Radical Liberalism: The Lost Political Tradition

The Struggle for Freedom and Democracy

Liberalism is one of the oldest political traditions. Its roots stretch back to 1688. Far from being a philosophy of the status quo, liberalism has a rich radical history. For centuries it was the philosophy of radical political and social change. It is time that the lost political tradition of radical liberalism was rediscovered.

The father of liberalism, John Locke, laid the foundations for the philosophy in his Second Treatise of Government in 1689. Government was only to be justified through the consent of the people and should any government violate the fundamental rights to life, liberty and property; then the citizenry had a right of revolution. Right from the beginning, there were two aspects of liberalism which often came into conflict with each other. These were the political aspects such as liberty, individual rights and government by consent; and the economic aspects such as private property, capitalism and a limited state. The political aspects became radical liberalism and the economic aspects became laissez-faire liberalism or modern day neoliberalism.

In 1776, the American revolutionaries took up arms against the British Empire. In the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers echoed John Locke by stating that man had unalienable rights such as "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Liberalism also inspired the French Revolution which began in 1789. The radical liberal philosopher, Thomas Paine wrote a staunch defence of the revolution in his "Rights of Man." Liberalism throughout the 18th century was seen as a radical revolutionary philosophy. In the name of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” the old aristocratic tyrannies were to be challenged and overthrown in favour of democratic governance.

Whose Land is it Anyway?

Liberalism's challenge to the power of the aristocracy took a different form at the end of the 19th century. Many nations in Western Europe had become republics or exchanged their autocratic monarchs for constitutional monarchs. In constitutional monarchies such as the United Kingdom, the aristocratic land owners drew their wealth and power from the land and as a result many had wealthy estates. It was this fact that made radical liberals such as Henry George support land value taxation.

The taxation of land became a popular movement especially within the British Liberal Party in the early 20th century. Working class Liberals supported land taxation as a means of shifting wealth away from the aristocratic land owners towards the working poor.

Social Liberalism and Freedom from Industrial Inequality

Throughout the 1800s, liberalism had been the philosophy of the Industrial Revolution. Liberals such as William Gladstone had pursued a policy of laissez-faire. A century earlier liberalism had proclaimed "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" now it appeared to be the philosophy of a capitalist industrial elite. Liberalism was derided by socialists as being a bourgeois ideology, which they thought should be overthrown and replaced by a “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

It appeared that radical liberalism had run its course and that it would soon be replaced by socialism. It was at the turn of the last century that the radical liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries became the social liberalism of the 20th century. Social liberal thinkers such as Thomas Hill Green and Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse argued that liberalism needed to promote social justice in order to help the industrial poor. Equality was therefore seen as a means to advance liberty. Social reform was needed to combat the tyranny of unrestrained industrial capitalism. As a result liberals began to support welfare policies and workers rights.

The British Liberal Party under Herbert Asquith and David Lloyd George began to lay the foundations of the welfare state. In 1942, another social liberal William Beveridge published a report calling for social security from the cradle to the grave and founded the modern welfare state. Liberalism had therefore gone from being a philosophy of a laissez-faire elite to a philosophy with a genuine concern for the welfare of the poorest.

Power to the People

Throughout the 1950s, 60s and 70s the Liberal Party in Britain was seen as a political irrelevance by its opponents. It was during this period that the Liberal Party began to believe in placing power directly in people's hands. The Liberal Party leader, Jo Grimond placed great emphasis on cooperatives and workplace democracy. In the early 1970s a new philosophy began to emerge called "community politics." This was the legacy of a left wing libertarian group within the Young Liberals often referred to as "the Red Guards." Community politics emphasised the need for people to use power at the grassroots level. It was not just meant as a campaigning strategy but as a means of creating a more participatory democracy. The radical liberalism that had toppled regimes in America and France was now embarking on a peaceful democratic revolution in the way that power was used within local communities and in the workplace.

