Fit for the future

Over the years, the term ‘woke’ has attached itself to a variety of cultural sensibilities. Now, however, it is chiefly a term of abuse on social media – second only to its more obviously offensive cousin, ‘libtard’. In the context of a political reorientation toward authoritarian populism, liberal values, ideas and passions are increasingly being blamed for Labour’s struggle to retain voters – with many arguing the lesson to learn is that adhering to them is the reason for Trump’s ascendancy and the collapse of the democrats in America.

Whether extoling the benefits of immigration, speaking up for trans inclusion or even just querying an all-male panel, you can hear the eyes roll and – or so reactionaries would have you think – the votes leaving the ballot box. As the backlash against progressive ideals continues to builds steam around the world, liberalism is increasingly portrayed as just a failed experiment in being nice.

Yet there is another story to tell. Throughout our history, liberalism has informed landmark Labour legislation that has changed the lives of millions for the better. The legalisation of homosexuality, an end to the death penalty, and more recently the Equalities Act and the Human Rights Act all feature on the list of achievements of previous Labour governments. While some in Blue Labour argue that liberalism should find no home at all in the PLP at all if it is to appeal to the working class, others ask: without it, what is the point of Labour at all?

How did we get into this mess? Partly, because liberalism’s amorphous nature means it is easy to mischaracterise. Traditionally painted as a concern for the agency of the individual, liberalism has suffered dilution from both the left and the right. Some on the left also worry about its connection to the ‘dirty secret’ of collaboration between liberal associations and trade unionists around the time of the birth of the Labour party: parliamentary candidates stood representing both at the turn of the 20th century. John Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge, who both provided key planks of the Labour-initiated postwar settlement, were card-carrying Liberals. Yet liberal links were and are viewed with suspicion in Labour circles.

Importantly, the liberalism of the Labour movement is far-removed from the opportunistic attitude of the Liberal Democrats. Theirs is a politics that values the rights of the individual only insofar as there is political gain to be had and a misleading bar chart to be drawn. Nor is it the economic liberalism of the right, which champions the free market and ownership of personal property above all. This stands in stark contrast with a social liberalism that intervenes to protect individuals from the very impact of the unequal distribution of such goods.

The liberal tradition on the left rests on a simple premise – that enshrining the rights of individuals, in contrast to the collective, helps them build a better world. Of course, many on the right value the preservation and protection of the rights of the individual as the foundation of their definition of the good society. But for the liberal left, such rights are more than a foundation – citizens must also have the social and economic resources to realise their rights.

What does all this mean in practice? At their most coherent, social liberals ask, when faced with injustice in society: how can we best give individuals the tools to emancipate themselves? The Equalities Act is not about telling someone how to ice a cake, whatever the Daily Mail may claim. It is simply a way to ensure everyone is free to go about their day and participate in society – whether being able to get on a bus in a wheelchair or not be discriminated against when trying to get a school place because of your religious faith.

If liberalism is about ending oppression and freeing people from the pressures inequalities create, how has income to be associated with telling people how to behave or else be ‘cancelled’? Demanding that someone is either ‘for’ or ‘against’ a cause is fundamentally illiberal, since it requires conformity, not consent. Yet when there is little confidence in democratic processes to help facilitate conversation, shouting louder is often all that is left to win the argument.

Liberals need to push back on this trend, not least because, perhaps paradoxically, liberalism provides the foundation for the strongest progressive response to the far right. Populism tells the public that their fate is beyond their control and finds someone else to blame – often, the story goes, a cabal of elites has imprisoned them in a world in which they pay the price for the welfare of others, whether immigrants, women or people of colour. Its proponents fill the air with clickbait political claims about how being freed from these scapegoats will relieve them of this burden. Reclaiming liberalism from the wild west of current political discussion starts with being clearer – and prouder – about what social liberalism is and is not, and how it holds as sacrosanct the right to disagree.

Given the evidence diversity nourishes and grows economic and social prosperity, liberals must also set out how and why living in a world where difference is suppressed offers no positive future for anyone. That story cannot be told at the expense of helping all citizens achieve their own goals – the best way to fight the nihilism of the far right is to inspire the excitement of liberation that the left can offer. To show people at the sharp end of change, in word and deed, that they can have agency because they can use their rights to challenge injustice and make progress.

With the Human Rights Act itself now being contested – even amongst some on the left – the importance of mechanisms for individual citizens to protect themselves from overbearing governments has never been more stark. The impartial enforcement of human rights is the best way to give everyone equal status as decision makers in our democracy. Human rights are, apart from anything else, about the barriers that can silence voices. Recognising this does not mean being uncritical of or unthinking about how human rights legislation is applied. It does, however, mean calling out those who want to scrap the HRA: what rights do they think they and their peers should no longer have? And what will that mean for free speech?

With so many feeling unheard by their elected representatives– and being told they are right to feel so by populists of all stripes – liberalism needs a reboot. Its focus on protecting individuals from the state and dismantling inequalities of power by giving people rights with which to fight back must be renewed. Only then can its proponents ensure that liberalism shapes this Labour government as it did in previous generations. Rights-based frameworks are intended to free people to lead the lives they want, not imprison them in a world of woke madness. As the screaming about things going ‘too far’ gathers apace, we should not be ashamed to stand up for our liberal ideals –and shout about them, not at each other.

Image credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr