Neal Lawson's illiberalism - 2 comments

Says the Don (who also links to several other critiques), Compass Chair, Neal Lawson, is "a man with a track record of inept and counter-productive support of a range of good causes". The latest mission: using your own ignorance of economics and philosophy, and reluctance to engage with other's arguments, erect a straw man, and call him The Political System. Then, contrarian, demolish with whatever argument you fancy: here, the lukewarm platitudes of priests.

Where do we get moral leadership from today? As we pick up the pieces of another swiped out festive season it's a fitting question. Is there something more to life than the endless cycle of overconsumption? How can the Iraq war or exorbitant city bonuses be justified? Increasingly it is our religious rather than political leaders who attempt to answer these difficult and pressing questions.

The mainstream media in this country undoubtedly trivialises politics in the UK, but the world is full of moral guidance (leadership, if you must): throughout our lives we watch, listen to, and read about the activities of people ranging from family members, to schoolteachers, businesspeople, politicians, and people with many different points of view and ideology, and we respond to what we take to be the positive and negative consequences of those actions, adapting towards what we hope to be 'the good life'. It's central to Lawson's argument that humanity is incapable of any such growth; without the moral leadership - and Lawson clearly has specific moral leadership in mind - the result is disaster. After all, what else could "overconsumption" mean? It's impossible to prove either way, it can be defined any way Neal likes, it sounds bad, and it plays on our guilt, so it's an essential part of the vocabulary for any budding puritan.

I had intended to post just before Christmas in defence of consumerism. It seems to be used overwhelmingly in a puritanical, as well as a snobbish manner, implying that self-appointed arbiters are a better judge of what people spend their money on than they themselves, that the general population is too unsophisticated to see through advertisers' messages, that most shoppers - unlike the happy aesthete - shop out of habit, and for the sheer love of money, and possessions. Consumerism^* also implies the population, free to walk the streets, and the puritan fears this kind of mass movement. What is this moral guidance that the religious authorities have to offer? An anti-democratic contempt for the above, but without anything so controversial as an appeal to charity, humility, or generosity? Nothing but platitudes appear in Lawson's piece, just the unfalsifiable "Something (what?) is wrong; something must be done!" that we expect from a Cameron or a Princess Di.

To sacrifice the concept of individual freedom, as Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor appears to advocate - something that the powerless have struggled to seize from the powerful (religious leaders very much included) throughout human history - in favour of some hot air about "the fundamental questions on the sense and direction of our lives", seems designed to return humanity to the stupefaction of centuries past. If Lawson were to realise that it is attempts by religious authorities to increase their presence in schools, to advocate and enforce dress codes (those affected naturally only become "some of society's most vulnerable people" for Neal when the rules are challenged, and the religion takes offence on the individuals' behalf), to defend blasphemy laws, to suppress freedom of speech, to meekly tolerate violence against their own communities, or to tolerate and even advocate the preaching of violence against others - rather than the peaceful faith of individuals - that is a matter of legitimate public concern over the influence of religious representatives, he might be less inclined to impugn atheists, secularists, rationalists, and politicians, not to mention workers at Goldman Sachs.

Our politicians have forgotten that power and principle are two sides of the same coin. Politics has stopped being a different vision of the good society and is instead a job for technocrats and for self-proclaimed rationalists.

To suggest that those involved in politics aren't interested in visions of a good society is a pretty ignorant comment for someone loosely involved with the blogosphere, and who must encounter individual politicians and political bloggers frequently. Neal might have a point if he has "managerialism" in his sights, but substituting the idea that unelected religious teachers should "lead and motivate the nation", in place of elected politicians doing so, hardly seems an attractive one, even if you believe that people have to be led. The fact that individuals, companies, or collectives, could be empowered to tackle society's problems in a more decentralised way seems hardly to have been considered. Now who's out of touch?

Not content with using the current state of Iraq to say "we were right" to the disparate group known as "opponents of the war", whatever the arguments - some 'realistic', some repulsive - those individuals employed, what Lawson implies is a kind of victor's justice, under which those who fall into the "supporters of the war" camp are to be judged moral criminals, morally vacuous, timorous, or 'careerist', irrespective of the arguments they used, and the principles they sought to promote and defend. Whatever kind of politics could produce this, it's not liberal. Only a tyrant - or a mob - could celebrate the chaos in Iraq - or indeed any argument they believe themselves to have won - with a victimisation of their opponents, as if the moral case was done and dusted, and the continuing debate pushed to one side. Norm's piece on this is a breath of fresh mountain air in comparison.

I don't deny that there will be religious figures (and to reiterate, I'm not talking about individuals with religious faith) who, on the basis of their brains, imagination, humanity, and so on, have acquired a moral authority of their own - or who bring evidence to discussions - and have earned the right to be listened to by thoughtful people. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes they enjoy the same right on the basis of their status within their particular sect, or on the basis of a personal recommendation by Neal Lawson (for whom "overly rationalist" is a censure, rather than a precondition for an intelligent debate), can get to the back of a very long queue.

-----
^* My dictionary gives an additional definition of "consumerism", namely "the protection or promotion of the interests of consumers". Is this also frowned upon?