"Stephen Fry pronounces the death of classical liberalism: ‘We are irrelevant and outdated bystanders’"

[Tammuz]

Stephen Fry pronounces the death of classical liberalism: ‘We are irrelevant and outdated bystanders’

He wasn’t the only one, as the Festival of Dangerous Ideas contemplated rapid changes in contemporary politics

Politics is so toxic right now, why not just opt out completely? When Stephen Fry proposed this approach to Sydney’s packed Town Hall on Saturday night, he was greeted with a wave of sympathy.

“A grand canyon has opened up in our world,” Fry said. On one side is the new right, promoting a bizarre mixture of Christianity and libertarianism; on the other, the “illiberal liberals”, obsessed with identity politics and complaining about things like cultural appropriation. These tiny factions war above, while the rest of us watch, aghast, from the chasm below.

“Is this what is meant by the fine art of disagreement?” Fry asked. “A plague on both their houses.”

I'm also repulsed by both the alt-right (which I think he is meaning to referring to with the "new right") and the section of the left, which appears to be dominant these days, promoting identity politics, ridiculous concepts like cultural appropriation, etc. Yes, opting out from the whole shitshow is appealing to me as well. I can't say I am optimistic about the way the world is currently heading, at least not in the short term.

 

[untermensche]

The intellectual left is people like Chomsky and Gore Vidal and Howard Zinn.

And the focus of the left has been and always will be to increase democracy and the ability of ordinary people to control their lives without the toxic interference of concentrated wealth.

 

[zorq]

What does "opting out"accomplish? What does "opting out completely" even mean?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Stephen Fry pronounces the death of classical liberalism: ‘We are irrelevant and outdated bystanders’

He wasn’t the only one, as the Festival of Dangerous Ideas contemplated rapid changes in contemporary politics

Politics is so toxic right now, why not just opt out completely? When Stephen Fry proposed this approach to Sydney’s packed Town Hall on Saturday night, he was greeted with a wave of sympathy.

“A grand canyon has opened up in our world,” Fry said. On one side is the new right, promoting a bizarre mixture of Christianity and libertarianism; on the other, the “illiberal liberals”, obsessed with identity politics and complaining about things like cultural appropriation. These tiny factions war above, while the rest of us watch, aghast, from the chasm below.

“Is this what is meant by the fine art of disagreement?” Fry asked. “A plague on both their houses.”

I'm also repulsed by both the alt-right (which I think he is meaning to referring to with the "new right") and the section of the left, which appears to be dominant these days, promoting identity politics, ridiculous concepts like cultural appropriation, etc. Yes, opting out from the whole shitshow is appealing to me as well. I can't say I am optimistic about the way the world is currently heading, at least not in the short term.

Buddy: the only people that I know who advocate for cultural appropriation are on fox news! They are the ones that fox touts who represent the left and make the people on the right seem normal.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'll keep fighting for reason, even if it's a losing cause. Fighting may not guarantee victory, but surrender guarantees defeat.

Rights are like muscles. If you don't use them, they atrophy.

 

[PyramidHead]

The intellectual left is people like Chomsky and Gore Vidal and Howard Zinn.

And the focus of the left has been and always will be to increase democracy and the ability of ordinary people to control their lives without the toxic interference of concentrated wealth.

Yes, and classical liberalism is a set of concepts badly in need of revision. The actual left is against it, but not so that it can be replaced by identity politics, which are a distraction from the actual problems of liberalism.

 

[ronburgundy]

Support for the dominant party's on the left (e.g., the Dems in the US) remains more of a support for classical liberalism than it does for the illiberal left whose amount of "airtime" on the internet far outweighs any meaningful influence they have on policy.

Whether and how you vote will have almost no impact on the issue of "cultural appropriation" but will impact things like whether government promotes particular religions and whether women are robbed of their most basic right to control their own body on which all other rights depend.

IF liberalism dies, it will be because people like Fry kill it by not supporting the parties who fight against the far greater threat to core liberal values that is posed by right wing parties.

 

[Sarpedon]

The cultural appropriation thing is a complete red herring. Sure there are people who care about it, but the idea that it is driving left wing politics is as absurd as it is to say that trying to address systematic racism is 'identity politics.'