Neoliberalism: The Death of the Radical Tradition

If radical liberalism had been about anything it was about putting power into the hands of ordinary people and about holding the powerful to account. This changed in the 1980s as laissez-faire liberalism re-emerged in the form of neoliberalism. Early neoliberal politicians such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan sought to unleash free market capitalism, privatise state assets, restrict workers’ rights and shrink the welfare state.

Far from bringing power closer to the people as neoliberal economists argued; in reality power shifted upwards towards global corporations. In an age of economic globalisation the ability of nation states to pursue welfare policies has been limited. Furthermore the ability to hold wealthy corporations to account is limited at best and non-existent at worst. Added to this global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank advocate and reinforce neoliberal philosophy. Neoliberalism is a reaction against the historic principles of radical liberalism and social liberalism.

Global Radical Liberalism

In the 21st century the principles of radical liberalism and social liberalism are needed to mitigate neoliberal globalisation. Radical liberalism sought to tackle unaccountable power. A new democratic globalisation based on radical liberalism is needed to hold the global corporate elite to account. Global institutions underpin contemporary economic globalisation. Therefore new global institutions will be needed to wrestle back democratic sovereignty from global corporations and the Washington Consensus. Hopefully, global radical liberalism will in time help to replace global neoliberalism.

Radical liberalism might date back to the end of the 17th century; however it is needed once again in the 21st century. Transnational corporations are the unaccountable kingdoms of the 21st century. In the age of globalisation; the lost political tradition of radical liberalism needs to be rediscovered.

The Post-Thatcher Consensus: A Critique

On the face of it British politics has never been more interesting. The government is currently run by an increasingly awkward coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. There remains a considerable amount of unease within the Labour Party towards Ed Miliband’s style of leadership. In Scotland, we are only months away from a decisive referendum on whether Scotland should leave the United Kingdom. And to top it off across Europe, we are seeing the rise of the populist right embodied in Britain by Nigel Farage and UKIP.

Surely there hasn't been a more interesting time to be observing British politics. That is until you asked the question where is the argument for genuine change coming from? The only answers seem to be being provided by an unholy mixture of separatists and right-wing nationalists. The rise of nationalism whether in the guise of separatism or populism is concerning enough; but this misses the bigger picture of widening inequalities.
 

What of the main three parties, where are their arguments for change? With the exception of the Lib Dem commitment to political reform; genuine change seems thin on the ground. All three of Britain's main government parties subscribe to the political and economic consensus that began during the government of Margaret Thatcher. This is the consensus of Thatcherism and its offshoots; a group of philosophies which many academics refer to as neoliberalism. Thatcherite watchwords like the free market, privatisation, deregulation, austerity, competitiveness, welfare reform and fiscal discipline have now become commonplace. In a nutshell, this consensus boils down to the preference of private over public, the corporate over the community, self concern over social concern and the ability of the free market over the ability of the state.


This is the consensus to which all three of Britain's main political parties now subscribe to. Obviously, it was the Conservative Party in the late 1970s that first adopted a free-market approach under Margaret Thatcher. It wasn't until the mid-1990s that the Labour Party adopted the post-Thatcher consensus. Tony Blair under a programme called "the third way" sought to mix the competing economic views of Thatcherism and social democracy. As for the Lib Dems, they have consistently supported social liberalism since 1906; however in 2004 "The Orange Book" was published, which sought to fuse the social liberalism of the left with the economic liberalism of the right. Orange book liberalism has been in the ascendancy within the Lib Dems since the resignation of Charles Kennedy in 2006. The offshoots of Thatcherism can also be found in aspects of the SNP; whereas UKIP is an overtly Thatcherite party.


