Civil war is what happens when rival sides begin to disagree not about this or that trivial or controversial matter but about the entire structure on which they depend in order to conduct their rivalry. It is when chess players begin not merely to refute each other’s gambits but reject each other’s rules of the game. And have to fight.
Betz and Rainsborough have launched on us the disconcerting suggestion that we are soon to be at civil war. They measure war by riot and violence and discord and state failure. But behind any possible or likely civil war on the ground – what has made it possible – is what I shall call the civil war of the libs.
The history of the last 200 years is one in which liberalism emerged as a party: as a Liberal party that was so successful that it took over all of our society and then destroyed itself. So far, so simple. But, a complication. Liberalism has existed in two forms from at least the late 19th century, so now that it is dominant in the 21st century, and now there is no indigenous opposition worthy to oppose it, it has come into open conflict with itself. This has happened in the last 20 years.
Let me explain.
Liberalism exists in two forms.
If you are in the UK, a ‘liberal’ = a classical liberal = John Bright or Herbert Spencer or Friedrich Hayek or Jordan Peterson or someone in the Free Speech Union.
If you
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The major factor missing here is Christianity. Gladstone’s ethics and politics were deeply Christian and the old liberalism had this basis, it was not free floating. Today ‘liberalism’ is just relativistic emotivism. MacIntre’s Whose Rationality book is a key here. Also the conclusion to Hayek’s Road to Serfdom is worth reading, a plea for freedom of thought and speech as essential for democracy – and is currently being crushed by the day.
Liberal.
Words mean what I mean them to mean…
i was surprised by the reference to Helen Lewis. She very much isn’t a fan of Jordan Peterson but she is pretty independent minded and her views are decidedly heretical – not at all a follower of the omnicause. I’m a big fan of James but this seems glib.
I am reminded of the tale of the new MP, attending their first session, crammed in at the end of the front bench, turning to a seasoned party colleague, pointing to the benches across the House and saying how exciting it is to confront the enemy at last. “No,” says the old timer “That’s the opposition. The enemy is behind you.”
Resonates with this article and today’s Labour Party, does it not?
This is a confused statement because it omits a crucial differencen between these different kinds of liberals: Their origin. What the author calls old liberals were the opponents of the conservative monarchy riggedly caste-based social order in, say, Georgian England. And what he calles new liberals are people whose origin was in the USA which – compared to Britain – had always been a liberal state. They’re thus opposed to something entirely different, namely, the Christian faith and Christian morals which are still very important in the USA today and were certainly more important in the past. They call themselves liberals because they’re in favour of certain things Christian society originally strictly prohibited and heavily stigmatized for much longer, eg, men having intercourse with other men.
This is an instance of the same word used to describe two very much different things when referring to different groups of people in different environments.
A very fine explanation of why bipartisan polices and bills are without exception absolute clusterfucks.
I thought civil wars started when the majority population was fed up of being ground down by a tyrannical minority.
Nothing to do with rivalry of ideas, but get your f**cking boot off my neck.
Brilliant article; incisive insight into this long term prevailing malaise in the UK especially, but with comparisons with the US.
Always learn something from James, and thankfully nothing that can be put in a graph. (Often that one ought to read some Collingwood.)
Liberal Fascism. What is in a word? ‘New Liberal’ is the New Communist, the New Atheopathist, The New Marxist, The New Globalist, The New Whateverist who prays to Statism and Endless Government.
Different labels for the same pile of detritus I hop over when I go for a run.
James, if you want your enemies to be the old liberals then, is the crux of your argument that the old liberals aren’t putting up much of a fight, and so are no longer a worthy enemy?
This is why I reject labels and can’t be pigeonholed, because I think many people are like me and don’t fit snugly into one convenient category based on their views. There’s elements of conservatism that jive with me as there are with elements of classical liberalism which very much align with my opinions. I don’t even consider myself ‘Right’ or ‘Left’, because I don’t believe in oversimplifying something complex to the point of it becoming meaningless. For some people this will be a very cut and dried issue but for me it definitely isn’t. I am not driven by a need to belong to any one ‘team’ or side, because I have the ability to be objective and am in no way tribalistic, so out here on the periphery I remain. More on liberalism here;
”Liberalism flourishes in times of stability, when people recognise the value of its pluralistic framework that allows for and mediates disagreement. In times of insecurity, however, our craving for order, certainty, and cultural conformity is more easily triggered. When threatened, people become inclined to seek the comfort of simple frameworks and shared narratives. They turn more readily to religious, traditional, or ideological stories, retreat into… Read more »
From Grokipedia:
Perhaps there is room within this definition for people to find their own stance? To a centralising, procedural, Government this would never do – people might ignore the wishes of the ‘Great and Good’.
Arguably our recent governments have been more or less centralisers (e.g. Thatcher) or process driven (e.g. Blair) and so just flavours of New Liberalism. Recent governments riven by the narcissism of small differences… but decades of narcissism build up.
I would choose Classical Liberalism if such a party existed. The Conservative Party once had the tatters of Classical Liberalism wrapped around it but they were ripped away by the self interest of those in Government.
And remember how the British “Liberal Democrat Party” was formed. Before then it was the “Liberal Party”, but it merged with the Social Democratic Party (SDP) (albeit with some of the SDP members splitting off), which in itself was created by a group of Labour Party members that separated from the Labour Party in 1981. That is, it was two years into the Conservative Gov led by Margaret Thatcher.
Liberal/Social/Christian/Parliamentary democracy – all adjectival modifications to disguise the fact you are not getting what they would like you to think.
Like the ingredient in ice-cream: non-milk fat. Our brains are supposed to register non-fat milk, but in fact what we are getting isn’t milk at all it is vegetable fat in our ice-cream.
The scientific revolution gave rise to the belief that everything could be improved endlessly. In that environment, what currently exists is not perfect and is not worthy of preserving unchanged. Conservatism is not possible in such an environment.
If you asked people about specific issues you would probably find that most were towards the progressive rather than the social conservative.
As for civil war, others have pointed out that things like shoplooting and the Channel migrants are not a threat to the state. Most people are docile and that is sufficient for the state to continue as it is.
There will never ever be a civil war. Civil unrest, yes, this is inevitable. But there is a massive difference between that and all out ‘war’. These people who keep banging on about civil war are either wishful thinkers, fantasists or both.
“If you asked people about specific issues you would probably find that most were towards the progressive rather than the social conservative.”
Not sure about “most”. For sure the picture has shifted even in my lifetime towards less “social conservatism”. But I think there are still substantial numbers with fairly conservative views in this area. I’m pretty conservative myself in how I have lived and live my life, and think others would be better off doing the same. However since I’ve started thinking more about these issues (since 2020) I have decided that imposing that on others is not right. I think there are a lot of conservative minded people who do think that imposing things on others is fine, and the perception especially of young people is that the political right wants to ban lots of things that they think people ought to be allowed to do.