The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Is "liberal" becoming a dirty word again?

Part I: Champions of the liberal agenda are scarcely to be found

By Sholto Byrnes Published 17 October 2010 11:51

In the 1988 US presidential election, George Bush senior relentlessly caricatured his Democrat opponent, Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, as a weak, out-of-touch, soft-touch liberal, a word he used to convey spinelessness, lack of conviction and a disregard for the safety of the people he would serve, most notably and disgracefully by raising the example of Willie Horton, a murderer who, released from a Massachusetts prison on furlough, failed to return and went on to commit assault, armed robbery and rape.

Only when his campaign was faltering did Dukakis, who had been pandering to the right in an effort to win over the conservative, blue-collar "Reagan Democrats", attempt to reclaim the term, declaring: "Yes, I'm a liberal in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John Kennedy." But it was a late and desperate move. Nine days before the election was not the time to reinvest the word with pride. He and his team had allowed their opponents to make it a term of abuse.

Glancing at today's headlines, "liberal" (or at least what we traditionally understand liberal politics to mean) seems to have become a dirty word again. The Observer carries the news that not just a Republican senator but now a Republican contender in New York's gubernatorial race have said that gay people should not be allowed to teach in schools. In the ongoing mid-term elections, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is according to another report "being portrayed as extreme, out-of-touch and elitist; a sort of uncaring liberal ogre forcing unwanted legislation down the throats of ordinary Americans. 'She is the featured devil this year,' said Republican pollster and political consultant Adam Probolsky."

The BBC's news website, meanwhile, leads with the story that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has announced that attempts to build a multicultural society in her country have "utterly failed" and that 30 per cent of the German population think they are being "overrun by foreigners". Back in Britain, with even Ed Miliband admitting that immigration was a "massive issue" in this year's general election, there appears to be a cross-party consensus that, while individually many of them may be utterly delightful, thoroughly decent chaps etc, in general foreigners coming to stay in the country is a cause for grave concern.

Perhaps the l-word isn't being raised in all these cases. But sexual equality and welcoming those from different countries and cultures are two issues that liberals used to stand up for. While I would not try to argue that the stories above are all on the same page, they do seem to me to belong at least in the same chapter - the one about tolerance of people who are different. That most certainly is a liberal position, and one that appears to have too few unequivocally stout-hearted defenders.

The immigration question is one that makes me instantly think of my family tree, and ask: just which of my relatives and ancestors would you rather hadn't come here - or would you keep out today? Perhaps to those keen to shut the gates I am part of the problem, a modern incarnation of the "rootless cosmopolitan" with kith and kin hailing from Ireland in the West to the Malay Archipelago in the East (and many countries in between), as well as representing all three of the Abrahamic faiths. So take heed, instead, of the NS's former editor Peter Wilby, who not only has argued that "there is too much legitimate movement of people and goods across borders for any state to have much hope of restricting what is deemed to be illegitimate", but also made the moral case for immigration in the same article in 2007:

In principle, the left ought to favour it. Millions of people across the world - in Africa, eastern Europe, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent - own nothing of marketable value except their labour. Why should they be prohibited from selling it freely?

No matter how much we give to Oxfam, the most effective way of helping poor people in developing countries is to welcome them here. The life expectancy of a Ugandan baby who moves to London rises instantly by some 45 years. Remittances from migrant workers are worth far more to many developing countries than foreign aid or investment, with the bonus that the money reaches ordinary families rather than corrupt rulers. In Moldova, remittances account for 38 per cent of the economy.

Most proposals for controlling immigration are based on keeping out the riff-raff, but exempting those with valuable skills in, say, medicine. This leaves poorer countries with the expense of educating professionals but none of the benefits. According to the World Bank, Grenada has to train 22 doctors to keep just one. This policy, if successful, would trap the global poor in countries that would become more economically and socially impoverished than ever.

Peter's is an isolated voice, though. And while gay rights may have advanced enormously in the UK, aided by persuasive and sensible advocates like Stonewall's Ben Summerskill, few are now prepared to argue for the idea of multiculturalism. As I have already written at length, I am going to close here for now. Later in the week, however, I will return to the question of whether the proponents of liberalism undermined their own case: by not speaking up as civilised tolerance degenerated into an amoral and indifferent libertarianism; and betraying their vision of a good, liberal society through their aversion to judgement.

