and I suspect that the development of individuality requires strong institutions, such as schools that are not under central control. Teenage culture does suggest that individualism does not always produce individuality; and it is undeniable that one of the clearest ways we choose to express our individuality is through he groups we decide to join.

I should record that when I later flicked through Ignatieff's book I could not find any such passage. But whoever thought of it - it may even have been me - this is a useful distinction.

Last year I posted the video above, where the social psychologist Alex Haslam argues that you are the groups you belong to.

You are the groups you belong to

In the early days of this blog I wrote:

I am increasingly aware that what I value is not so much individualism as individuality - the flourishing of different sorts of people and different ways of life. (I believe I came across this distinction in Michael Ignatieff's biography of Isaiah Berlin. It is a useful one.) 

It is a concept that has something to do with the old schoolmaster's ideal of "character" and I suspect that the development of individuality requires strong institutions, such as schools that are not under central control. Teenage culture does suggest that individualism does not always produce individuality; and it is undeniable that one of the clearest ways we choose to express our individuality is through he groups we decide to join.

This video from the social psychologist Professor Alex Haslam seems relevant to that argument. He argues that it is our membership of particular social groups that gives us our identity.

The Legacy of Isaiah Berlin, Stuart Hampshire and Bernard Williams

On 22 June 2013 The New York Review held a free conference at Wadham College, Oxford, to celebrate its fiftieth anniversary and to honour the lives, work, and legacy of Isaiah Berlin, Stuart Hampshire and Bernard Williams.

Co-sponsored by The New York Review of Books Foundation, Fritt Ord, All Souls College, The Europaeum, Wadham College and Wolfson College, the event included remarks by Avishai Margalit, Alan Ryan, Mary Warnock, John Gray, Helena Kennedy, Mark Lilla, Naomi Eilan, Edward Skidelsky, Jerome Bruner, Samuel Scheffler, Jeremy Waldron, Timothy Garton Ash, and Marc Stears. The sessions were chaired by Robert Silvers, John Vickers, Hermione Lee, and Ken Macdonald.

You can listen to the proceedings on the The New York Review of Books website.

Michael Ignatieff on Isaiah Berlin

Isaiah Berlin's pluralism

Philosophy Bites has a podcast of an interview with Henry Hardy about Isaiah Berlin and his theory of pluralism.

Berlin argued that the tragedy of the modern Liberal is that there is no guarantee that the values we cherish - notably freedom and equality - are mutually compatible. More than that, when those values conflict there is no formula that will tell us which value should trump the other,

I think Berlin is right, and no amount being told to read T.H. Green or L.T.Hobhouse by people who have not read those thinkers themselves, will convince me he is wrong.

Richard Grayson on Mill, Hobhouse and T.H. Green

Because of Charles Kennedy's indolence as leader, Richard Grayson had a large say in the running of the party for many years. Which makes him a slightly unconvincing representative of the party's grassroots in today's front-page Observer report by Anushka Asthana and Allegra Stratton.

Richard Grayson has an article of his own on the Guardian website in which he complains:

all we hear from Nick Clegg is lots about John Stuart Mill. Rarely, if ever, is there talk of the Liberals cited by Ed Miliband, nor the originators of social liberalism such as LT Hobhouse or TH Green. A philosophy which seldom goes beyond Mill is firmly stuck in the 1850s, as if more than a century of social liberalism never happened.

The explanation for this can largely be found in an article on Mill that I wrote for Liberator in 2007:

It is fashionable to name check L.T. Hobhouse and T.H. Green, but I suspect that few who do so have really read their works. Hobhouse’s Liberalism is approachable, but hardly profound when set against Mill, while Green is next to unreadable. In part this is because Green’s heyday came during that brief period in the late nineteenth century when Idealism was the dominant force in British philosophy, and it is hard for we 21st-century realists to make much of him as a result. Equally, however, there was a tension in Green’s thought between his espousal of liberty and the enthusiasms, such as Temperance, which he derived from his religious views. The suspicion must be that he sometimes found it convenient to take refuge in obfuscation.

In short, Green is unreadable and Hobhouse is not that good. But I do strongly recommend Peter Clarke's Liberals and Social Democrats, which looks at the intellectual circles of which Hobhouse was a member.

I was also a little amused that Richard complains that Nick Clegg is stuck in the past, but can offer no alternative thinkers more recent than Hobhouse (who died in 1929) and Green (who died in 1882 ). I wonder what Professor Grayson would make of a student essay that presented these two as representatives of modernity?

