The euphoria that has broken out amongst many liberal commentators following the formation of the new coalition government exposes the extent to which liberalism can often overlap quite comfortably and accommodate itself with the unambiguously right-wing. Witness Julian Glover’s casually callous dismissal of concerns over the government’s violently regressive economic policies, or Martin Kettle’s comical sycophancy towards David Cameron (picking up where he left off with the man Cameron cloned himself from, Tony Blair).
Why would liberals, who supposedly buy into progressive values, be so ready to support a Conservative led government? The welcome that liberals such as Henry Porter have given to the government’s apparent reforming approach to civil liberties gives us an opportunity to explore the answer to that question. Porter is very quick to lavish praise on the government for taking our “ancient liberties” seriously, (on the basis of very little of substance so far, one might add). It is here that the inadequacy of the modern liberal’s understanding of the very values he claims to believe in reveals itself most clearly.
Essentially, the classic error of modern liberalism is to ignore the role that economics has in defining people’s liberties.
Fundamental to the condition of poverty is a lack of liberty; a lack of freedom to participate in society and to fulfill one’s potential. Inequality of wealth is therefore inequality of freedom, which directly contradicts the basic principles of democracy.
When the poorest and most vulnerable in society are forced to pay the costs of a crisis created by the richest and most powerful, that is not simply unjust; it is also a form of authoritarianism (which civil libertarians claim to despise on principle).
The reason that the costs of the bankers greed is now being socialised, with the bill being handed to people on incapacity benefit, on housing benefit, disproportionally reliant on public services, and so on, is - in the final analysis - because bankers have more political power than poor people.
That is to say, power is centralised amongst concentrations of socio-economic power, liberty is allocated proportionately according to wealth, and “ancient rights” (to be able to feed and clothe your kids properly, or earn a decent living) are subject to the diktats of a narrow elite. The recent coalition budget is the purest expression of this.
The “emergency budget” made it abundantly clear that the right-wing retains its historic commitment to maintaining the privileges of the few at the expense of the livelihoods, and the liberties, of the many. The coalition’s approach to the economy makes it quite clear that it is committed to the authoritarianism of big business and the super-rich.
This is underlined by the substantive continuation of long-established foreign policies under the new administration. In the interests of maintaining an international system conducive to the interests of British economic elites, the government will continue to support and arm some of the most vicious tyrants and torturers in the world, in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, in Pakistan, and so on. The “ancient liberties” of the victims of those regimes will continue to be savagely violated, with the support of the coalition government upon whom Glover, Kettle, Porter et al are so keen to lavish their praise.
In short, civil-libertarians in particular and liberals more generally need to acknowledge the plain fact that the coalition government, which many of them are currently falling over themselves to offer their admiration for, has no principled commitment to liberty or genuinely liberal values whatsoever. In demonstrable fact, it holds the liberties of those people it deems to be irrelevant in undisguised contempt.
It is of course possible that the coalition’s current “review” of domestic civil liberties may result in some welcome advances in that particular area, correcting for New Labour’s odious record. This is what Porter seems to believe will happen (he speaks of keeping up the “pressure”, but his cheerleading tone doesn’t suggest that to be a likely prospect). However, it is also possible - I would guess, rather more possible - that the review is a device to kick all this into the long-grass, after which minimal tweaks to the law will be made to blunt criticism, while the substance is quietly retained. This is the view taken by more sensible liberals, such as Conor Gearty, professor of human rights law at the LSE.
But fundamentally, the idea that, overall, this government can be praised for its principled commitment to liberty is simply not credible. Instead, what is demonstrated by the surge of support from many liberals for the ConDem administration is that all too often, those in the political class who call themselves liberals have a decidedly incomplete understanding of what liberty actually means.
David Wearing is a PhD researcher in Political Science at the School of Public Policy, University College, London. He writes for the Guardian’s Comment Is Free website and is a co-editor of the New Left Project