More from Sholto Byrnes

35 comments

Sun, 2010-10-17 12:02 — swatantra nandanwar

Merkel is wrong. Multicuturalism has to go alongside integration of minority communities. The problem has always been to persuade minority communities that they cannot stick to all their 'old ways' but have to adapt and make a new start and life in another land which will be their new home.
You cannot translate and should not translate say for example, 'old Potsdam' into the deserts of the Negev and expect life to go on as though nothing had happened in 2000 years, but you have to adapt and change and grow and evolve and fit in with your neighbours.

Sun, 2010-10-17 12:07 — Jack Holroyde (not verified)

How ironic that you should mention Ben Summerskill as a champion of equality.
The same Ben Summerskill that opposes Gay Marriage because it apparently would cost too much.
The same Ben Summerskill that supports commercialised pride events that exclude the working class and students.
The same Ben Summerskill that refuses to accept that transgender people have a place alongside the LGB community.
Great bastion of equality, that one...

Sun, 2010-10-17 12:54 — Lawrence (not verified)

I believe that immigration has provided huge benefits for this country both culturally and economically. However, I also believe that the free movement of labour has it's own set of problems such as the depression of wages for all who live in an area with relatively high levels of immigration. If we are to have high levels of immigration, which is beneficial for growth and tax revenues, it would be better for every one if bussiness' paid a living wage rather than a wage which is below subsistence levels which immigrants are forced to work for. They can't or won't access the welfare system, whilst indigenous populations cannot afford to.

Wed, 2010-10-20 18:20 — brad evans

Berlin being multicultural means what? That there are tens of millions of poor people who are desperate to move to a wealthy country but that somehow THEY'RE the ones doing wealthy countries a favor by moving? Except for foods (which you could have learned to cook and then sent the cooking teachers home)what do you need these people for now? It's not as if Germany doesn't have unemployment.
This is just a pitiful way for immigrants to feel good about themselves and for the chattering classes to have someone to patronize and scold their own lower middle classes about.

Sun, 2010-10-17 13:43 — jeremiah

Old Ange is right about "multikulti". Many immigrants from certain parts of the world seem completely unwilling to integrate into a European society.

"Multiculturism" is merely pandering to these immigrants and their inflexibility.

Immigrants need to be told that you are not in your country of origin anymore. That you are Europe/UK/Germany now and that we do things differently here. If you want to play a full part in the life of your new nation it is incumbent upon you as an immigrant to adopt its mores and lifestyle, and not for your new nation to bend over backwards to accomodate every immigrant.

This is what the UK should have been telling immigrants since 1945. The fact that we only recently required a working knowledge of English as a requirement for entry shows what a bust our policy of "multiculturism" really is!

Sun, 2010-10-17 13:51 — frenetic

There are many many liberals who are in fact obsessed with migrants,immigration, etc overall liberals aren't very consistent either, many have supported what can only be described as the harrasment and persecution of claimants, particularly those who are sick or disabled with the new and draconian welfare reforms. Changes which will see increasing surveillance, forcing sick people into jobs that may be delitorious to their health, etc. This has been endorsed by some of their favourite media, the Observer and the Independent and the BBC.

The silence from people who historically would speak out for the
vulnerable has been noticeable. while liberals like Steve Richards has described people on sickness benefit as 'feckless' as had Will Hutton.

liberalism once provided a bulwark, a shield for these people, now its gone...

Sun, 2010-10-17 14:29 — zabalinda (not verified)

As a New Yorker, I experience the benefits of a multicultural society every single day. It is an enriching experience. I find Chancellor Merkel's statement chilling and fear it will propagate further intolerance towards immigrants in Europe.

Sun, 2010-10-17 15:14 — Tom (not verified)

Multiculturalism has failed. What has developed is an unofficial segregation and appathied within our cities which is impacting social cohesivness. Immigrant communities need to do far more to integrate into and accept our culture and social values.

