Ignatieff plays fast and loose with liberal creed
In many ways, liberals and conservatives have swapped principles over the last 100 years. But Gladstone reminds us that the great leaders tend to practise the best of both philosophies
Neil Reynolds
Wednesday, Jul. 22, 2009
In delivering his Isaiah Berlin Lecture in the National Liberal Club's Gladstone Library in London earlier this month, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff advanced a rather lame definition of liberalism, bereft of either the principles or the wit articulated more than a century ago by the great Liberal prime minister for whom the library was named. William Ewart Gladstone, four-time prime minister of Victorian Britain and four-time chancellor of the exchequer, memorably described liberalism as "trust of the people tempered by prudence" - and conservatism as "distrust of the people tempered by fear."
This was political philosophy nicely expressed. Aside from the parallel structure and economy of words, each definition was smart enough to pass as aphorism and candid enough to pass as truth. Each retains a certain ring of authenticity. As a liberal, you may well favour government of the people, by the people and for the people - but you know that you've got to keep a sharp eye on them, too. As a Tory, you may well distrust the masses - but you know that you need half of them, more or less, to form a majority government.
In his turn at bat, Mr. Ignatieff defined the two political philosophies this way: "A liberal's disagreement with conservatives comes down to this: We both seek freedom but liberals believe no one can achieve it alone." Really, Mr. Ignatieff. And conservatives do? The assertion is absurd.
Where do you begin with this kind of loose lexicography? Who are these conservatives who think that freedom is purely an individual responsibility? Where are these solitary armies of one?
Contrary to Mr. Ignatieff's formulation, conservatives are now more apt than liberals to endorse the radical 18th-century liberal assumption that people are born free - and deprived of this innate sovereignty by others, most often by government itself. They are also now more apt than liberals, speaking of freedom, to fund properly and collectively the country's military forces.
In his remarks in the Gladstone Library, Mr. Ignatieff insists that 21st-century liberals still believe in limited government but defines the limits in a remarkably expansionist way.
Oddly, he implies that only public institutions create or bestow freedom, a curious proposition - and then proceeds to stipulate that limited government is technically limitless: "The institutions that create freedom include, but are not limited to, public education for all, free access to medical care, retirement pensions in old age, assistance for the disabled, public security in our streets and the protections afforded by a sovereign nation state."
You can drive an 18-wheeler through the innocuous escape clause - "but are not limited to" - in this list of "institutions" that are deemed compatible with limited government. In fact, though, limited government does require limits. History regards Gladstone as a great prime minister because he persistently and consistently advanced the revolutionary liberal principles of limited government and its corollary tenets: fiscal discipline, low taxation, free trade, free-market economics and the devolution of power. These are the limits that Mr. Ignatieff endorses when he pledges fidelity to "the enduring principles of the liberal creed."
For Gladstone, limited government was itself a matter of prudence - based upon the inherent instinct of government to centralize power. Writing in 1894 at age 85, toward the end of his long career, he expressed this paramount principle in melancholic terms. "It is not by the State that man can be regenerated," he said, "and the terrible woes of this darkened world effectually dealt with."
In other words, you can't trust any government - Liberal or Tory, democratic or aristocratic. He lamented the incipient corruption of both parties by people who sought "to take into the hands of the State the business of the individual man."
With his list of sacrosanct monopolistic institutions, Mr. Ignatieff exemplifies this intellectual corruption. Did public schools bestow freedom on Canadians? Did medicare? If so, the Canadians who created the Canadian nation were slaves or serfs. If so, the Canadians who sacrificed their lives in two world wars went to their deaths as slaves or serfs. What is it that's truly important here? Is it education - or the monolithic institutions that govern the classrooms of the country? Is it health care itself - or the monopoly institution that insures health care services? Would Canadians be less free with more choice in schools or in health care insurance? For that matter, would Canadians be less free with competitive bus service and private garbage collection?
Mr. Ignatieff's address in the Gladstone Library was, nevertheless, inadvertently helpful. Principles do warp in the pursuit of power. In many ways, liberals and conservatives have swapped principles over the last 100 years. But Gladstone reminds us that the great leaders tend to practise the best of both philosophies.
Arthur Balfour, a Conservative prime minister who followed Gladstone (1902-1905), described this as a Gladstone trait: "[Gladstone] was, in everything except the essentials, a tremendous Tory."
This astute observation should tell Mr. Ignatieff everything he needs to know to gain power: Don't mess around with the essential principles of the liberal creed.
