The guilt-free liberal

[T_i_B]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sunny_hundal/2007/09/the_guilt_free_liberal.html

Andrew Anthony says: "Over the years I had absorbed a notion of liberalism that was passive, defeatist, guilt-ridden. Feelings of guilt governed my world view: post-colonial guilt, white guilt, middle-class guilt, British guilt. But if I was guilty, 9/11 shattered my innocence."

Not much annoys me more than the stereotype that to be liberal is to be full of guilt. To be socially liberal, in my view, is to be more mindful of compassion and empathy for others. On the basis of that compassion we choose to make lifestyle choices (taking public transport, boycotting Nestle, going vegetarian, donating to charity for example) and do our bit. But given that humans are full of contradiction between what they should do and what they want to do, there is always some conflict.

Should I really ignore that poor and hungry-looking beggar even though I have the sneaky feeling he's going to spend the money I give him on booze? Should I buy British produce because its production uses less air miles or Caribbean bananas because that helps to feed people there? Should I be going vegetarian if I want to help save the environment? As liberals we make choices based on compassion. To label that simply as guilt is just... insulting.

As an aside; the right has latched on to "compassion" in recent years in Britain and the US after realising their supporters too were willing to make altruistic choices. But neither the Republicans nor Conservatives really practice or understand the term.

[flashl]

1. Wow, liberal guilt, until you are confronted with the ravages of poverty

When reading the intro of ‘The guilt-free liberal’, the one word that echoed in my head was ‘community’. Therefore, I was relieved that Andrew Anthony in ‘The day reality hit home, part 2’ also addresses community. He says:

Community is a word that we hear a great deal about these days. There are community leaders who occupy an exalted position combining the authority of priest, tribal chief and village wise man. Politicians, local authorities and police advertise how they are working 'for the community'. The media anxiously seek the opinion of the 'community', which often comes with an implicit religious or ethnic meaning. Everyone is agreed that we live in communities and that communities are good to live in.

Then he asks:

But what kind of community turns its back as a teenage girl is stabbed in the face? What values bind us together if we feel that the protection of our most vulnerable citizens is not our personal responsibility? …

And, he answers:

Evidence both statistical and anecdotal suggests that in a 'community of communities' there is not enough social glue to create a sense of shared responsibility. Studies show that bystanders are less likely to come to the aid of someone of a different ethnicity from their own. Difference is all very well but it is with sameness, a common humanity, that we most pressingly need to reconnect.

I guess, this is where Andrew Anthony became a guilt-free liberal:

"I had bought into the idea, for instance, that all social ills stemmed from inequality and racism. I knew that crime was solely a function of poverty ...

There's at least a vague agreement among progressive people that if you live in reasonable accommodation you are asking for trouble. To occupy a decent house, after all, is to provoke the less fortunate. In reality this is a double insult to the less fortunate. First, it assumes that their means of addressing inequality is criminality. And second, it overlooks the fact that it is the less fortunate who are more often burgled.

Or, was it here?

The trouble with black men: A story about race.

I agree wholeheartedly with Sunny Hundal who said:

I find it find it hard to sympathise with former liberals who completely misrepresent liberalism. They need a broader outlook.