How Liberal Are the Liberal Democrats?

by Liberty and Power

Over the years American commentators claim to have observed the fresh green shoots of liberty sprouting forth in the inhospitable landscape of British politics. Yesterday John Vaught LaBeaume wrote that the Liberal Democrats under the leadership of Charles Kennedy have rediscovered their classical liberal roots. If only it were true.

Yes, the Liberal Democrats did vote against committing British troops to fight alongside the U.S. in Iraq—but this was not based on a principled objection to the invasion of a foreign state, rather it arose from their argument that the war was not legal and would need another vote of the UN Security Council to make it legal. The Liberal Democrats also supported the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and every other overseas military intervention of the Blair government, and they've never expressed regrets about any such action.

Yes, the Liberal Democrats have moved away from some of the more interventionist economic policies they advocated in recent years. But a pledge to get the British government"off the back of businesses," an assurance that they"want to cut the red tape that stops businesses from growing," and a promise that"Liberal Democrats will set business free" do not add up to what LaBeaume calls"the most explicitly liberal economic policy in a century."

And, yes, the Liberal Democrats are generally speaking better on civil liberties issues than either New Labour or the most recent reincarnation of the Conservatives under Michael Howard. But this has to be placed in the context of the Liberal Democrat infatuation with the European Union and international human rights law—an altogether less attractive aspect of our modern day Liberals.

In fact the Liberal Democrats have a long way to go before they could plausibly be seen as the true heirs of Cobden and Bright.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Mark Brady - 5/9/2005

No, you were not overly harsh and apologies are not necessary. My original post was open to the interpretation you placed upon it. I had in mind that modern international human rights law is the creation of nation states and serves their purposes. Other aspects of international law evolved outside of that framework.

I am sympathetic to many (but not all) the rights that the European Court of Human Rights has upheld. However, I should prefer that those rights are recognized because people in each country demand their respective governments to recognize those rights rather than because those governments feel obliged to accede to the rulings of a supranational court. And that is because so long as we have government, I want that government to be as localized as possible. And I favor more and smaller states rather than fewer and larger states for two reasons: (1) such an arrangement makes it easier to escape from political tyrannies; and (2) recognizing the restraints imposed by the division of knowledge, such an arrangement makes experiments in less burdensome government more likely. I trust I have made myself clear.

chris l pettit - 5/7/2005

I am familiar with the libertarian arguments, but even Nozick was in favor of the idea of rights as sidebars that would trump even the minimal state. To be honest, I am familiar with and friendly to much of Nozick's arguments regarding rights, and include his philosophies in the course I lecture on Theories of Rights and justice. Of course, Nozick falls apart and descends into contradiction like most libertarian positions when we get to economic social and cultural rights, but from a pure rights theory standpoint, the rights as trumps (to use Dworkin's characterization) position is a quality one. That is my problem...international law is not indicative of an international superstate...to suppose so is to subscribe to the positivistic thinking that gives support to the state. In order to truly deal with the individual, one must deal with the rights of the individual and the idea that rights exist on their own authority BECAUSE we are all individuals, and not because any institution guarantees their authority.

So if you want to criticise the institutions that enforce or amend international law, that is totally acceptable by me and I will probably join you in doing so. As both Dr. Dresner and DC (should he want to visit from Rebunk) can attest, I am no fan of the nation-state, actually thinking that it is an archaic idea that needs to be put mostly in the past (except for certain roles)...similar to the way in which divine leaders and the church as power melted away after the Thirty Years War (shhhh...don't tell W and the conservatives...you may interrupt his fantasy). But I would suggest not criticizing international law in terms of human rights, as it goes along with libertarian principles (at least in terms of civil and political rights...and the right to liberty). The confusion and contradiction of libertarians when it comes to ESC rights can be a discussion for another time (since it happens to be where libertarians lose much of their credibility).

So please do not read the first post as an overly harsh criticism...as it may have been my misperception of your criticism of institutions instead of actual rights...however, I would just caution you to use clearer language in your arguments.