Sun, 2010-10-17 15:35 — swatantra nandanwar

Some cultural and social values may not be acceptable eg the overtly permissive culture which pervades most of society these days of drugs and sex and rap music, and the social values eg of selfishness and me-ism from the 80's and lack of community and neighbourly spirit. Even todays society would be a lot better off without either.

Sun, 2010-10-17 15:48 — Nick (not verified)

Liberal has become a filthy word. Those that vote for them should seriously question their views. Those that vote Liberal are Tories, so just stop pretending and vote Tory if that's what you lot believe in, have the courage to vote for what you believe in and question it when those that promise it don't deliver.

Tue, 2010-10-19 18:50 — Luddite (not verified)

Is "liberal" becoming a dirty word again? No!! It's the political lefts vile appeasement of islamic-fascism that stinks.

Mon, 2010-10-18 17:31 — Corcaighrebel

Remember the WWII warning: 'Carless talk costs lives'.

This is hardly a constructive comment from Merkel, and may well be seized upon by extremists to justify their rage and racism, and all to keep the CDU bums on seats, Germany of all countries should be aware of how comments like this can be twisted, if this was said in the US there would be uproar. You can hardly turn back the clock, Germans need to engage with reality and build bridges between their different communities and try to create a more harmonious society. Her comment sounds like a child throwing their toys out of the pram.

If it is the race card being played for electoral purposes then it should be condemned by the European Commission in the strongest possible terms, no place for it in a modern Europe, it will only demonise and stigmatise the non-whites among the German populace.

Merkel talked of the guest workers from the 60s and 70s, well they were happy to use their labour to build their economy and now don't fancy having the offspring around, more productive policies than engage are what is needed, not comments so seemingly xenophobic.

Sun, 2010-10-17 16:57 — Joseph Veselinović (not verified)

I think multi-culturalism has failed: if you integrate as my (Iranian/Persian) family did in the 60s and 70s, there are no barriers to succeeding in British society, but if you willfully keep women uneducated, deny them their rights, force them to abide by cultural and Muslim dogma, you need to be stopped by our society: but instead, this cult of multiculturalism does nothing and sort of dismisses female complaints, because it's "their"/"our" culture.

I expect our society to intervene when women are the victim of "honour killings", but as usual, feminists are silent.

Tue, 2010-10-19 19:11 — Luddite (not verified)

Assia W. if the English, just the English were ever given a free vote on your wonderful multicultural society, how many would be favorable. CrISpY DuCk the usual nonsense from you, stop making excuses, multicultural does not work, and as been a monumental failure.

Tue, 2010-10-19 19:15 — Benedict (not verified)

Luddite. I'm half English, three-eights Scottish and one-eighth Northern Irish. Do I get a vote?

Sun, 2010-10-17 18:18 — William (not verified)

There was, i think, a naive belief that people would integrate by exposure to western culture (that belief was connected to the belief that western culture is inherently superior and other people will 'see the light').

On the whole it's true; statistically speaking people do get their values from their surrounding culture not their family history.

But now we realise that it's a depressingly slow process, usually taking three generations before people integrate fully.

@Lawrence
17 October 2010 at 11:54

Lawrence's suggestion is excellent, as the chief reason for immigration is that business leaders and bankers support it as a reserve of poorly paid labour, that is used as an instrument of the capital holding class to drive the general standard of living down.

If it was impossible to pay people wages below the standard of living (like japan, where there's less of an income gap between top and bottom) then the bankers would become unintrested in immigration (like japan), and we could have a policy on immigration designed to work rather than a policy designed to plunder.

Tue, 2010-10-19 19:38 — Luddite (not verified)

Benedict NO.

Sun, 2010-10-17 19:25 — Luddite (not verified)

Shadow's of doubt?

Mon, 2010-10-18 19:25 — RK (not verified)

@Corcaighrebel, wake up and smell the anger around mate. By a) not confronting Islamists protesting Danish Cartoonist b)Allowing the Army to be insulted; liberals have lost the argument. It is for liberals to decide what they can do about "THE OTHER RIGHT". If they leave that space, they would have lost all rights, moral and democratic to "the native rights"...ofcourse there is a chance that when it goes, the pendulum can swing to the other extreme.