So what have been the consequences of 35 years of Thatcherism? Firstly there has been a widening gap between the rich and poor. In Britain this is epitomised by the fact that almost 1,000,000 people have had to use a food bank in order to feed themselves in the last year. Furthermore there is a widening regional gap between the former industrial North and the business orientated London and the South East. At the same time property price bubbles have been allowed to develop due to reckless bank lending. In 2008, this led to a global financial crisis, which came against a backdrop of under-regulation in the banking system and as a result a bailout of the banking industry was required.


While regulations were being curved for the rich, they were only increasing for the poor. Welfare-to-work programmes have been on the rise, whereby welfare claimants for jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) will have to work to continue getting their benefits after nine months. There have also been stricter rules, tougher penalties and closer scrutiny placed on the welfare claimed by the poorest especially in relation to unemployment. Welfare reforms such as the “bedroom tax” have led to the housing benefit for those in social housing being reduced if they have one or more spare rooms. Such welfare reforms have been a major cause in rising inequality and the rise of food poverty in Britain. This has been accompanied by a vile political discourse, which vilifies people who claim benefits. This is being conveyed through the media who target the poor, the unemployed and the disabled with sensationalist headlines and television programmes like “Benefits Street.”


Youth unemployment is a serious problem in today's Britain. The country still has almost 1,000,000 young people unemployed this is the equivalent of almost one in five young people being without a job. Young people feel alienated from politics and from society due to a whole raft of broken promises and welfare cuts that have impacted on them. Even the Labour Party intends to cut JSA for the under 22s who do not get training or qualifications. No politician of any political party seems to be willing to defend the rights of young people let alone tackle youth unemployment. From 1945 until the late 1970s, governments had a profound role in tackling unemployment. Such Keynesian policies like full employment have become a thing of the past under Thatcherism. It is this neglect of social policy that has undermined almost 1,000,000 young people and is denying them of having a more secure future.


Before Margaret Thatcher came into office it is true that income tax levels were incredibly high and that in some respects the trade unions were too powerful. However, the situation has gone from one extreme to the other. Today, the wealthiest are taxed less than 50% and there are no measures to tax the property assets of the wealthy. As for the trade unions, from being too powerful few decades ago they are too weak today. Any democracy needs a functioning trade union movement; however wage levels for a decade have remained relatively stagnant, partly due to the absence of an effective trade union movement.


The reach of the free market seems to be never ending. A whole range of industries were privatised in the 1980s and 1990s, from telecommunications, to utilities, to the railways. The free market has also had an increasing influence in public service provision. In the NHS, private companies are increasingly being relied on to provide health care services and competitiveness has been placed at the heart of the NHS. It is worth remembering that the first concern of a private company is to create profit. The profit motive is the primary motive and any other motive whether it is caring for patients, educating school pupils or delivering local services will only ever be secondary.


Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the post-Thatcher consensus has been the political disengagement of many people with the political process. Too many people, especially from traditional working class communities, no longer feel represented by the views of the mainstream parties and are in danger of falling foul of the siren voices on the populist right. Why is no one making the case that people are facing such economic difficulties not because of immigration, but because of entrenched inequalities, or the under-regulated banking industry, or the lack of a Keynesian solution from government, or through the lack of an effective trade union movement.


Where is the progressive challenge to the current status quo going to come from? There is a whole wealth of centre-left social liberal and social democratic groups and intellectuals, who are laying the foundations for a potential progressive alternative to the post-Thatcher consensus. Internal party groups such as the Social Liberal Forum and Compass are becoming factories for new progressive ideas in order to challenge the worn out status quo. There are also a wealth of academics on the moderate left from which progressive inspiration could be drawn from, such as, John Rawls, Thomas Piketty, Will Hutton, Paul Krugman, Ha-Joon Chang and Roberto Unger.


The post-Thatcher consensus has left Britain more economically unequal, more politically disengaged and more socially insecure than when it began. It has centralised political and economic power in Westminster and the City of London. The great democratic deficit between working people and the company management needs to be bridged through a mixture of co-operatives, worker representation on company boards, worker share ownership and renewed trade union engagement. There also needs to be a serious attempt to redistribute wealth and to reduce the scope of the free market in social policy. Finally, there needs to be a Keynesian solution focusing on tackling unemployment, the looming housing crisis and the ever present threat of climate change.