CP

Mark Brady - 5/7/2005

I welcome the opportunity to reply to Chris Pettit. First of all, let me reassure him and any other readers that I "acknowledge humanity before archaic, abstract, and fictional nationalistic, cultural and societal hierarchies." A large part of my argument is that I don’t think international human rights law as presently imagined and constituted enables us to achieve justice or even make unambiguous progress towards that noble end. I’m pressed for time right now so all I shall do this evening is to direct my readers to David Chandler ’s thoughtful article and reference the books that he has written and edited that are listed on either webpage. See especially his edited collection of essays entitled Rethinking Human Rights: Critical Approaches to International Politics (Palgrave Macmillan, 2002). Don't take this as an endorsement of all that he has written, but rather that I find that his article makes a great deal of sense. When I have more time I look forward to discussing the issue further.

Jonathan Dresner - 5/7/2005

Chris,

With all respect, these folks here are actual libertarians. Most don't consider the nation-state to have a legitimate ethical or political purpose; how much less so international law and institutions? Don't ask me how they distinguish their position from "might makes right" because I don't understand it myself: as near as I can tell, they can't except insofar as they moderate their anti-government position. International law is just piling on: as far as they're concerned, human liberty is advanced not by new law, but by the maximal elimination of law and state power. If you're going to convincingly argue human rights law here, you're going to have to do it from a very different direction than you do elsewhere.

Feel free, my libertarian neighbors, to disagree with my characterization; I'm not a member of the tribe, myself.

M.D. Fulwiler - 5/6/2005

Well, the Liberal Democrats were the only major party supporting getting out of Iraq, so I suppose I would have held my nose and voted for them.

All of the major U.K parties support a "mixed" economy, and I don't see any of them going back to support of 100% socialism. So I'll go for the most anti-war.

Jason Kuznicki - 5/6/2005

I took an online test for the British election shortly before the event. It asks solely about the parties' articulated policy positions, with no regard to style or character.

I answered the questions consistently in favor of lower taxes, less welfare, less foreign intervention, and more personal freedom. (It goes without saying that I was also voting my conscience here.)

The result? It was either the Tories or the Greens. The Liberal Democrats were as I recall the worst party of the lot. I suspect my answers were weighted Tory because the Tories favor lower taxes, legalized foxhunting, less welfare, and so forth. I suspect the Greens pulled ahead because they were against the Iraq war, oppose most other foreign interventions, and support decriminalizing marijuana.

Bill Woolsey - 5/6/2005

I was watching CSPAN one evening a few weeks ago, and they have long infomercials about Labor, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Perhaps this was "free time" provided by the BBC? The Liberal Democrat one was almost entirely about how they would spend more on social programs. There were a good number of "man on the street" interviews complaining about user fees and how the Liberal Democrats were having none of that.

To me, it seemed like the Liberal Democrats were like "McGovern liberals." (Which had some strong points relative to the "liberals" in the U.S. today.) Of course, free markets with lots of transfers and direct government provision of services is better than irrational anti-capitalist regulation along with lots of transfers and direct government provision of services. So, I suppose one should be thankful for small favors.

chris l pettit - 5/6/2005

"But this has to be placed in the context of the Liberal Democrat infatuation with the European Union and international human rights law—an altogether less attractive aspect of our modern day Liberals."

I really hope you do not think you can actually support the substance of this comment. "Infatuation?" While there may be problems with the European Union, the aversion to human rights law is truly horrifying. Last I heard, the British had signed and ratified the majority of international conventions. Am I to get the impression you think they are bunk? Shall we return to (continue) ultra-nationalism and might makes right politics? Do you seriously think you can sustain the argument of Britains before humans? This statement does a lot to destroy your credibility, sir. International human rights law is the glue that binds the international community. If you have the desire to stay in the dark ages, so be it, but do not impose it on the more progressive members of the international community who actually believe in law as opposed to political might. The fact that the UK government is able to be dragged in front of the ICC to face charges over the illegality of the Iraq War is one of the most positive developments in the guarantees of international human rights and humanitarian law. It is just too bad that the US cannot be put in the dock as well.

Your statement regarding international law is simply indefensible without resorting to a might makes right ideological position that has nothing to due with true law, ethics, or moral standards. If you acknowledge humanity before archaic, abstract, and fictional nationalistic, cultural and societal hierarchies, you will have to retract the statement. Science and logic backs that position...ideology and blind assumptions back the quote you raised.

Note I criticize the international law portion, for I agree that there are certain problems with the EU...but probably not the problems you would identify.

CP