Ditching left and right
One of my pet topics is the increasing uselessness of the left/right divide as a tool for analysing politics. I personally tend to look at things as liberal and authoritarian or big state/small state (I’m in favour of liberal and small state of course).
The Globalisation Institute has just emailed me an interesting article talking about a new way of looking at politics - stasis vs. dynamism:
The stasist does not like change and does not want a world in which order can sponatneously evolve. They are roughly equivalent to the authoritarian and the big state advocates.
The dynamist believes that change can be good, that the world is evolving continuously and that we should be left free to use our ingenuity to solve problems, roughly speaking these are liberals and constrained (if not small) state advocates.
Two types of stasits are identified - the reactionary and the technocratic.
The reactionary is exemplified by people like George Monbiot and the New Economics Foundation who reject growth and progress and look back towards the past as some ideal - suggesting a restrictive localism and abandonment of trade.
The technocratic stasists are those who don’t mind progress if they are in control. They eschew the chaotic bottom up organisation which has brought so much progress and instead seek to control progress from the top. They are exemplified by the old scientific socialists and those who seek to plan trade, industry and development. This government follows a technocratic stasist plan - technology may be used but to manage and it must be controlled. Development of countries should be controlled, aid must be targeted, trade controlled to benefit certain people.
The dynamist in contrast sees the world in its complex glory and understands that no person or group can hope to control outcomes. He recognises the amazing ability of human ingenuity and the possibilities it grants us. He encourages experimentation with different ideas and realises that there is no set route for development and that it could occur in completely unexpected ways. He has a commitment to individual freedom to allow experimentation in all areas of life.
This for me is what liberalism is about - it is not about graciously granting the ability to do something or controlling people’s actions, it is about setting people free to live their own lives.
Needless to say, I’m a firm adherent to the dynamist view of society and progress.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
It is generally worthwhile using the left / right analysis of political issues as this is what the public uses and understands. So to engage with people surely you need to do so in language easily understood, even if that simplifies matters too much sometimes !
I will use in LD forums the liberal / authoritarian axis in discussions with fellow liberals, for those terms are shared common currency.
One wonders sometimes where your personal politics differs from the libertarian Tories or liberal conservatism.
I think you exaggerate the socialist viewpoint - not all are rigid statists. Likewise I wouldn’t see NEF / Monbiot in quite such simplistic terms.
That they promote localism is good - what kind is where we may depart from NEF. The Green Party, although they have many quite attractive policies on paper (to this leftist liberal) they appear quite illiberal in how they might execute their proposals.
I’m still working out the Tory ‘vision’ of localism - well they are joining the party rather late in the day !