Liberals abuse our language too

Tristan Mills has dug up a fascinating little quotation from the 1950s. Democrat politician Joseph S Clark, then Mayor of Philadelphia, misuses the word “liberal” to mean “one who believes in utilizing the full force of government for the advancement of social, political, and economic justice” – a big-state viewpoint which would unsettle many modern-day British liberals. For Tristan, the word “liberal” has been corrupted from both sides: on the one hand, socialists and statists have tried to claim it for their own; on the other hand, conservatives abuse it as a slur against the left in general.

You don’t even need to go back to 1953 to dig up examples. In his rather underwhelming documentary on anti-Semitism last week, Richard Littlejohn used the term “liberals” to describe the people who marched through London last year with banners praising Hezbollah – that well-known bastion of religious freedom and women’s equality. (Dynamite has a provocative review here.) Earlier on this year, Peter Hitchens wrote that “a modern British liberal will defend to the death your right to agree with him. Disagree, and he will call the police.” There certainly are people like that in Britain, such as the Diversity Officer at Wyre Borough Council, but they sure as heck aren't liberals. Are conservatives trying to smear genuine liberals by associating us with these cretins, or is it an honest case of mistaken identity?

The answer is far simpler – it’s lazy use of English. For right-wing commentators, it’s easy to throw the term “liberal” at progressive thinkers across the spectrum. It saves them the effort of exploring the differences between liberalism, social democracy and socialism. It lets them attack a broad range of opponents at the same time, without having to descend to the level of engaging with their views and providing a well-informed criticism.

But it isn’t just liberals who are the victims of this intellectual laziness. Throughout this article, I’ve used the terms “conservative” and “right-wing” indiscriminately, glossing over all the nuances. The “right” of British politics ranges from moralising traditionalists through to hardcore libertarians, and everything in between. The Conservative Party is the home of both Edward Leigh and Alan Duncan; of both IDS and Ken Clarke. On so many issues, they are poles apart: whether the state should be dominant or constrained; whether morality is a matter or private judgement or public interest. The term “right-wing” can’t possibly do justice to all this variety.

What’s more, I’ve held up Peter Hitchens and Richard Littlejohn as flag-bearers for conservatism. They certainly represent a particular brand of conservatism, but they’re individual commentators with their own views, and they can’t stand for every Tory in the country. Peter Hitchens would raise the age of consent for same-sex couples to 21; something tells me that Iain Dale probably wouldn’t. Just as liberals don’t chant the Guardian’s editorial line in unison, it can’t be fair for us to put the words of the Mail in the mouths all conservatives.

The trouble is not just this sort of laziness, but also the tribalism of UK politics. We’re all in little gangs, with our own logo and colour, and it’s very easy to think of ourselves as being “good” and our political opponents as being generically “bad”. As long as we know that we’re fighting the good fight, we’re not that bothered to know the fine detail of what we’re fighting against. It gives us a sense of comfort; it motivates us to get up and go campaigning; but it isn’t especially healthy for political debate.

Equally unhelpful is the increasing need for political parties to have a short and snappy message. With rolling 24-hour news, and increasingly professional and PR-driven campaigning, political parties have a very short space to get a quick and easy message across. Why get dragged into a balanced and detailed debate, when a lazy generalisation will win far more votes?

Tristan is right to complain about the misuse of “liberalism” to mean almost its exact opposite – but it’s far too simplistic to see this as a right-wing smear against the Lib Dems. It’s symptomatic of a far wider problem with the culture of British politics – a problem which severely threatens the quality of our national debate.

Gay rights and Christianity: equal before the law?

Helen and Joe Roberts, Christians from Lancashire, have been awarded £10,000 in an out-of-court settlement after taking legal action against Wyre Borough Council. The Roberts family found out that the council was using taxpayers’ money to “promote homosexuality”, by printing information leaflets about gay rights. They asked a council officer to put out Christian literature alongside these leaflets – and not only did he refuse, he made a formal complaint of homophobia to the police. Shocked at being investigated for a hate crime, the couple took legal action, and now, a year later, the council and police have apologised and settled.

The Christian press has been parading this as a victory for freedom of speech and religious practice. The Roberts family themselves claim that all they were after was “equal treatment” for their Christian views. They believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, and that it’s unfair for the council to weigh in on one side of a moral debate using public funds.

I disagree. Supporting LGB rights isn’t about taking one side of a moral argument. I personally think it’s utterly crazy to believe that being lesbian, gay or bisexual is in any way wrong – but if other people feel that homosexuality is immoral, that’s their own private matter. The important thing is that nobody forces their moral views on anyone else.

If you agree with me on that, then you must surely support gay rights, whether you think that being gay is morally acceptable or not. If people are supposed to make moral choices for themselves, then they need the freedom to go with it, and that means complete parity of treatment for LGB people.

Aha, say the Robertses, but the local council are telling people that homosexuality is morally acceptable. This is implicit in the fact that they are promoting it. They continue: Morality is the foundation of democracy and when you do away with morality, your democracy goes down the Suwannee and you end up with immorality and then anarchy.

I can’t help feeling that they have completely missed the point. It’s impossible to promote homosexuality, because people don’t consciously decide to be gay. (With prejudiced attitudes like the Roberts family's out there, I'm not sure why anyone would choose to!) The council’s leaflets were actually promoting equal rights – which is a key component of the freedom that lets people decide for themselves on moral issues.

Mr and Mrs Roberts are biting the hand that feeds them. The secular, amoral society that promotes gay rights is the same secular, amoral society that allows them to have their own views on homosexuality, however unpleasant, without being criminalised. (Remember, the Roberts family’s complaint against the police centred around the fact that they hadn’t broken any law.)

The council’s Diversity Officer completely also missed the point, every bit as much as the Robertses. He argued that Christian literature is offensive to gay and lesbian people. Again, it’s entirely the wrong attitude. It’s far better to live in a morally neutral society, where you risk coming across conflicting viewpoints, than live in a society where the moral majority can shut the minority groups up. This sort of politically-correct offence-taking can only harm the cause of free speech, especially when the police get sent round to somebody’s house to investigate them merely for having rather bigoted views.

The whole debacle has given the Christian right undeserved publicity, and a chance to pretend they’re sticking up for the same civil liberties they would dearly love to suppress. It’s made the council look like thought police, and it’s made the police look ridiculously heavy-handed.

It’s also ended up with £10,000 of taxpayers’ money being given to the Robertses, who have promptly donated the whole lot to the Christian Institute, a political lobby group which wants to see conservative Christian values made into UK law. I’m sure the Institute is at odds with the views of council taxpayers in Lancashire, far more so than fairly innocent leaflets explaining the detail of anti-discrimination laws, but the Roberts family’s thoroughly principled position on the appropriate use of public money seems to have quietly melted away …