Firefighting - 4 comments

Chris Dillow, among his reasons for not signing the Euston Manifesto, raises some very sensible concerns:

I'm in two minds about the EM. If it's a description of liberal democratic egalitarian ideals, I'm with it. But I worry that the EM is more concerned to bash Galloway and his types, rather than to advance egalitarian projects (either within the UK or by making the case for more effective overseas aid) or to oppose New Labour's attacks on freedom. That's not because Galloway shouldn't be criticized. It's just that he's too trivial a target.

The tactic of attacking so-called "village idiots" is indeed a risky one.

Firstly, though, if the danger were merely that Galloway might score some points and cause some embarrassment, boosting what he believes to be his section of the Left against the so-called "decent'" faction, the Manifesto would hardly be necessary. Not only is the scope of the Manifesto far wider, and the aims loftier, than this apparent internecine dispute, insofar as it is directed against an enemy on the Left, this is an enemy that is far more pervasive than Galloway or his Party.

The fact remains that the so-called Respect Coalition is considered - in the real world, by individuals, broadcasters, and publishers - to be a genuinely left-of-Labour party, a natural home for the idealistic, the socialist, and the anti-war. Furthermore, Galloway is (still) considered by many to be a man of principle, a straight-talker, a "real" socialist, and a man who suffered at the hands of a Blairite, pro-war, Labour Party. While his party's policies might appear merely "impractical" or anachronistic to a non-blog-reading voter, only in the blogosphere is the true nature of his coalition - and the real reason for his expulsion from the Labour Party - so well known.

The "village idiot" analogy is not a good one. Tackling those who dismiss democratic ideals - not merely democracy in practice - and for whom "taking America down a peg or two" is central to their politics, doesn't represent the vindictive kicking of an unfortunate who knows no better, it's essential to halt the spread of indifference towards equal human rights worldwide, the toleration of terrorists, and the idea that 'it's all about oil - or racism' is a sufficient argument to invalidate, or deter, any US or UK involvement on the world stage.

It is discouraging to hear commentators dismiss the Manifesto as being merely concerned with a juvenile Left. Taken literally - as it should be - no reactionary regime, whatever its claimed political affiliation, no racist, sexist, Islamophobe, or homophobe, no religious or atheist fundamentalist, no curtailer of free speech, no opponent of the free movement of labour, no economic nationalist, corporate monopolist, or protector of a regressive economic system, should feel they are exempt from scrutiny.

The problem is that the juvenile Left looms so large in the blogosphere, and is so combative, that tackling it can become an obsession - a political world-view in itself - and with both sides so polarised, not only is common ground forgotten, but time that could be spent analysing other issues is lost - and all for very little reward. Should those who support the Manifesto be charged with indifference to democratic failures and the curtailment of liberties here in Britain because their "firefighting" has distracted them from events happening beneath their noses - even when they may well have been tackling those who believe that international efforts to spread democracy are imperialistic, and that it must be left alone to develop, even on the rockiest ground? Even when the Manifesto's words on the subject of democracy represent a crystal-clear commitment? Of course democracy matters, as does egalitarianism, and they must be protected, widened, and deepened everywhere. If, by paying full attention to lapses in the West, by which I mean falling electoral turnouts, voting systems that do not enjoy public confidence, gerrymandering, and political corruption - and not decadence, moral laxity, and theories that stress the impossibility or "inappropriateness" of democracy - Eustonites can more easily throw off the tags of Blairism and hypocrisy that the antis are determined to attach, then perhaps there is more hope for common ground to emerge, and for the chasm to narrow.

On the other hand, attempting to communicate with the other side (I cannot claim to be an impartial observer, nor, in the circumstances, could I afford to be one) can be such a difficult experience, penetrating the many layers of armour thrown-up, that it's tempting to wonder whether being unwilling/unable to play the same games is a sign of some kind of age-induced shift to the Right. How else do you sum up someone who spends much of their time criticising those who insist they are on the Left? The declarations left by Manifesto signers do give the impression that many people have distanced themselves from the Left, often unwillingly. And yet this must only be to avoid factionalism rather than a renunciation of left-wing values: of which democracy, tolerance, egalitarianism, and freedom of speech must be central - as they are to the Euston Manifesto. Despite the frequent invocation of the "right-wing" spectre, the traditional right-wing values of authority, discipline, nationalism, and conservatism are a ludicrously bad fit for Euston supporters, and can best be applied to the theocratic bedfellows of the far Left (and, indeed, the BNP). People may feel that they have been forced to the right, but membership of a particular political group is not necessarily an accurate guide to their values. The Left is now so broad that almost all these political debates happen on its own turf. Economically, for example, it's not at all difficult to find free market libertarians theoretically on the same side as "tax-and-spender"s and 60s sentimentalists. All the same, I'm prepared to believe there are people who are willing to leave their trenches, recognise value in the other side's arguments, and - if not entirely settle their differences - at least recast the dispute so that well-meaning left-of-Labour-ites can be separated from Respect's clutches, and refugees on the Right can recommit to a broadly liberal/left values. The evidence suggests that this is indeed happening.

The enemies that confront us every day are not merely "the other" faction. Ignorance, inefficiency, incompetence, privilege, poverty, and injustice are never far away, nor are cynicism and apathy. That being the case, and given the paucity of political platforms that remain fresh and unsullied, it is important that new platforms - the Euston Manifesto is one - are developed to encapsulate liberal/left values, and not condemned because of who the authors are, what their motives might be, what is left unsaid, and because of a poisonous ideological rivalry that causes the different sides to gleefully relish the other's failure.

Note: all views expressed concerning the Euston Manifesto Group are those of the author alone.