In some respects Thatcherism and the post-Thatcher consensus has tested the fabric of our society, our economy and our democracy almost to breaking point. It represents a tired and worn out consensus, that doesn't benefit millions of people in Britain. Furthermore it has neutralised the ideological competition that makes democracy a viable concept. The three main political parties must break away from representing fifty shades of Thatcherism. Britain needs a new consensus; the freedoms, rights and opportunities of the most disadvantaged in society depend upon it.

For The Sake of Democracy, We Need Big Ideas, Re-engagement and Progressive Visions

Is this what the end of history looks like? Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History”, which was developed at the end of the Cold War, represented the triumph of free market western democracy over communism, fascism and feudalism. Three decades after the free market revolution of Margaret Thatcher, our political system in Britain has been transformed. For domestic British politics, the end of history seems to have embodied the triumph of neoliberalism over democratic socialism, social democracy, social liberalism and one nation conservatism. The democratic battle between the Keynesianism of the left and the free market of the right seems to be over in Britain. One of Margaret Thatcher's most famous free market slogans was "there is no alternative" a phrase that was often referred to by the acronym of TINA. Thirty five years since Thatcher came to power and in the age of austerity; TINA still dominates the political discourse in Britain. This is bad both for Britain and for our democracy.

 

Since Thatcher's government, we have seen a steady hollowing out of party politics. Politicians today take great pride in the fact that they have no guiding philosophy or ideology. Valueless pragmatism is the name of the game in 21st century politics. It is very common to hear politicians attack their political opponents for being "ideological" or "political." The person who embodied the hollowing out of politics more than any other was the New Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. New Labour used focus groups to develop policies as well as having a great emphasis on the need to spin and manage the party's media presence. Blair no doubt saw ideology as a relic of the past that surely must have died out at the end of the 20th century. But far from phrases such as ideological or political being insults; isn’t it these things, what are supposed to fuel democracy? Democracy should be a politically driven competition between different ideas and philosophies.

 

Today the main political parties in Britain all represent different versions of the neoliberal consensus of the last three decades. A kind of fifty shades of neoliberalism. The Conservatives were obviously the first party to adopt the neoliberal framework as Thatcher went to war with the one nation Tory old guard within her own party. This was followed by Tony Blair co-opting the Labour Party into the neoliberal consensus. The one-time party of socialism and social democracy became staunch defenders of the free market and many public service reforms under a programme called “the third way.” Far from being an alternative to traditional social democracy or the free market; the third way in reality represented a slightly more moderate version of the policies begun by Margaret Thatcher. Finally, the Liberal Democrats have increasingly adopted free market based policies influenced by the neoliberal Orange Book. The Orange Book has gone against the grain of the Lib Dems’ philosophy of social liberalism; which has been dominant in the party since 1906. Orange Book liberalism has seen its zenith under the coalition with the Conservatives, with many contributors to the Orange Book holding senior posts in the Coalition Government.

 

In 2014, apathy in British politics as well as mistrust of politicians is very high. These factors are probably partly influenced by the fact that there is no discernible difference between the philosophies of the main three parties. No senior politician in Britain today seems to articulate a real vision of the future. Clement Attlee had his "New Jerusalem", Margaret Thatcher had her "Property Owning Democracy" but where is the big political vision of 2014 coming from? Where is the essence of democracy, the ideas and the visions?

