Conservatives and Libertarians – How do you spot the difference?
A little over a week or so ago, John Elledge sparked off a fair degree of consternation in libertarian ranks by making the all too common and, to an extent, understandable mistake of confusing genuine philosophical libertarians with those on the conservative right who’ve co-opted the term ‘libertarian’ as a a pseudo-intellectual fig-leaf for their belief in the merits of tax cuts and an unfettered right to air their bigoted opinions with total impunity.
John’s post prompted an interesting and, at times, heated debate in comments, one that included a rare off-Samizdata appearance by Perry de Havilland, along with a commentary by Bella Gerens (aka Mrs Devil) that’s well worth a look, but what neither provide – and to be fair I doubt that this was Bella’s objective – is a clear and readily digestible exposition of the central difference(s) between a libertarian ( or liberal, for that matter) and a conservative.
With libertarian ideas becoming more and more influential as many of us start to look beyond the established, and in many respects increasingly discredited, political order towards a ‘new politics’ of some description, it strikes me that there’s a need to bottom out this difference if we’re raise the level of debate above that of fighting of who’s most adept at burning straw men and that, in turn, brings me a couple of quotations from two of the great political antagonists of the late 18th Century which, as I see it, articulate exactly the kind of distinction we should be mindful of.
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” – Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
“Men are qualified for civil liberties in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites: in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity” – Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
You may disagree, but as I see it those two short quotations more than adequately sum up the fundamental difference between the archetypal liberal/libertarian and conservative view of both liberty and, indeed, of human nature.
For Paine, liberty, and the rights and freedoms associated with it, is a universal principle and, as important, indivisible. Liberty is for everyone, irrespective of their station in life or their personal and/or moral character. It is natural right, albeit one that other liberal, and particularly, contractarian thinkers, who were deeply sceptical of the Lockean doctrine of natural rights, were able to derive by other means.
Universalism of this kind is the defining characteristic of classical, enlightenment, liberalism, in which both modern liberalism and libertarianism are, to varying degrees, rooted.
Burke, on the other hand, sets out the classical conservative position on liberty, and by extension on human rights, one that holds that civil liberties, in particular, should be dispensed to general population in to their moral rectitude and personal/collective character.
In the modern political idiom that principle is most frequently to be found in the populist political rhetoric that has more or less defined the public discourse on criminal justice since the introduction of the markedly universalist Human Rights Act. Whenever a contrast is drawn between the presumed ‘rights of victims’ or the ‘rights of law-abiding citizens’ and the ‘rights of criminals/terrorists’ then what you’re seeing is latter-day Burkean conservativism in action – and that is true irrespective of whether the individual invoking this heavily qualified view of liberty is an actual conservative or, as has frequently been the case in recent years, a minister in the current New Labour government.
In fact this is no less true when you find it reflected in Rosa Luxemburg’s famous, and endearingly pithy, critique of the kind of post-revolutionary Bolshevism that would eventually spawn Stalinism.
Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party — though they are quite numerous — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. The essence of political freedom depends not on the fanatics of ‘justice’, but rather on all the invigorating, beneficial, and detergent effects of dissenters. If ‘freedom’ becomes ‘privilege’, the workings of political freedom are broken.
All of which explains, in part, why many on the left regard Stalin as a conservative rather than a socialist or Marxist.
So, it you’re at all unsure as to how to spot a Tory masquerading as a libertarian, just ask them whether they believe that victims of crime, or just plain old law-abiding citizens have different rights to criminals.
If the answer’s ‘yes’, then you’ve got yourself a Tory (or a cabinet minister).
If the answer’s ‘no’ and they go to explain that both have the same fundamental rights but that the criminal’s freedom to exercise those rights may be legitimately, and temporarily, constrained in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others, then you’ve got yourself a liberal or libertarian.
Simples.
20 questions we should ask the BNP
The Guardian is reporting that the BNP is going to face more problems tomorrow when a website publishes its membership list again. Of course, I can only observe internal in-fighting and trouble at the BNP with glee.
I disagree with Peter Hain’s objection to the BNP appearing on Question Time tomorrow Thursday because it’s too late and just looks like an attempt at censorship. The BBC has been toying with giving the BNP primetime slots for quite a while and keep making excuses for their journalists’ sloppy questioning: so in one sense this is no worse than what has already happened.
Tomorrow night I’ll be running a live debate here and posting on Twitter during QT. I feel Nick Griffin will do well. But to help the others, and as a reference point for journalists in the future, I’ve prepared a list of 20 questions aimed at the BNP.
continue reading… »
Moir: 21,000 complain, PCC confirms enquiry
The PCC will consider complaints made against Jan Moir’s article in the Daily Mail we can reveal.
A statement was emailed to Libcon and posted on the PCC website to confirm the unusual move by the Press Complaints Commission.
Writers speculated on other blogs, including at LibdemVoice, that the PCC might not intervene because its remit stated:
We normally accept complaints only from those who are directly affected by the matters about which they are complaining.
However, I contacted the PCC to say the case could not be considered “normal”.
