Pragmatic Liberalism
What modern liberals and conservatives get wrong... end-stage liberalism isn’t wokism… it’s (a form of) conservativism
Does classical liberalism make wokism inevitable? Is there any way to course-correct from the different worldviews of (New) Wokists and Traditionalists? Is populism now inevitable? Is there another solution to the culture war?
The successful model of the 20th century that is/was liberal democracy has strayed off course and there are two different visions of where it needs to go. This is explained in Matt Goodwin’s book Values, Voice and Virtue (1) which defines two dominant groups in UK (and Western) society; Radical Progressives say liberalism ‘hasn’t gone far or fast enough’ versus Traditionalists who would say ‘it’s gone way too far’. On one hand, there’s likely to be a drift toward right-wing populism for many Traditionalists as a reactionary force against the restless vision of radical progressivism. Counter to this, the ‘highly educated’ that are at the top of society will accelerate the radical path within their institution, whether they are in political power or other high influence roles (the Antonio Gramsci ‘war of position’ model (2)). It’s a depressing picture of silent revolution and counter-revolution. I’d argue there’s another route between ‘not far enough’ or ‘gone way too far’ and an alternative, accurate diagnosis of our times that classical liberal principles are no longer being adhered to… and that’s the problem.
Defining classical liberalism’s problems from both sides
The word liberal has been bastardised by both sides; the left talk of ‘neo-liberalism’ as a slur against free-market economics and the right talk about ‘bleeding-heart liberals’ as a slur against soft-headed, counterproductive left-wing politics. But what is it really? If you boil liberalism down, it’s a rationalist philosophy built on a pluralistic idea of ‘the good life’, liberty, being what you make it; its aim is a non-meddlesome state and the universal equal rights for all individuals, consent, property ownership, the rule of law, government as representative of the people (democracy), the search for rational, objective truth (scientific method), toleration and free speech. Boiling liberalism down further it's ‘live and let live until you step on my toes’.
The Traditionalist (conservative) critique is that liberalism leads to wokism, striving for a naïve, unattainable, utopian ideal, and the ‘progressive’ battle for ‘equity’ is built into its DNA. It’s a restless, revolutionary movement that ends up destroying everything until it gets to communism - the equity of outcome (wokism). Conservatives will also argue its unanchored from its Christian foundations and thus a vision of hyper-atomised individualism as ‘the good life’ which can be selfish, amoral, and anti-community. Once it’s confused with wokism, (as I’ve argued in other substacks, wokism is an unrelated trojan-horsing of liberalism) it prizes tribal collectives over the individual and will bend all the other liberal characteristics as a means to its ends.
The Radicals will argue liberalism needs deconstruction as it defends the unequal status quo because it interprets rights-based liberalism (all individuals are equal in the eyes of the law) only and doesn’t get to outcomes. Thus, it’s ‘glacially slow’. Free speech can be cover for bigots and ‘systems of oppression’. It frames Traditionalists as irrationalists with their religious background who don’t deal in objective truths, and uneducated electorates suffering from ‘false consciousness’. The overconfidence in the liberal idea has also led to ideological imperialism (like invading Iraq).
Liberalism’s actual flaws
Stepping back from the ‘pick a side’ mentality of the Radical Progressives versus Traditionalists some critiques are valid, some aren’t. The actual flaws are:
Liberalism can be infiltrated by illiberal ideas from both the left and right. As explained in the substack ‘The Horseshoe and the Bell Curve’, the overreach on the left is a dive down the ‘progressive’ bell curve back to feudalism (outcome) and has more in common with Marxism and fascism. This happens because ‘progressiveness’ is not a straight line from feudalism to utopia, but a bell curve that can be overshot. Likewise, it can be cover for people on the far-right as the extremes of the political spectrum are a horseshoe where the tips touch. In the UK the far-right is more represented in ultra-conservative religiousness than the stereotypical white nationalist(3).
There has been an overreach into imperialism when the West tried to enforce liberal principles on other cultures – this is an accurate charge.
Neo-liberal economics has proven to not deliver for Brits and leave us open for sale to the highest bidder.
To summarise, under poor leadership hijacked liberalism is a fertile ground for wokism, actual bigots, and of course head-in-the-sandism pandering to religious zealots by cancelling critics. The extreme visions of the good life can quickly step on someone else’s toes.