 

Politicians of all political stripes need to re-engage with the people, and perhaps no group needs more engagement than the working classes. Over the past 20 years, the working classes have been increasingly alienated by British politics as politicians from across the spectrum have sought the votes of Middle England. There is a danger that this gap in the focus of the main parties may be filled by extremist parties. In particular, the right wing nationalist party, UKIP are seeking to reach out to disenchanted working class voters. UKIP are exploiting the political void left by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. Surely, the main three parties cannot abandon many working class voters to UKIP and the politics of fear. The political mainstream need to invoke the spirit of Clement Attlee, Nye Bevan and David Lloyd George; politicians who inspired millions of working class people to get involved in politics. Whoever can successfully reach out and harness the working class vote will determine the outcome of general elections.

 

A second group that politicians desperately need to re-engage with are young people. The voters aged between 18 and 25 represent the literal future of Britain and its democracy. Yet the same age group is suffering immensely in the current economic climate. One in five young people are unemployed. That's a youth unemployment rate of 20%. The average rate of unemployment during the years of the Great Depression was 17%. We must face the reality of the situation that in this country we have mass youth unemployment. This is an entire generation of people who feel unable to contribute to our economy and unable to take the first step on the job ladder. Politicians are often (quite rightly) concerned with the issues of older voters, however many young people feel neglected by our current politicians and feel turned off by politics in general. This is going to be very bad if fewer people have faith in politics and if young people do not think it can make a real difference to their lives.

 

A healthy democracy is one that flows with new political ideas. Big ideas, guiding philosophies and political passion will re-engage many voters who have been turned off by the politics of recent decades and will ensure a revival of democratic participation. The Liberal Democrats need to reassert their historic social liberal philosophy over the Orange Book. Whereas, Labour need to rediscover progressive politics. In fairness to the Conservatives, they are the only party in British politics that are able to follow their true conservative ideology as it is the only one that naturally seeks to expand the reach of the free market economy. Thus modern conservatism is the only ideology that naturally seeks to advance neoliberalism.

 

We need to bring back the battle of ideas and with it politicians who seek to make a real difference, according to their own set of ideals and philosophies. The strength of our democracy depends upon it. Britain desperately needs a progressive alternative to the neoliberal consensus, and it is ultimately up to the Liberal Democrats and Labour (and perhaps even some Conservatives) to provide one. Politicians must be proud to be political again. Politicians need to have a defining vision. But above all in the age of austerity what people really need is hope. Hope for a better, fairer future for them and their friends and families. Hope that will encourage them to become active in our democracy again. Because if Britain's politicians are not willing to revive democracy and engage many of those alienated in recent years; then the future of politics will indeed be hopeless, especially from the perspective of the poorest and most disadvantaged members of society. For British democracy to remain strong, we need to revive big ideas, we need to re-engage with alienated groups and we need progressive visions to help everyone in society; not just the ultra-wealthy.

I stand with the 99% and so should the Lib Dems

A couple of weeks ago I went to visit the Occupy London camp outside St Pauls Cathedral. As a student studying politics at University as well as someone who was slightly sympathetic to the Occupy movement; I felt that it was a part of British political history that I just had to witness. Occupy London was the British arm of a movement that in the last few weeks has spread from Wall Street to Central Europe and from Oakland to London. The camp seemed to consist of two main groups your usual SWP Trotskyite socialist types and your typical anarchist types. The camp was a very far left institution complete with anti-capitalist banter and far left posters that reminded me somewhat of Soviet-era propaganda. This camp had been established for little more than a week when I visited it on Sunday, October 23, 2011. While I was visiting the camp they held a "general assembly." This acted as a forum for discussion and to report the progress the movement was having. While I was in attendance it had been decided that a midnight curfew should come into effect. At the time I did think it was not very anarchist for the Occupy LSX campaigners to be imposing a curfew on themselves; but I suppose they would argue it was the fact that they were choosing to impose it on themselves not an external force doing it for them. Overall the Occupy movement aims seem to be to represent the poorest 99% against the greed and recklessness of the top 1%. They are campaigning against corporate greed, gross inequality and corporate capital dominating our democracies. I for one felt it was refreshing to see that for once someone was standing up to the vested financial elites in the City of London whom got our economy into such a dire mess only a few years ago. It was about time that people stood up against this clear injustice. Despite some media coverage, not all the people in the Occupy London camp were anti-capitalist there were even some posters stating that the protest should not be viewed as one that was anti-capitalist. It is clear that they were campaigning against the unfairness of the present neoliberal economic order. Now although I do not sympathise with the ends that the extreme socialists and anarchists wish to achieve, I do sympathise with the fact that these people were making a stand against injustice and doing it so peacefully and carefully. Contrary to some reports it didn't seem to me like the protesters were seriously preventing the Cathedral from being used. They even seem to have taken great care to ensure that they received a good public hearing in the press.

