What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • The Trump of Judgement for Liberals

    Back at the end of September I suddenly saw that a Trump victory was possible. Suddenly, with a horrible clarity I could see that there was a credible way for him to get to the White House. And once it was credible, it suddenly seemed inevitable.

    And for that reason, I don’t wake to a feeling of astonishment and surprise today. This American election result is not what I hoped for but it is kind of what I’ve spent large parts of the last few weeks not merely fearing but expecting.

    trump-likely-to-win

    It is rare that I wish that I had been wrong, but I do today.

    The election of Donald Trump is to be deeply regretted. However, it also needs to be understood and those who regret it most deeply need to think not merely about how to cope with the news but about what comes next.

    The true enormity of the defeat of Hilary Clinton has to be faced head on. I’m sorry for Hilary Clinton but this isn’t merely a personal defeat. It is a defeat of a whole set of liberal values that millions of us hold throughout the world. If we want to know where to go next with those values there are some tough truths that we need to face.

    • Donald Trump didn’t win the election despite being a xenophobe. He won it because he was a xenophobe.
    • Donald Trump didn’t win the election despite being sexist. He won it because he was sexist.
    • Donald Trump didn’t win the election despite being anti-LGBT. He won it because he was anti-LGBT.
    • Donald Trump didn’t win the election despite being unqualified for office. He won it because he was unqualified for office.
    • Donald Trump didn’t win the election despite being against every progressive value people like me hold. He won it because he was.

    He won it because he was.

    That’s the point.

    That’s the fact that has to be faced. The enormity of that fact has to be faced. People wanted this. A majority of people wanted this.

    It seems to me that people have used the ballot box to express a desire for change – change from a system which was not taking everyone along with it.

    I feel the frustration myself. It is the frustration of seeing the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It is the frustration of seeing people hungry in the richest economies of the world. It is the frustration of seeing young people with no hope for jobs. It is the frustration of seeing social security systems undermined. It is the frustration of seeing pensions squeezed and being told that is a price worth paying. It is the frustration of seeing financial institutions rescued whilst blue-collar jobs have been seen as expendable.

    There is much that is wrong with our world.

    And one of the things that is wrong with the world is the presumption on the part of so many of us who hold liberal views that if things get more difficult for people then those same people will automatically turn with joy and thanksgiving to the solutions of the liberal-left. The reality is far from that. People who are frightened for themselves more often turn to the right.

    This election result is a trump of judgement for those of us who are liberals. The #Brexit result was another such trump but I fear neither will be the last.

    If we want liberal democracies then we will need to work for them them and fight for them and if I’m honest I’m still thinking through what that means for me personally on this rawest of political days.

    Liberal complacency is partly to blame for the situation that we find ourselves in. Liberal values have largely kept the peace between nations in the West for 60 years. However, they have not kept everyone fed. And if you want peace, you must feed the poor.

    So what comes next?

    Somehow we need to remember to be kind to one another. And that means being kind to those with whom we disagree profoundly. Then we need to take joy in the small things. The sunrise, the love of lovers and the the light of a candle in the darkness are all unaffected by the political events of the last 24 hours.

    But then we need to pick ourselves up and do what liberals do. We need to organise, protect, witness, learn and love.

    We need to organise because that’s the way the world changes. People voted for change in this election. Let us never forget that they can vote for change again – in America, in the UK, all around the world. It is those who organise who have a head start in getting the change they hope for.

    We need to protect because right now a load of people are going to be feeling vulnerable. We need to work out how to protect and stand alongside the Muslim who has heard the call to ban Muslims from entering the greatest economic power in the free world. Or the Mexican with relatives on both sides of the wall that is already being built in Trump’s mind. Or the woman who fears bringing an accusation against an abuser. Or the LGBT teenager who hears the most powerful people in the world talking about conversion therapy. Or so many others. People need to be protected. People we know need to be protected.

    We need to witness to the fact that we believe in better values than those which have seemed to triumph today. That means taking a full part in the frightening world of public discourse that we now have. Social media can’t be put back in a bottle and bunged up only to be opened once we have learned how to deal with it. Those who wish to lead and guide need to be right in the midst of the people advocating things worth believing in and social media is right where the people are whether we like it or not. Church leaders need to note this particularly. The anodyne tweeting only of inane bible verses, where you went to bless a Mothers’ Union banner or excerpts from the Daily Office do not count as serious engagement with the modern world. Yes, the online world needs those things, and a dose of humour too, but it needs more than that. Our world needs ideas worth believing in and people who can articulate them in the prevailing culture.