I can only therefore blame the liberals for vacating the liberal space when first faced with "the other and more dangerous right" that of Islamists. Liberals were known for their courage, but today they bow before the Islamists at every corner.

Sun, 2010-10-17 21:00 — Eugene N White

I agree, that it seems somewhat arbitrary for a country populated by 3000 years of immigrants to draw a line somewhere around 1945 and say, the immigrants after this point can not be considered 'British' and are therefore 'bad immigrants' while the rest of us whose immigrant forebears arrived before 1945 are British and therefore part of the people who restrictive immigration laws aim to protect.

Furthermore, I'm not one for post-colonial guilt. I don't feel personally responsible for the bad deeds of the British empire... in any case only a quarter of my ancestors would have been living in the UK at the height of the empire. But I accept that the relative comfort I live in today compared with that of those living in the developing world was created through exploitation and oppression, and we in this country shouldn't view our prosperity as some kind of birth-right not open to people born elsewhere. It would be something of a slap in the face considering generations of Brits before us condemned vast swathes of the world to poverty while modern Brits defend that prosperity gap jealously by denying entry to those who only want to work hard and contribute to the economy and to our society.

Sun, 2010-10-17 21:32 — daulat ram (not verified)

The most depressing thing about this Western debate on "multiculturalism" is that due to cowardice or confusion few people are even using terminology correctly, so that we at least know what we are talking about. People use hold-all phrases like "immigrants don't fit in with Western respect for free speech" without being asked: WHICH immigrants hsave you in mind? Hindus? Sikhs? Muslims? East Europeans?

Let us be honest: apart from many Muslims, most immigrants tyo the West do fit in and accept the rules of liberalism.

So the problem is very different, much more specific and smaller than the cowardly and dishonest Merkel and her like say. It's the Muslims, not multiculturalism.

Sun, 2010-10-17 21:37 — Luddite (not verified)

Will. opening doors, with not stop world poverty, it will only make poverty more prevalent in this country.

Sun, 2010-10-17 21:42 — Luddite (not verified)

daulat ram. Immigration, of the right kind, is not the problem. Multiculturalism is.....

Sun, 2010-10-17 22:35 — Eugene N White

I'm not saying it would stop poverty for all, it isn't a pragmatic point but one about fairness.

I don't know where you get your data that suggest it would make poverty more prevalent in this country though.

Sun, 2010-10-17 22:57 — Simon Kenworth (not verified)

Nothing unusual. The political pendulum was given a big swing to the extremes of immigration after 1945, now its pushed back with equal and opposite force. Immigrants aren't to blame of course, the political establishment and elites who profited from the policy are.

Mon, 2010-10-18 01:16 — stuart (not verified)

have any of these middle class white politacaly correct leafy surburb living liberals ever wondered why countrys like pakistan and nigeria are totally brown and black with not a white face to be seen in hundreds of miles,is it because these people are racist and prefer to live amongst people of there own culture and religious background,would it not be better to import millions of white faces into countrys like pakistan and and nigeria and make them truly multi cultural,i wonder what the reaction would be of the locals to my new idea of making the world a multi culural melting pot,am i being to liberal ??

Mon, 2010-10-18 02:27 — linxi

Dear customers, thank you for your support of our company.
Here, there's good news to tell you: The company recently
launched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionable
and welcome everyone to come buy. If necessary,
welcome to :===== www. soozone .com ========

Mon, 2010-10-18 06:08 — Greg Dyke (not verified)

Those anti-muslims should thank them from the bottom of their hearts. Muslims have made the leftist one world MC. dream a pile of ashes!

Mon, 2010-10-18 07:14 — brad evans

The sheer numbers of poor people makes the idea of "open borders" insane. The idea that simply letting in anyone who wants to get to a rich country is good for that country is also crazy; the need for cheap labor is there, but what happens with the next generation? You either have to allow the children of the migrants into your middle class-in which case you have to get another group of poor people to do your dirty work or keep them down socially, basically creating a class of more-or-less permanent helots. Mass immigration enthusiasts propose either a human Ponzi scheme or re-institution of serfdom.