On Saturday, November 5, the Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas addressed the Occupy London rally at St Pauls. Thus it is clear that the Green Party has given its support to the aims of a fairer country that Occupy London seem to promote. This was followed on the Sunday, by relative endorsement by the Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband who declared himself to be a supporter of the 99% against the 1%. One has to wonder whether his record in government truly makes him out to be a worthy patron of the 99%. Especially when you consider the fact that both Ed Miliband and Ed balls were working in Gordon Brown's Treasury when bankers were earning obscene bonuses, company directors were earning extreme salaries and when the economic system was becoming increasingly more unstable due to a lack of financial regulation. Furthermore this is not to mention Labour's 13 year love affair with Rupert Murdoch something that even continued when Miliband himself became leader of the Labour Party. It is clear that during Miliband's time in the Treasury as well as during his time as a government minister the top 1% got wealthier and almost brought the global economy to the brink of destruction. I for one hope that Ed Miliband is not using the slogans of the 99% and the 1% to further his and his party's objectives through cynical opportunism and self publication; Miliband should not try to dominate concepts that go far beyond that of the Labour Party.

It is now time I believe for the Liberal Democrats to endorse the notion of being on the side of the 99%. Do not forget that the term 99% will encompass the poor, the working class and the overwhelming majority of middle-class people. It is hardly your usual class warring far left factions. I would seriously hope that Nick Clegg as well as other senior Liberal Democrats like Simon Hughes and Tim Farron can speak confidently about standing up for the 99%. It is the duty of a radical progressive party like the Liberal Democrats to do exactly this. I may not endorse socialism or anarchism but I do think we need a fairer society, economy and politics that moves beyond the current domination of neoliberalism. I would prefer (like some at the Occupy London camp) to have a fairer more progressive capitalism that works for everyone rather than no capitalism at all. It is this notion of a fairer more progressive capitalism, politics and society that Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats should be promoting. Although this is nothing new to the Lib Dems it must be placed in the context that the top 1% need to pay their fair share and that the lower 99% need to be protected and supported from the excess and instability of neoliberal capitalism. Finally I hope that the Occupy London movement moves to encompass many progressive and left-leaning groups beyond the far left; especially political parties like the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Greens.

The Social Liberal Alternative to Neoliberalism

The present system of free market capitalism known as neoliberalism is clearly teetering on the edge of a major crisis. ‘Occupy’ protests have swept the Western world in recent days and more and more people are becoming hostile to the notions of austerity and additional bank bailouts. Capitalist globalisation is clearly in need of radical reform. However the issue is not whether we should abandon liberalism but rather how can we strengthen it. Neoliberalism in my opinion is not liberal; despite its namesake. It does not promote social justice and greater fairness, it does not enhance our democracy and it does not value individuals acting within their local communities. It is necessary to find a different outlook that can truly further liberal aims in the 21st century. This outlook is social liberalism. I have written an article for the Social Liberal Forum that outlines a social liberal alternative to neoliberalism. I also critique the new and emerging Labour Party antidote to neoliberalism known as ‘Blue Labour.’ Please read my article for the Social Liberal Forum in full by following this link: http://socialliberal.net/2011/10/15/the-real-alternative-to-neoliberalism/