Fixing Liberalism
Classical liberalism isn’t broken beyond repair, but because of weak political leadership, the mischaracterization of liberalism, complacency about the rise of alternatives post the collapse of communism, tin-earedness to legitimate concerns of populism, and the trojan-horsing of liberalism’s good intentions by the Radical Progressives and far-rightists alike, it’s been deformed, ignored and forgotten.
Whilst Britain is by no means perfect, the rights-based form of classical liberalism peaked in the UK in 2013 when gay marriage was legalised(4), arguably earlier in 2004 when civil partnerships were introduced(5). Radical Progressives have since moved the goalposts from rights to representation (outcomes) and looked to continue the social justice battle by weaponizing any disparities or genuine examples of discrimination, no matter how anecdotal or propagandised.
What’s been needed as we hit peak liberalism was for liberalism to address its critics and actual flaws and to move into a more defensive position to conserve itself, rather than continue to overreach – which is what wokery is, which in turn leads to a backlash from the right. To get past the culture war, we need to rediscover the original political meaning of classical liberalism and tweak and reclaim what progress in progressive means. The rights version of liberalism has come and gone before it stopped, and the outcome version is treading on most people’s toes, not just Traditionalists. This is why the correct end-stage of classical liberalism is a form of conservatism, not a continual battle to find and slay ever smaller dragons. Nor is it cover or capitulation to illiberal ideas on the right. This is where pragmatic liberalism starts…
Pragmatic Liberalism
Introducing the concept of Pragmatic Liberalism. Unlike classical liberalism which can broadly be described as economically right, socially left, pragmatic liberalism focuses on rebalancing the pendulum in the centre both socially and economically with nods to localism; fiscally, this means free markets with progressive tax (strictly within the confines of the Laffer curve) and an industrial strategy to encourage business to come, stay and play fair in the UK. Socially it means stopping the pendulum dead in the middle without favour of any ‘tribe’ based on rights, not representation. This isn’t just getting back to its original ideals, it’s about evolving liberalism so it’s fit for the major challenges of the 21st century (mass migration, automation, demographic shifts, de-industrialisation, and decline in trust in democracy(6)). We need a more practical version of liberalism that gets back to its fundamentals, whilst draining the poison from (but wholeheartedly engaging with) the populism of both sides. It acknowledges that GENUINE progress based on objective facts is a force for good for ALL, reclaiming the word, but conserves and builds on what we have already been handed down from our ancestors. This means adhering to the classical liberal approach but with some more robust defensive elements, and objective truth due diligence, so it can conserve itself, with a firmer nod to its traditional roots.
Conserving liberalism is a choice phrase as there’s a significant cross-over between classical liberalism and conservatism once you hit peak liberalism. Pragmatic liberalism requires some movement from both ‘sides’, but mainly it’s from the radical progressive side that has overshot. It requires bravery from political leaders to embrace the concerns of populism to not just acknowledge problems but to do something about them, whilst being careful of due diligence in the art of sorting the wheat from the chaff in determining real and perceived problems.
Pragmatic liberalism in action
An advanced country like the UK doesn’t need revolutionary changes but evolutionary tweaks. Looking at the central problems of liberalism and restoring its characteristics, here are some fixes within the framework of classical liberalism that address populist concerns:
Internationally: Imperialism & globalisation vs restoring local democracy, rule of law & consent
Internationally, what’s needed is a course correction toward more localism, restoring trust in the liberal features of democracy, rule of law, and consent. This is a nod to the Radical Progressive side that trying to enforce liberal principles on other countries was a bad idea. It’s also not a particularly classical liberal idea either. In a nod to both sides, we need some firmer steps to ensure those who come to the UK respect our values and we (the electorate) define that number. Moving forward we:
Prioritise and partner with current, nascent, or slipping liberal democratic countries with similar values to our own in their efforts.
Stop trying to push liberalism on other parts of the world that don’t have it in their cultural history…
…But vocally and actionably oppose autocratic states and strongly point out their flaws as a comparative exercise. British liberalism has been way too passive on this both in education and foreign policy.