A PCC spokesperson emailed back with this statement, also saying that over 21,000 people had complained about the article.
Full statement
PCC will consider complaints about Jan Moir column in the Daily Mail
Over the weekend, the PCC received more than 21,000 complaints about the column by Jan Moir published in the Daily Mail on Friday 16th October headlined “A strange, lonely and troubling death” and (initially) online “Why there was nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death”, which discussed the death of Boyzone singer Stephen Gately.
These complaints follow widespread discussion of the subject on social networking sites – especially Twitter – and represent by far the highest number of complaints ever received about a single article in the history of the Commission.
The PCC generally requires the involvement of directly-affected parties in its investigations, and it has pro-actively contacted representatives of Boyzone – who are in touch with Stephen Gately’s family – since shortly after his death. Any complaint from the affected parties will naturally be given precedence by the Commission, in line with its normal procedures.
If, for whatever reason, those individuals do not wish to make a complaint, the PCC will in any case write to the Daily Mail for its response to the more general complaints from the public before considering whether there are any issues under the Code to pursue.
As the PCC will not be in a position to engage in direct correspondence with every complainant, it is issuing this statement to make clear what action it will be taking. It will make a further public statement when it has considered the matter.
This seems to be a reversal of the PCC’s position. Sarah Ditum points out that on Friday the PCC emailed back with a different response:
On initial examination, it would appear that you are, therefore, a third party to the complaint, and wemay [sic] not be able to pursue your concerns further. However, if you feel that your complaint touches on claims that do not relate directly to Mr Gately or his family, please let us know, making clear how they raise a breach of the Code of Practice. If you feel that the Commission should waive its third party rules, please make clear why you believe this.
At Next Left, Sunder Katwala says that despite the about-face, the PCC’s reputation and its conduct should still be questioned:
Taking the biggest ever virtual mail-sack of press complaints and saying “nothing to do with us, guv’nor” – would bring the PCC itself and the whole status quo system of press regulation into deep public disrepute.
…
That is because it will, of course, be a surprise to many non-media insiders that the press complaints commission does not consider complaints from the public merely on the grounds that the articles are in breach of the PCC code which the newspapers have signed up to.
More
Media Monkey: Who is real Jan Moir on Twitter?
Postal workers: right to strike
The 48-hour postal strike planned for later this week represents ‘a suicidal move’ for the Communication Workers Union, according to Lord Mandelson. A leader writer on the Financial Times compares the CWU to Turkeys voting not just for Christmas but Thanksgiving as well.
But if any fatalities ensue, they will not be self-inflicted. As a leaked PowerPoint presentation documents, Royal Mail management has already drawn up plans to derecognise the union, and is ready to make good on the threat by recruiting 30,000 strikebreakers.
Meanwhile, TNT – Britain’s largest private mail operator – is also gearing up to handle a slice of the work. Trials have already taken place in several UK cities, according to one leading trade press title.
continue reading… »
Civil partnerships are the new Black friends
If we’ve learned anything over the last few days its surely that there are certain circles in which claiming to have been in favour of the introduction of civil partnerships is very much like having Black friends.
That, broadly speaking, seems to be the impression created by Jan Moir’s weaselling non-apology for Friday’s reprehensible commentary on the untimely death of Stephen Gately.
Its certainly the impression I took from from her closing remarks:
In writing that ‘it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’ I was suggesting that civil partnerships – the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting – have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.
In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.
We’ve seen, already, that Moir’s on the record ‘support’ for civil partnerships is, at best, desperately shallow and voyeuristic and it takes very little effort at all to discover that she’s plenty of previous form to be taken into account; from railing against the BBC for making Saturday night altogether too gay for her tastes, to suggesting that Elton John’s personal success, much of came while he was still heavily closeted, negates his criticism of religious homophobia, all the way this particularly spiteful commentary on the private lives of a number of Liberal Democrat MPs, past and present, which includes a particular fine example of the homophobic non-sequitur.
continue reading… »
Labour betrays the workers, again
With last week’s Tory conference peppered with proposals coming straight from the Thatcherite book, Labour was handed a slight chance to make up some lost ground. Instead, they’ve just scored another massive electoral own goal.
This weekend, in fact, to the cheers of the CBI and other employers’ organisations, Labour announced they’re backtracking on their promises to finally adopt the European Working Directive, a set of measures aimed at protecting the most vulnerable workers in Britain while, at the same time, preventing full-time staff being undercut by cheap agency recruits.
The government has now said that the Agency Workers Directive will not be implemented until October 2011, meaning that it will be left to the whim of the next Tory government – meaning, in turn, that it will probably be scrapped.
continue reading… »
Right-whingers cry censorship over Moir
The outrage over Jan Moir’s article in the Daily Mail has also brought predictable responses from right-wingers: indifference or sneering at lefties.
Presumably annoyed that angry lefties had scored a significant hit against homophobia in the always hated Daily Mail, the response was entirely to be expected.