In my Liberator article I did manage to mention more recent names: Karl Popper, Isaiah Berlin and Richard Rorty (who had only just died when I wrote it). But what we really need are some current-day Liberal thinkers.

Adam Curtis and Isaiah Berlin

Having previously welcomed Adam Curtis's series The Trap as "television for grown ups" I now have to express my disappointment with the third episode in particular.

It took Isaiah Berlin's distinction between positive and negative liberty, and argued that the West had embraced the latter concept as a philosophical bulwark against Soviet communism during the Cold War. Further, is still the ruling philosophy of the Blair and Bush governments today.

Much as I admire Berlin, it is impossible to deny that the standing he enjoyed during his lifetime was bound up with the Cold War. But to argue that Tony Blair is motivated by a belief in negative liberty is simply bizarre.

As Not Saussure writes:

Much of Blair’s legacy, it seems to me, is precisely a demonstration of precisely how a doubtless well-meaning determination for positive liberty can lead to a huge growth in arbitrary authority, intolerance and hierarchy, both at home and abroad. We will make you happier and more secure, whether you want to cooperate or not, which is why all these CCTV cameras, ASBOs, summary penalties and ID cards are for your own good, if only you’d bloody well realise it…..

After all, this programme went out in a week during which the government had proposed criminalising those who do not stay in education until they are 18.

But Curtis's account of Berlin's ideas was inadequate too. As the same Not Saussure article reminds us, Berlin did not present negative and positive liberty as polar opposites. Nor did he argue that any attempt to reform society would inevitably end in tyranny.

For this reason Curtis was wide of the mark when he ended his series with the words "Isaiah Berlin was wrong. Not all attempts to change the world for the better end in tyranny." All Berlin asked was that we should be aware of the dangers in such attempts.

There is a deeper point here. The two greatest liberal thinkers at work in twentieth-century Britain were Berlin and Karl Popper. While both were reformists, they were convinced anti-revolutionary thinkers.

Popper's follower Bryan Magee gives a good summation of the reasons behind this position in his Confessions of a Philosopher:

There is a situational logic to revolutions. Disparate groups unite to overthrow an existing regime, but once they have succeeded in doing so the cause that brought them togther has gone, and they then fight one another to fill the power vacuum that they themselves have created. These internecine struggles, usually savage, among erstwhile allies perpetuate the revolutionary breakdown of society far beyond the overthrow of the old regime, and delay the establishment of a new order.

The population at large begins to feel threatened by unending social chaos, and in these circumstances a strong man who can bring the warring factions to heel and impose order comes forward and meets with widespread support, or at least acquiescence. Thus a revolution carried out in the name of civil liberties, or equality, or to bring a tyranny to and end, will itself end by putting into a Cromwell, a Napoleon or a Stalin.

All revolutions are uncontrollable, and all revolutions are betrayed. It is in their nature that these things should be so. This fact makes belief in violent revolution as a means of changing society not only irrational and delusory but profoundly immoral.

All very reasonable, you might think. Yet the Left in Britain is still drawn to these adolescent fantasies of political revolution, which is why its members so often dismiss profound liberal thinkers like Popper and Berlin as Tories or extreme right-wingers.

Edmund Burke

I have added a quotation from my new hero Edmund Burke to Serendib.

I make the same point against Rousseau in Defending Families. Such ad hominem arguments often sound cheap - Paul Johnson filled a book with them in his Intellectuals - but Burke's identification of Rousseau's hypocrisy as a form of vanity lifts him above all that.

Besides I love the phrases "the tribute which opulence owes to genius" and "Thousands admire the sentimental writer; the affectionate father is hardly known in his parish."

The Conservatives claim Burke as their spiritual father, but I doubt if many of them read him. For most of his career he was the intellectual leader of the Whigs, only breaking from them over his opposition to the French Revolution.

Burke was right in that he foresaw the Terror that was to follow it, much as anarchists thinkers identified the totalitarianism inherent in Marx. He wrote his Reflections on the Revolution in France, not as a reaction to the Terror, but in 1790 when the consequences of the Revolution still seemed benign to many British observers.

It is time that we reclaimed Burke. After all, the most important 20th century Liberals are also anti-revolutionaries; think of Karl Popper and Isaiah Berlin. Only those with ideology envy - those who really wish they were socialists - will feel uneasy at welcoming Burke home.