I doubt conflictions is even a word. Oh, well!
As I've said on several of my blog pieces, I am a very conflicted individual. I grew up almost socialist with a liberal streak (largely because I was a youth, in South Wales, and even with Lib Dem parents it's the sort of ideology you fall for - like in those unrealistic romance novels when everyone swoons and swirls and swivels).
I also grew up (what fantasy novel reader doesn't?) with a deep and abiding love for the monarchy. I love conversations as to who my favourite King or Queen is. At the moment, I'm going for William the Conqueror because he was so bloody (literally) efficient in his conquering. Also, Elizabeth I, who I used to have a bit of a crush on when I was fourteen. Thank God I never read the Faerie Queen, or I probably would have spent the rest of my days pining for the beautiful maiden Queen of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, Ireland and France.
Oh, yes. And I have vague Irish nationalist leanings. Largely inspired by drunken sing-alongs to "Fields of Athenry" at the top of my voice, or the occasionally tearful listening to the haunting and heartbreaking "Grace".
And I'm Catholic.
You may have noticed that I am an extremely sentimental person - also quite repetetive, because most of this has been said in passing before, although not in quite the same detail.
What has all this to do with my conflictions on political ideology? Well, it's a subject that inspires debate throughout the party. Are we liberals? Libertarians? Social democrats? Socialists? People far more interested than me will come up with incredibly intricate definitions and variations of socialism, social democracy and liberalism. It all gets so complicated that I sometimes go, "Woah, woah, what does uber-quasi-pseudo-utopian-socialism-cum-judo-inspiring-utilitarian-liberalism with a dash of angry-state-opposed-libertarianism mean?"
Maybe it's just me, but I see the divide as hardly important.
There are some libertarians in the party. There are some socialists in the party. There are lots of social democrats in the party. There are lots of liberals in the party. I think the difference is extremely admirable. I've also heard lots of people say, in the event that we get proportional representation, they could then leave and form the separate parties, safely.
My response to them has to be: Why?
I accept maybe libertarians might leave, or socialists might leave. But the centre ground? Why should it leave? To me, the Liberal Democrats do the best they can to balance the occasional conflict of social democracy and liberalism. I can't support all of social democracy, and I can't support all of liberalism. The purposes of both however, are laudable. The free market that liberalism would allow to stay largely free is vital for our prosperity and freedom. The safeguards that social democracy would implement are also vital for a fair society. With just one of the ideologies, we become imbalanced. With both, we have a real chance to show the way forward.
There are things the Liberal Democrats do that I disagree with. That is because sometimes they approach one area with a more liberal or a more social democratic stance than I might like. However most of the time? It works well.
I am working as well, on a sort of compromise. I personally think that Education should be the strongest example of social democracy (even socialism!) within our party. Education, like Robert Owen (that good Welsh theorist!) said two centuries ago, is the key to changing society. So I have no objection to actions that sometimes seem heavy-handed to libertarians (for example, IR Cymru's campaign calling for compulsory anti-homophobic bullying guidance).
Other specific areas might require such heavy responses. However, these responses should be rare, focused and based on evidence of cause, effect (affect?) and solution. In many problems that face society, a minimalist state cannot intervene in the level it must, in a way that will (in time!) protect the rights of the individual. Do any of us believe that by not investing in massive state intervention in child poverty, we will make any of us safer? No. We need to end child poverty, give chances and choices, and therefore make us safer and more prosperous in our country. That sort of response requires state intervention.
Do I believe that state intervention is required with regards to chocolate over-eating, smoking and the like? Hell. No.
I see the ideal government as a general floaty net of liberalism. That net keeps the state at bay. Maybe it's an electrified fence with barbed wire, I dunno. But it's a strong, fence. With wild, rabid dogs guarding it. And security guards with machine guns. And it makes the state back off from individuals' rights.
However, that net also has certain pressure points which are attached to panic buttons that can be pressed by citizens. And when they need the help of the state, they press the big red button, and ask for help. A small gap is opened in the net, and focused state intervention occurs. (There is also an electrical link from the net to any state intervention that passes through it, so if the State gets out of hand, you can shock it to death)
I'm not sure Hobbes would approve, but really, we need that net to stop the Leviathan from crushing us all to death (like Labour is now). However, sometimes when the Leviathan wants to nip out that horrible parasite burrowing into our flesh (child poverty; homophobic bullying), we need to let it through.
I think that's a nice way to approach this apparently insurmountable divide.
How we go about creating that society is another matter.
Voting for the Lib Dems is a start, though!
0 comments:
Post a Comment