Mon, 2010-10-18 08:50 — CrISpY DuCk

Immigration isn't the real problem.A lack of social housing and jobs is and is a real issue for the working class.Although a huge pool of cheap labour and stiff competition for a council house doesn't directly affect Ed Milliband he has the good sense to recognise the problem.Most fair minded people don't have a problem with genuine asylum seekers or European migration but somethings got to give.Hopefully it will be employment law,house building and job creation.Liberals should ignore the I word at their peril.it's also grossly unfair to imply that anyone concerned with the word is not liberal/is a racist etc.It's easy being liberal when it doesn't affect you.

Mon, 2010-10-18 09:09 — CrISpY DuCk

The problem with integration is the ghetto and fear of the unknown.Angela Merkel would help Germany enormously if her government set about forming housing policy that would bring about true integration.Some of the Alf Garnet's of this world are simply ignorant and would benefit from living next door to some decent foreign folk.As well as losing the fear of the unknown for Alf it would encourage the immigrant to embrace and learn the new culture.

Mon, 2010-10-18 10:13 — RK (not verified)

Could our leaders go one step further and say the truth. That Islamists and their apologists in left-liberal coalition pi*** off even the most liberal in us. There has to be limit to stupidity which likes of Chomsky display and is then adopted in various writing or liberal gang...which itself have now become a religion with prophets such as Chomsky ....so called "arguebly the greatest intellectual alive". Stop bul*** if we want liberal values to survive. i.e.

Mon, 2010-10-18 12:02 — Assia W. (not verified)

" The BBC's news website, meanwhile, leads with the story that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has announced that attempts to build a multicultural society in her country have "utterly failed" and that 30 per cent of the German population think they are being "overrun by foreigners" "

This is tragic. Merkel ought to be removed from office.
To say something like that in a city as rich in diversity and as multicultural ( and better for it) now, as Berlin, which had only just started emerging out of the terrible shadows cast on it by Nazism and WW2 is outrageous and is actually a crime against new hope and a new future for Germany. I don't know where she got the idea of many Germans thinking their country was 'overrun by foreigners' but I'm thinking that ex- DDR habitant Merkel is lacking something which the Germans had long ago developed - a sence of humour.
I lived in Berlin long enough to know that yes, Germans moan about foreigners like any other nation but they are also incredibly aware of what a non-tolerant attitude towards them can lead to now and prefer their city and country with a modern, international flair.
The opinion on the matter is, naturally, divided along the generation gap, with older germans (specifically those germans aged 40-60 seem to be rather silly about such things) being more wary and frustrated than the younger generations ( German teenagers and Germans in their 20's and 30's are some of the most open-minded individuals I have ever met in my whole life), who, on the contrary, just see this new Germany as a great new way of life.. but still.. overall, I would say Merkel is probably unfairly taking a mere few negative opinions and turning them into a political agenda.
I would disagree with the recent polls conducted in Germany as being very representative of the nation as a whole because knowing the Germans, the people who would have rushed to take part in them would have immediately been a minority, fascist number because frankly, the rest would have either felt uncomfortable voicing their opinion on such sensitive national matters or would have seen the poll in itself as having a Nazi-type agenda. The BBC, also, does Germany no service and no service to racial tolerance and multiculturalism by reporting on this issue. All it will do is give the Uk and the world the wrong impression of Germany while at the same time further encouraging any BNP style idiots in their ridiculous campaigns to rid the world of fairness, diversity and flair.

Mon, 2010-10-18 12:07 — Assia W. (not verified)

"I would disagree with the recent polls conducted in Germany as being very representative of the nation as a whole because knowing the Germans, the people who would have rushed to take part in them would have immediately been a minority, fascist number because frankly, the rest would have either felt uncomfortable voicing their opinion on such sensitive national matters or would have seen the poll in itself as having a Nazi-type agenda."....

.. meaning that the majority of more liberal-minded Germans would have refused to take part in such a poll in the first place. :)
Sorry. Should learn to finish my sentences.