On Liberalism

There is much to be said for the modern liberal philosophy, as well as the historical tradition known as liberalism.
Its emphasis on the freedom of the invividual, on equality and on tolerance deserve much credit. I do believe, however, that there are certain limits to liberalism, chiefly in the sense that too strong an emphasis on rights, over human beings themselves, can lead to non-desirable outcomes.

Firstly on the agenda though, liberal praise. At the present time, living, as we are told, in the age of global terrorism, Tony Blair and his government have been eager, as they always are, to be seen to be doing things. Taking action. This has led to some extremely worrying propositions concerning the curtailment of civil liberties, particularly with the Belmarsh case in 2005 regarding the Home Secretary and planned proposals for detaining foreign suspects for an indefinite period, and the recent '90-days' debacle (I need not elaborate). Liberals have, as have conservatives, spoken up in the name of the basic rights we regard as inalienable and fundamental to our national way of life. They are right to do so. Liberal groups such as Liberty have been the most vocal in the opposition to the trend towards authoritarianism, speaking out also on important matters such as ID cards.

Liberal tolerance is also commendable. At a time when the issue of immigration is quite heated, they (the Liberal Democrats in particular) have tried to address the balance by focusing on the benefits immigration brings to our society. This, I feel, is much needed in a generally hostile climate. Whilst there are clearly concerns with the government's current policy, mostly with the mess and uncertainty that the administrative system seems to be in, a voice that defends the rights of immigrants against prejudice is very much needed.

There are, however, concerns I have with liberalism. Fundamental to this is my feeling that there is sometimes too strong an emphasis on a culture of rights, rather than on a culture of rights and responsibilities. Possibly the best example of this is, in my view, the issue of abortion. One constantly reads, or is told, by the most well-intentioned of people, that a woman's right to an abortion is a right to be defended at all costs. We are told that the matter of abortion is a matter of privacy, and the right of a woman to do what she wants with her body is not to be violated in any way. We are also told that an abortive act can be a humane one, if a child is born who will not be likely to lead a happy or secure life. My question is who has the right to make such judgements about something that is, ultimately, an independent being? A life that, if no positive act is done to prevent it, will develop into a full and mature one? (the notion of the 'positive act' is a concept borrowed from a friend).

An abortion law that ignores the fact that individuals are free agents and that would absolve individuals of any responsibility for the consequences of their action cannot be progressive or desirable. Of course there are circumstances where people don't plan, don't think ahead and don't think of the consequences of their actions. That is true in any area of life. But to have a policy that condones abortion cannot lead us to a better situation, where there is more thought for the actions we take, more consideration of serious consequences that follow from the choices we make. The law on abortion, as it currently stands, will not reduce the number of abortions.

I also feel pangs of discomfort when it comes to liberalism and drug culture. Rarely do I hear a positive argument when it comes to the issue of legalisation. Regarding cannabis, we are often told how alochol and tobacco are far worse. That is not an argument for legalising something of which the results of taking can be decidedly uncertain. The law is there to protect. There is certainly a debate to be had regarding effective ways to fight drugs, but that does not, in my opinion, mean fundamentally changing the nature of their criminality, which is based on the understanding that drugs are decidedly harmful, individually and socially. Legalisation, regardless of intentions, can only send out a message that such activity, whilst to be avoided in the past, is 'now ok'.

So my feelings on liberalism are mixed (which probably explains why I joined the Conservative Party!). It has a rich tradition, and has, to my knowledge, not an intolerant or hostile bone in its conceptual body. I do feel, however, that government, whilst not preaching or telling the people what to do, does have a responsibility not to encourage activity which is fundamentally harmful for individuals, families, communities, and the nation as a whole.