This fucker says to opt out, but he is obviously carrying water for the right. He calls right wing politics a mixture of Christianity and Libertarianism, while completely failing to mention the White Supremacism that is driving right wing politics today. What he's trying to do is suppress voter turnout by fostering hopelessness, which will benefit the right wing. He can get bent. He's just whining that his faction lost control of the Christians and White Supremacists who used to dance to his tune.

 

[Tammuz]

Support for the dominant party's on the left (e.g., the Dems in the US) remains more of a support for classical liberalism than it does for the illiberal left whose amount of "airtime" on the internet far outweighs any meaningful influence they have on policy.

Whether and how you vote will have almost no impact on the issue of "cultural appropriation" but will impact things like whether government promotes particular religions and whether women are robbed of their most basic right to control their own body on which all other rights depend.

IF liberalism dies, it will be because people like Fry kill it by not supporting the parties who fight against the far greater threat to core liberal values that is posed by right wing parties.

Fry will obviously not vote for your Dems, because he is a Brit, not an American.

 

[prideandfall]

I'm also repulsed by both the alt-right (which I think he is meaning to referring to with the "new right") and the section of the left, which appears to be dominant these days, promoting identity politics, ridiculous concepts like cultural appropriation, etc. Yes, opting out from the whole shitshow is appealing to me as well. I can't say I am optimistic about the way the world is currently heading, at least not in the short term.

here is the fundamental problem:
the alt-right is a very real thing, both an abstract set of values held by huge swaths as people in addition to being a mobilized political force that is actively engaging in a takeover of the operations of government in several countries around the world.
the "illiberal left" is a fantasy cooked up by the alt-right because one of the hallmarks of fascism is needing to have an 'enemy' that is omnipresent, an imminent threat to our way of life, and also weak and disdainfully pathetic - it comes as no surprise to me that those on the right eat up this giant steaming pile of FOX news bullshit, but the fact that people on the left are buying into the idea that this "movement" exists is truly horrifying.

identity politics and PC culture simply don't exist, period.
it's a fad with certain sub-cultural groups of young people, but the hype around it being the death knell of civilization are exactly as ridiculous as those that were made about D&D 30 years ago.

 

[Tammuz]

You could argue that it's more marginal. Maybe it is. But to claim that it doesn't exist would be incorrect. I don't think it's the death-knell of civilization, but it's not a development I like.

 

[ruby sparks]

I would be interested to know if Fry specifically referred to 'Classic Liberalism'. Liberalism is arguably a word with many meanings which vary from place to place. I understood Fry's (non-capitalised) liberalism to be of the 'inbetweener' variety, the reasonable, sensible, accommodating, compromising middle ground.

In any case, as much as I admire him (and I do) it seems a tad theatrical to describe.....what he was describing....as dead or irrelevant.

 

[ruby sparks]

..but he is obviously carrying water for the right.

He's generally been a leftie. The sort that actually occupies ground (at least slightly) to the left, not merely the less right. Eg The British Labour Party. Not the US Democrats.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The intellectual left is people like Chomsky and Gore Vidal and Howard Zinn.

And the focus of the left has been and always will be to increase democracy and the ability of ordinary people to control their lives without the toxic interference of concentrated wealth.

Yes, and classical liberalism is a set of concepts badly in need of revision. The actual left is against it, but not so that it can be replaced by identity politics, which are a distraction from the actual problems of liberalism.

Classical Liberalism was essentially laissez faire. That turned out to be a horror and was dropped long ago. Classical Liberalism in the early 1800's was pretty much a Libertarian wet dream. Liberalism has steadily been changing ever since. It ended slavery. Eventually put and end to Jim Crow laws and gave us modern day civil tights. It got women the vote. We got Roosevelt's progressivism, the Square Deal, the New Deal, and will eventually roll back Supply Side economics and attempts to eliminate social programs like SS, and Medicare. Liberalism has always changed with the times, and usually, eventually prevails, long term. Fry is full of shit.

 

[ruby sparks]

The intellectual left is people like Chomsky and Gore Vidal and Howard Zinn.

And the focus of the left has been and always will be to increase democracy and the ability of ordinary people to control their lives without the toxic interference of concentrated wealth.

Yes, and classical liberalism is a set of concepts badly in need of revision. The actual left is against it, but not so that it can be replaced by identity politics, which are a distraction from the actual problems of liberalism.