This approach also means the UK doesn’t consent to take migrants from non-democratic, illiberal countries that don’t share our values without strong evidence of dissident activity to the counter. We should be open to the best and brightest who adhere to our values and who should be welcome within the context of quotas. The important point here is legal migration (only) should be predicated on new arrivals who share our ideals (only).
Citizens from migrant countries need to stay in their country and make it what their culture demands it to be, not just leave for the West. There’s a bonus to the home country as migration contributes to a brain (and values drain) from the country of departure which makes the problems of illiberal, autocratic countries WORSE – one of the glaring problems those on the left who espouse open-door migration don’t address. The message from the West should be clear to migrants: stay in your country, fight for a better future locally, improve your home… not abandon it.
The volume or quota element for this should be defined by referendums, not politicians. The old Ponzi scheme of ‘forever immigration’ is about to come crashing down with automation & AI replacing jobs, hence this number needs to be decided by referenda rather than politicians who only care about ‘GDP line go up’. That model is gone. You will note this is not an anti-immigration path but a democratic one.
Domestically: Restoring Democracy, Due Diligence on Populism
Domestically, this is where course-correcting is required most. Three main areas here
Resorting constitutional democracy (boring but essential actions).
Treating populism as a pressure valve, not with head-in-the-sandism or cancellation.
Identifying and dealing with genuine disparities.
Restoring Democracy – politicians and constitutional amendments
Firstly, improving and restoring the democratic process, from the ground up.
Education
All kids should be taught mandatory GCSE-level British politics, British history, RE, economics, and (within maths) the ability to spot statistics-based propaganda. They need to understand the role of liberal democracy we’ve inherited. Political illiteracy is one of the main problems of our time; how can people engage with it if they don’t understand its history, their part in the democratic process, and the comparative ideologies? In terms of history, we need a wholesale re-contextualisation of the teaching of our past, not decolonisation. We need to understand the facts of world history, warts and all, neither the triumphalism of empire nor, the self-flagellation of slavery. Britain’s cultural and scientific contributions to the world are vast but history needs to be taught neutrally, factually, and by teachers who need to be legally apolitical. On that…
Academia needs to by law be ideology-free and fact-based. This includes all religion and politics. Teachers who break these rules should be struck off from academia for life. Traditionalists won’t like this as they will argue that Britain is a traditionally Christian country thus, we should have Christian schools. Radical Progressives won’t like it as academia has been a hotbed of left-wing activity for decades. To be clear, this is not to ban ideas, but to teach them in the context of comparative ideas from 14 onwards when impressionable young minds are ready for them. As with point one, they are then taught the frameworks of ideologies within a comparative setting. This also means a harsh law for adults who try to indoctrinate children into extreme, violent ideologies which should be punishable by a life sentence.
Constitution & Parliament
In parliament, we need a better quality of leadership and MPs generally, the best and the brightest that operate in the national interest first and foremost. Unpopular as this one may be, in exchange for better salaries that are in line with working in the City (for example) we need higher quality MPs with qualifications, real-world experience, and written oaths that they are there to serve their constituents, not dictate to them and the ability for constituents to sack them for criminality. We need people with real experiences, not career politicians. We need people who listen to the electorate and represent them, not talk down to them.
Reform of the House of Lords (not abolition) so ad hoc cross-bench experts – who are open and on record about theory political biases - can scrutinise policy. Expertise is not a dirty word, so long as it isn’t politicised or at least open, transparent, and balanced. The current Lords are not experts, they are largely gravy-train politicians.
We need an outright improvement in the transparency of lobbying; any lobbying should be required to be filmed and placed on publicly available parliamentary websites. Lobbying by vested interests of any ‘side’ should be done within the Lord’s process highlighted above. It's OK for vested interests and lobby groups to exist for robust policy due diligence, but bring the arguments in an upfront, democratic, and transparent forum.
We also need the mechanism around MPs to work. Civil servants need to be more accountable and sackable if they are not neutral or doing what democratically elected parties want.
Diligence on populism – Democracy, Consent, Objective Truth-seeking, Tolerance & Free Speech
Possibly the biggest flaw from a representation of the people principle is the head-in-the-sandism or repressive tolerance instincts of badly managed liberalism, thus the inability to engage with and do due diligence on populist ideas.
