And no. This does not mean whatever emerges if the Liberal Democrats prove irrecoverable.
This is about the beginnings of a new approach to politics, recognising that the majority understand what the insider elite refuse to see – that the traditional of an oppositional two party system with enforced opportunities to change governments in serial short terms is out of date, out of touch, deathly and downright damaging.
At the moment what is being described as post-liberalism is just coming from political theorists, noticing the widening gap between people and ‘politics’ and between people and governments – a gap being pulled ever more apart by the counter movements of each of the supposed partners in dem0cracy.
However, this developing thought and analysis is taking its lead from observing people, what matters to them, where their instinctive loyalties lie, how they perceive change in the world about them, what most really want.
This is responsive thinking, working from the outside in, building and growing – not dematerialising in exploding outwards from a hot core.
it is not something tribal you can join.
It may prove to be the foundation of where we insist on recreating our means and motivation of government.
Try this snippet:
‘People have always lived through practices of reciprocity, though giving, gratitude and giving again in turn. By way of this process people achieve, in a simple way, mutual recognition and relationality.’
And this one:
‘Too often the language of liberalism that dominates public debate ignores the real affinities of place and people. Those affinities are not obstacles to be overcome on the road to the good society; they are one of its foundation stones.
‘People will always favour their own families and communities; it is the task of a realistic liberalism, a postliberal politics, to strive for a description of nation and community that is open enough to include people from many different backgrounds, without being so open as to become meaningless.’
And this:
‘it is not necessarily a good idea to take low earners out of tax completely, they should contribute even if it is a small amount.’
And this:
‘Most people pursue association, and the honour and dignity of being recognised in significant ways, however lowly, as their main goals, and are relatively unconcerned with becoming much richer than their fellows or achieving great power over them. Indeed, most people wisely realise that such things will only increase their anxiety and insecurity—they prefer a less spectacular but quieter life. They are basically hobbits.’
And a last tantaliser:
‘Moreover, postliberalism holds to the traditional view that labour and capital are not normal commodities and should remain at least partly governed by national social contracts and local ideas of what kind of competition is fair and legitimate.’
If any of these interest you, you should enjoy this article by David Goodhart, head of the ‘think-tank’, Demos and published three weeks ago on 17th January 2014 in the Demos Quarterly: A postliberal future?
It is lucid and accessible but not a quick read – that is not the point; and you need to think about it as you go, which is enjoyable. It is a blend of political thinking and practicality, looking at how this might produce different sorts of policies and measures.
In 1992, Francis Fukiyama wrote a book, The End of History and The Last Man, proposing that a liberal democracy, with liberalism celebrating liberty and equality,was the best achievable consensual political system, given the spectrum of the conflicting natures and ambitions of humanity.
Therefore, he argued, since history is effectively the recording of progress, reaching this peak of human government marks the end of history. There could be nothing essentially new to record.
In the notion of ‘the last man’ Fukyama refers to the thinking of the 19th century German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, who saw ‘the last man’ as the goal that European civilization appeared to be aiming at. His scenario saw the lives of the ‘last men’ as comfortable, with no distinction between ruler and ruled and, with no political exploitation, a sharp reduction in social conflict.
Nietzsche felt that a society of the last men would be too infertile to produce great individuals. ‘The last man’ is, as Nietzsche saw it, an apathetic creature lacking the capacity for passion or commitment, unable to dream, and putting his energies simply into existing comfortably and without challenging or being challenged.
On the one hand, postliberal politics would deny Fukuyama’s proposition that a liberal democracy is the best possible form of human government, because postliberalism – which would be very different, would replace it.
On the other hand, post-liberalism just might be so comfortable a politique that it would accelerate the domination of the last man.
This is all interesting food for thought – ‘Sunday stuff,’ if you like.