Classical Liberalism was essentially laissez faire. That turned out to be a horror and was dropped long ago. Classical Liberalism in the early 1800's was pretty much a Libertarian wet dream. Liberalism has steadily been changing ever since. It ended slavery. Eventually put and end to Jim Crow laws and gave us modern day civil tights. It got women the vote. We got Roosevelt's progressivism, the Square Deal, the New Deal, and will eventually roll back Supply Side economics and attempts to eliminate social programs like SS, and Medicare. Liberalism has always changed with the times, and usually, eventually prevails, long term. Fry is full of shit.

He might have been out of his depth at least, and dishing up a slice of ostentatious and actorish exaggeration. I think his general point was about the demise of the moderate, middle ground. To that extent, I think he has one (a point). Imo, he's not particularly politically astute or sophisticated (nor am I) and economics are probably above his pay grade (ditto me again) albeit he is very intelligent and literate in a general sense (false modesty prevents me from claiming either). He's considered a national treasure, but not for his contributions to politics. As such he's not someone I would look to for knowledgeable or expert pronouncements on the subject.

 

[prideandfall]

You could argue that it's more marginal. Maybe it is. But to claim that it doesn't exist would be incorrect. I don't think it's the death-knell of civilization, but it's not a development I like.

as a movement or any sort of notable actual presence within the culture or measurable political influence it literally doesn't exist.
it exists in the same way that flat earth conspiracy theorists exist: the internet blows it out of the proportion, the news pretends hordes of people actually believe this, and everyone seems to collectively be paying WAY more attention to it than it warrants, because it's a load of horseshit that nobody important cares about and is totally irrelevant to the actual function of the country.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You could argue that it's more marginal. Maybe it is. But to claim that it doesn't exist would be incorrect. I don't think it's the death-knell of civilization, but it's not a development I like.

It most definitely does exist, and it is the left's version of the alt-right. They empower each other,
giving each other the excuse to be what they are, standing up in high visibility at the top of the chasm as the majority (reasonable non identitarian people) look up silently from below. Fry is refusing to remain silent and I applaud him for it.

Left vs right is becoming the old political model, with the new one becoming identitarian group rights vs individual rights and authoritarian vs individual free thinker. On a forum of this name I would expect more people to see this. Partisanship stands in the way.

 

[ronburgundy]

Support for the dominant party's on the left (e.g., the Dems in the US) remains more of a support for classical liberalism than it does for the illiberal left whose amount of "airtime" on the internet far outweighs any meaningful influence they have on policy.

Whether and how you vote will have almost no impact on the issue of "cultural appropriation" but will impact things like whether government promotes particular religions and whether women are robbed of their most basic right to control their own body on which all other rights depend.

IF liberalism dies, it will be because people like Fry kill it by not supporting the parties who fight against the far greater threat to core liberal values that is posed by right wing parties.

Fry will obviously not vote for your Dems, because he is a Brit, not an American.

Completely irrelevant to the point. FYI, "e.g." means "for example". Fry was speaking to an international audience in Australia and speaking in very general terms about the "left" and "right" and clearly implicating America and the Dems as well as other places and their "left" parties.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This myth that the illiberal left has no power needs to be dispelled. It may have little power in the US, but the US isn't the world.

Justin Trudeau's, our dear Canadian leader's, first action in office was to create his cabinet consisting of even number of men and women, and appointing minorities to cabinet positions, not due to merit or qualifications, but due to gender and race and religion. He wants government to "look like" Canada, though of course he isn't stepping aside as a white male himself.

Laurier, my undergraduate school, disciplined Lindsay Shepherd for daring to critically show a clip from a public broadcasting show, that had Jordan Peterson on it.

These are indeed nowhere near the equivalent of Trump in office, but they are examples of institutional power held by the illiberal left.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I'm also of the view that the illiberal left, or regressive left or whatever you wish to call it, is an overblown concept, one amplified by the far right that needs an enemy. One cannot judge the entirety of the left by what ones sees on Twitter (which is quite a bit what I think Fry is mistakenly doing here) nor can you judge it by what's going on in some college campuses. Kids are often entitled and ignorant, and the "baby boomers" often have their own ignorant sense of entitlement, believe me, and it's one that often steps on the neck of others to stay afloat. I see a loud majority, one that's annoying and should be guarded against to a certain degree, but not one that drives policy.

What drives policy on the left is maintenance of the status quo, just like that which mass media is fostering, and if we want change, then that is our target. The up and coming progressive movement with a younger generation and new leaders is what's needed in my opinion.