Legitimate Issues of Traditionalists – Multiculturalism vs. Umbrella-culturalism
Immigration volume, cultural shift, indigenous unfairness, big government, and de-industrialisation are the main flashpoints that need addressing from a Traditionalist standpoint. As Matt’s book points out, polls show British people are not anti-immigration and the number of people who have historically voted for far-right parties is microscopic(7), but concern with volume, speed, and the cultural impact of the millions of net new entrants since the late 90s is entirely justifiable. Fold in a radical progressive doctrine like critical race theory and intersectionality and immigration not only becomes a challenge but one that is no longer based on the British sense of fair play when the ‘outcomes’ not ‘rights’ vision becomes entrenched.
The solution to this is Umbrella-culturalism rather than the utopian idea of multiculturalism. Umbrella-culturalism is the acknowledgment that a more locally-focused take on multiculturalism is required that takes into account the impact on people already in the country, and redresses some of the ‘progressive’ overreach, all under the umbrella of the British sense of fair play and values. It acknowledges that there needs to be an umbrella of cultural values that need to be assimilated to - in the context of pragmatic liberalism, that’s British law. The foreign policy and educational approaches highlighted start this but what this means in practice is:
Domestic Economic Rebalancing
Economically, the detachment from globalisation is impossible, however, in an increasingly automated world where jobs will be changed profoundly if not destroyed, we need tax breaks to start repatriation of jobs (particularly from illiberal countries) and R&D investment in AI/automation technology.
Large multinationals based in the UK should be legally obliged to advertise jobs first in the local community rather than shuffle foreign nationals internally to the UK.
Large multinationals should also be considered for a turnover tax rather than profits as too much tax is being avoided which has created an unlevel playing field for UK businesses. Corporation tax incentives should be offered to repatriate jobs that have gone overseas, and strategic industries/companies should be nationalised if under treat of foreign takeover.
Foreign ownership of the UK housing stock should face significant stamp duty due to pressure on housing. This is an area that does need straight up protectionism until more houses are built.
Universities and private school placements need to have maximum quotas of international students, so locals have a higher chance of entrance.
Immigration
Legal economic and asylum migrant volumes should be agreed upon by referendums that sit aside general elections, so numbers are decided by the electorate. The government should then adhere to the result (as already mentioned).
All businesses need to show they have advertised a job vacancy in the UK before a skilled migrant is allowed to apply. A skilled migrant needs to actually have some skills…
New entrants should by law speak fluent English and pass a condensed citizenship test aligned to GCSE level British history already highlighted. There should be the end of dual nationalities, and a pledge of allegiance to the UK that if broken, results in deportation to country of origin.
Illegal immigration of any kind needs to be met with immediate deportation as it tramples all over the toes of consent and the rule of law. Local law needs to override international law on this issue as it’s a serious erosion of trust in government and a security issue.
British Law Privilege and the Equalities Act Amendments
One of the most important principles of umbrella-culturalism is the acknowledgment of one law. Therefore, there needs to be an explicit law, outlawing other judicial practices domestically.
Fixing the Equalities Act 2010 - Tolerance, Consent & Free Speech
Whilst it's tempting to scrap this act completely and replace it with ‘all individuals are equal and shouldn’t be discriminated against’, I’d argue it is responsible to keep discrimination as an aggravating factor - this then takes away the charge of ‘cover’ for actual ists and phobes. To be clear, ists and phobes should be challenged on their views. But here are some changes to make it more fair play:
Removal of the ‘positive action’ clause which (as the RAF discovered(8)) is too much like positive discrimination to be indistinguishable. It’s been 13 years since this law was in place – if there are still disparities it's beyond discrimination as an obvious explanation. This is a clause that should always have contained a sunset clause.
Firmer definition that people can’t be discriminated against because of ‘belief’ to include explicitly ‘non-belief’ in that compelling people to agree with something is the definition of toe-stepping coercion. This is then a defacto anti-blasphemy law that protects free speech and thought and keeps the Overton window as wide open as possible. This is an essential part of liberalism that has gone awry lately; this counters many of the issues of both woke overreach and far-right religious zealotry.
A new ‘secondary harassment’ clause making not just freedom of association underpinned by law but also explicitly making the targeting of someone’s employer/business partners/advertising sponsors illegal harassment.
A ‘Jussie Smollett’ law(9) that acknowledges that not only is discrimination bad for society, but also fake accusations of isms are just as toxic for public trust. This means a counter law that if people are proven to play the x discrimination card without a foundation of bigotry, they too are liable to a counter law. Discrimination is rightly unacceptable, fabricating evidence that people you disagree with are ists without evidence is too.
Clarification of what exactly a ‘hate crime’ is, and elevating it to a higher bar of definition to mean violence, incitement to violence, and/or harassment/secondary harassment.
The separation of ‘church’ and state in a secular politics act - see other substack. This prevents illiberal religions hijacking the democratic process.
Legitimate Issues of Radical Progressives: Addressing Disparities
Tackling Disparities – Restoring Objective Truth
An obvious point of the ‘doesn’t go far enough’ crowd is the inadvertent acknowledgment that liberalism has always been headed in the right direction. The good faith argument from the progressive side is ironing our disparities where there is genuinely an unlevel playing field of opportunity not outcome. As highlighted in substack ‘How to end the Culture War in 5 Pages’, intersectionality as a concept in and of itself isn’t awful (and obvious to a point). What’s needed to make it genuinely a progressive and useful way of understanding disparities is to run it through to its natural end point – namely the individual – indiesectionality. This is a better evolution of the idea of intersectionality as ironically, its application doesn’t go far enough…
The main problem with intersectionality is with its application being driven by ideology around immutable characteristics, blame culture, and rather than good faith attempts to explore disparities and get to the root cause of issues. Ask any wokist the cause of any issue in society and the answer is definitely an abstract, unfalsifiable ‘systemic’ ism that even when a massive weight of counter-evidence exists, will fall back on a relativist ‘lived experience’ position.
Pragmatic liberalism’s devotion to seeking objective truth means objectively addressing disparity and aiming to iron them out, by using techniques like regression data analysis. This means doing the genuinely right thing, not the performatively right thing. Not least if group x are outperforming vs. the average, the outcomes should be more focused on what x group is doing well not an exercise in blame of group y. This is a race to the top not an exercise in victimhood race to the bottom.
It could well find that isms and phobes are a big problem in modern Britain. It could find the perception of isms and phobes is the bigger problem. It could also find that nepotism is more of a problem and the key ism no one talks about…
Blind CVs – Restoring the individual
One area that Progressives have a point on is the area of how opportunity (not outcome) is potentially open for abuse by bigots. A solution to this is applications for jobs/academia etc. should be blind (no name, race, gender, etc. on the CV or application). This is a genuine liberal Luther Kingist idea where the best person irrespective of immutable characteristics gets the job/place.
A Rallying Cry
No political ideology is perfect. No country is perfect. Pragmatic liberalism recognises that but makes measured attempts to move towards progress for ALL and not let great be the enemy of good. Liberalism historically has played an important role in mediating schisms (such as conflict between Protestants and Catholics). It’s the best-placed movement to do the same again between the ‘don’t go far enough’ to the ‘gone too far’ crowds. Populism is always tempting, particularly in response to liberal overreach. It isn’t the right path, history has shown us that. Course correction can be hard but it’s possible.
This is our responsibility; to hand down a better country to our children whilst building on the heritage we were given by our forefathers. All sides, in good faith, should want this, to bequeath a better country is NOT to pass down an illiberal country where all liberal principles have been trampled on by illiberal radicals or reactionary right-wing populists of any stripe. We need better quality leaders and people to not give up but stand up and fight… and pragmatic liberalism is a project worth fighting for. The alternatives are much worse…
References:
1 Values, Voice and Virtue (penguin.co.uk)
3 Prevent duty guidance: for England and Wales (accessible) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
4 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30/contents/enacted
5 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33/contents
6 Faith in democracy: millennials are the most disillusioned generation ‘in living memory (cam.ac.uk)
7 List of United Kingdom general elections - Wikipedia
8 RAF diversity targets discriminated against white men - BBC News
Hi, not entirely sure I’d the meaning of your comments but ‘Wokism’ originates from Antonio Gramsci who was an Italian Catholic chap before the Frankfurt folk. Thanks!
Cheers, feedback/critique of my mad ramblings always welcome!