Tim Worstall wrote: Stephen Gately and Jan Moir: apparently I’m supposed to be outraged, and got subsequently shredded in his own comments.
At Mr Eugenides the commenters took the outrage as: ZOMG ebil lefties want censorship! See, I told you they wanted to live under Stalin!
The Telegraph’s Damian Thompson, while accepting Jan Moir had written a “truly poisonous article”, could not resist a dig at the left in a similar vein:
Socially liberal new media reckon they have humiliated a bigoted, spiteful dinosaur (and embarrassed the Daily Mail, as well).
I spoke just now to a well-respected gay journalist whose own anti-Moir tweets have been RT’d all over the place. He did make one interesting point: “You wonder whether the question of free speech has crossed these people’s minds. Is this really a matter for the Press Complaints Commission?”
…
But, my God, the social media world harbours some pretty smug and self-righteous individuals. The words “I’m sorry, but you’re not allowed to say that!” are never far from their lips – or, to put it another way, only liberals are allowed to be offensive.
Damn those nasty lefties and their censoring ways!
Why is Camera-off backing off from TV debates?
After the initial hype around TV debates, it looks like David Camer-on is getting cold feet, even though he was earlier doing his best to goad Gordon Brown into a TV debate. On Saturday the Telegraph’s Melissa Kite reported that the Tory leader was morphing into Camera-off and had rejected the idea of TV debates:
Mr Cameron has proposed the most slimline option, involving one debate with all three leaders. But Mr Brown has told broadcasters he wants at least six. He and Mr Cameron would go head to head in one, Mr Brown would face Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, in another while Mr Cameron would face Mr Clegg in a third. Then there would be three more debates between Mr Brown and Mr Cameron focused on a different issue each time, such as the economy.
Presumably Mr Cameron only wanted one debate so he could illustrate his soundbite skills and escape without elaborating on silly things such as policy. Unsurprisingly the Tory blogs have been very silent on the issue.
The article added:
Mr Cameron believes that the Labour strategy is to have so many debates that the Tories will eventually unravel under the sheer volume of questions. Mr Brown is said to be particularly keen to put Mr Osborne under the spotlight because he is seen by Labour as the Tories’ “weakest link”.
For “sheer volume of questions”, read: ‘forcing them into concrete policy proposals’.
continue reading… »
Conservative affirmative action
This is a lovely example of conservative principles, taken from a conversation with leading American conservative thinker Irving Kristol:
“The talk turned to Irving’s son, William Kristol, then Dan Quayle’s chief of staff, and how he got his start in politics. Irving recalled how he talked to his friend Harvey Mansfield at Harvard, who secured William a place there as both an undergrad and graduate student; how he talked to Pat Moynihan, then Nixon’s domestic policy adviser, and got William an internship at the White House; how he talked to friends at the RNC [Republican National Committee] and secured a job for William after he got his Harvard Ph.D.; and how he arranged with still more friends for William to teach at Penn and the Kennedy School of Government.”
“With that, Prof. Katznelson recalled, he then asked Irving what he thought of affirmative action.
‘I oppose it,’ Irving replied. ‘It subverts meritocracy.’ “
Watch: White House keeps attacking Fox News
Last week US media-land erupted when the White House seemed to “declare war” on Fox News by challenging its legitimacy as a news operation.
Many assumed the fracas was just a one-off and the White House was unlikely to press the point any further. Wrong.
Today on various cable news channels White House staffers continued their assault on Fox News.
Both David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel said they were concerned other news organizations did not follow Fox’s hyper-partisan approach to covering news.
Axelrod said the White House would continue to have its officials appear on Fox, but that their approach to the network is that “it’s not really news”:
David Axelrod on ABC
Rahm Emanual on CNN
via HuffingtonPost
Michael Tomasky recently wrote on the Guardian that the White House war with Fox News was winnable.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» The real agenda behind Telegraph’s abortion investigation
» How Scotland Yard monitors prying bloggers and journalists
» When disabled people want to work – employers can hold the back
» Revealed: the reality behind Workfare and why it doesn’t work
» Job snob? No, I’ve got the T-shirt
» Why country-by-country reporting matters to our wellbeing
» If Unions want to become stronger, they need to modernise
» Why work “reforms” in Spain are a warning for workers across Europe
» Five things you need to know about the NHS bill
» Bigger. Fatter. Gypsier. More Racist.
» Laziness levels in Britain getting lazier, wails government
|
62 Comments 14 Comments 23 Comments 8 Comments 24 Comments 16 Comments 16 Comments 83 Comments 203 Comments 85 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » Paul McGlynn posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » Jason Brickley posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » Liberal Conspiracy posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » Chaise Guevara posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Eric Marcus posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Mo Ali posted on Watch: Obama sings the blues at White House » anarchic_teapot posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Pablo Navarrete posted on How Scotland Yard monitors prying bloggers and journalists » Rob posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Peter Ahern posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Jessica posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Clemency Evans posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Humphrey Cushion posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Humphrey Cushion posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » the a&e charge nurse posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation |
