In Defence of Liberalism

Louis XIV (1638-1715)

Last Sunday, we found ourselves wandering around the beautiful grounds of the Palace of Versailles. The sun was glistening off the shimmering water in the stupendously vast Grand Canal and crowds queued in the cold winter sunshine to witness for themselves the extravagant opulence of a palace that was designed to be an awe inspiring symbol of power for monarchs who really did believed that they were appointed by God to rule over the French People. Louis XIV, the ‘Sun King’ moved the royal court to Versailles in 1682 with the clear intention of impressing upon his own people and, of course, visiting dignitaries, the absolute power and extraordinary influence of his splendid rule. 

During the eighteenth century, the long-held belief that monarchs ruled by divine right was challenged by Enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Voltaire. Such writers tended to take a more optimistic view of society and appealed to science, logic and reason.  They challenged existing hierarchies and promoted values such as equality and fraternity. In particular, they were dismayed by the fact that the wealth of nations was produced by the people but concentrated in the hands of the aristocracy and the church. Of course such ideas were considered revolutionary and dangerous by monarchs who became increasingly worried about their own position.  

The French Revolution saw the overthrow of the established order, or the Ancien Regime as it was known. In France at least, the concept of Divine Kingship was replaced with the notion that all humans should be equal and free. Such ideas find expression in Thomas Paine’s ‘Rights of Man’ (1791) which argued that all political organisations should protect rights such as liberty, property, safety and freedom from oppression.

Palace of Versailles 

Why have I spent so much of the last week reflecting upon such matters and why do I talk to you this afternoon about events that are in the distant past?  It is because these liberal values now seem under a very real degree of threat. However, I do not intend to talk about current international situations or reference specific political leaders. We are a diverse community and it is up to each and every one of us to formulate our own ideas about such matters.  There is an inevitability that our perspectives will differ but, given our diversity, we have a wonderful opportunity to learn from one another. Furthermore, through reasoned and friendly debate we can learn to explore our differing perspectives and grow in our appreciation of our interconnectedness. 

The whole of Paris can seem like an architectural statement of political power. Some buildings represent monarchical power whilst Napoleonic monuments such as the Arc de Triomphe reflect the ambitions of an authoritarian ruler who, at one point, laid claim to more than half of Europe. Buildings, such as the spectacular Pantheon, are temples to the values of the French Republic and stand as proud monuments to the triumph of Enlightenment values over the monarchy and the Church. 

At the Palace of Versailles, a treaty was signed on 28th June, 1919. The leaders of the victorious countries in the First World War redesigned the map of Europe. President Woodrow Wilson, President Clemenceau and Prime Minister Lloyd George dismantled empires and made decisions that led to the creation of nine new nation states. The Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire were consigned to dust. This new order was to be short-lived,  for the Second World War broke out just twenty years later.

The Signing of the Treaty of Versailles - 1919

The First World War was considered at the time to be the ‘war to end all wars’. Indeed it was this belief that justified the catastrophic loss of life. Only it was not the ‘war to end all wars’  and what came later was infinitely worse in terms of loss of life.  After the Second World War, defensive alliances such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact were established to ensure that, never again, would we face the prospect of a global conflict. Much like its predecessor the League of Nations, the  United Nations was established on the premise that international co-operation was key to resolving disputes and maintaining peace into the future. 

For much of the remainder of the twentieth century, the world seemed divided between the competing ideologies of communism and capitalism. Nuclear arms made the flashpoints of the Cold War potentially disastrous and people my age and older were born into a world of real uncertainty.  The existential threat of Armageddon provided an unfortunate backdrop to many a childhood -  though it was perhaps the theory of mutually assured destruction which ultimately kept the competing ambitions of the Superpowers in check.  

In 1989, the Berlin Wall collapsed and the Cold War seemed to be over. Liberal constitutional democracies replaced authoritarian regimes with such speed that the American political historian, Francis Fukuyama, declared the ‘end of history’. He saw the triumph of liberalism as the ultimate and perhaps unsurpassable goal of mankind. It did seem, for a while at least, that these values were unassailable.  There was a sense of optimism and a belief that we were entering a peaceful period underpinned by a common-held belief in the benefits of globalisation and shared liberal values. 

This complacency was shattered by the events of 9/11 and the realisation that new fault lines were emerging between East and West. It became increasingly apparent that the supposed triumph of liberalism was based upon a conceit and that there were plenty who conceived of a world predicated upon very different values. The failure of the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS in Syria were symptomatic of this reality.

The Collapse of the Berlin Wall 

In more recent years, the business of politics seems to have been conducted by soundbites and provocative gestures. The digital age has transformed political discourse.  International disagreements are conducted through social media platforms such as X and we now live in an age where an unelected plutocrat such as Elon Musk can wander onto a stage manically waiving a chainsaw and boasting about his desire to slash federal institutions.

A new way of doing politics?

Those who hold liberal values are often dismissed as ‘woke’. Indeed, in an age of cynical populism, everything considered disagreeable is often lazily labelled ‘woke’, ‘toxic’ or both.  

‘The car has broken - it is probably because the engine is woke’. 

‘My mother has asked me to tidy my bedroom - she is creating a toxic environment in the house’. 

The hard right tends to be ‘anti’ pretty much everything and seeks to denigrate those who campaign for a society that protects minorities. What is clear is if we believe in a liberally progressive society where the rights of minorities are to be protected, then we have to be politically engaged. We cannot take it for granted that everyone wants to protect the environment or provide a safe haven for those fleeing persecution. We cannot take it for granted that the rights of all citizens in our nations will be protected - regardless of race, gender, sexuality or beliefs. 

However, there is reason to be cautiously optimistic. The afternoon we left Paris, Keir Starmer and his European counterparts met in the Palais de l’Élysée - the official residence of the President of the French Republic. It might have looked like a carefully choreographed piece of stage diplomacy but at its heart was a sincere desire to reach consensus through reasoned debate. Endeavouring to find consensus through diplomacy and reasoned debate is much better than imposing one’s will by means of brute force. Those who posture on the world stage and trade in falsehoods do so at the expense of ordinary people and their futures. Those who misuse their power to exert their will upon the weak are bullies

We will all hold different positions on political matters and that is fine but I would encourage each and every one of  us to be informed, to be engaged and to have the courage to  stand up for the interests of those who might face persecution on account of their perceived difference. In short:

• Value the power of reasoned debate.

• Diplomacy might be an imperfect tool but it is much better than its brutal alternative.

• If you believe in values such as truth, integrity, equality and freedom then hold those values very dear indeed. 

• Recognise our fundamental interconnectedness. We have much more in common than that which divides us. 

• You will inherit the Earth. Many of you express the desire to enter the realm of politics or at least to make a positive contribution to the societies and countries in which you intend to live. Commit to doing so with kindness, selflessness and a conviction that is tempered with compassion and an ability to evolve one’s thinking over time. 

 After the end of the Second World War, the German priest, Martin Niemoller, lamented his early complicitness with Nazism. I will end with his words: 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemoller 

(1902-1984)