    We need to learn because our ideas need to change and because some of our ideas have not been fit for purpose. Only the most arrogant could simply believe that the majority of people in America were wrong without trying to learn something themselves. I fear more than Donald Trump that liberals will not learn the lessons of this day. Prosperity must be prosperity for a far wider group in society. Do we have the courage to speak of reducing the gap between rich and poor for the sake of a greater whole? Are we prepared to advocate broader prosperity that might lead to our own pockets being lighter? Are we prepared to learn the tricks of the new media world that, so far, the political right is so perplexingly more savvy at using than the liberal left? Are we prepared to say that we’ve not yet found the answers to all that ails us? Are we prepared to face the fact that in assuming that people would turn towards collective institutions (the EU, the UN, the Climate Change agreements etc) that we were wrong. Are we prepared to educate and teach, relentlessly the values we hold to those whom we raise?

    And we need to love. There’s a whole lot of loving needed today and there’s a whole lot of loving going to be needed in the days ahead.

    I happen to believe that love wins.

    Even on days when it doesn’t feel like it.

    That’s what makes me a liberal.

    And I hear the call loud and clear to live the values I believe in.

    , , , , ,

11 responses to “Providence and Vocation for Liberals in Public Life”

  1. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    I was one of the Lib Dems who did foresee the calamity in 2015 and actively campaigned to get the party to change leader – after 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 it wasn’t difficult for anyone to see, but it was difficult for many nice Lib Dems to own up to the fact that they had allowed it to happen. I failed, but I don’t think it was part of anyone’s plan that I did (except possibly Ryan Coetzee and a few other true believers).

    There’s a lot in your points I can agree with, particularly regarding the naivety of referring to God’s plan, when many Christian’s have a view that his/hers/its plan is to let us get on with it and find our own way to salvation. However, the most interesting question is when you say “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.” Do you really mean that you have the right to force someone else to marry you who doesn’t want to and believes it is wrong, even though you have the right to and can get someone else to do the same job for you? Do individuals have the right to insist on being married by the registrar of their choice, or just the right to get married? Are you not perhaps just a bit assuming that your tree is that bit taller than the other guy’s?

    Reply
    1. Kelvin Avatar
      Kelvin

      I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories. I think that the equal rights tree is bigger than my tree and the registrar’s tree.

      I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them, not least because I don’t think it is a very real question – few people want to be married by someone who doesn’t want them to be married. I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.

      Reply
      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        I think you are rather changing your ground here from your original piece. You started with “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.”

        You have now moved onto “I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories.” So we now have a right to expect, but only against a person who works in the public sector, and even if it is against that person’s conscience and only if you are in a specially protected category.

        It gets even more tenuous then as you accept when you then say “I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them.” So the right is not to a person wanting to be married at all.

        Finally we get “I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.” So the right is not to an individual at all, so definitely not “your rights” but to a public sector organisation. Hardly a human right, more of an employer’s right by your own statements.

        I rather think that your equal rights tree, however high you think it is, has decidedly peculiar roots.

        Reply
        1. Graham Evans Avatar
          Graham Evans

          David, I thought most liberals accepted the view that in the provision of services to the general public, whether provided by the public sector or private sector, a policy of non-discrimination was an essential ingredient of a progressive society. I accept that there is a notable exception to this rule in terms of the provision of abortion, but this arises from the broad range of medical procedures undertaken by one type of doctor or another. Surgeons are specialised medical practitioners, as are nurses who assist them, so it is most unlikely then anyone who opposed abortion on conscience grounds would actually be faced with having to refuse to conduct an abortion. The provision of most services to the general public is also a specialist activity, and no-one forces people to engage in any particular activity. The idea that a registrar should be able to opt out of undertaking a civil gay marriage represents the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. If such people wish to opt out of doing so, then they should act as part of a religious community, such as a deacon in Anglican Church, which has the legal power to conduct religious marriages, are still recognised by the State.

          Reply
          1. David Evans Avatar
            David Evans

            Quite simply Graham I disagree with your view that this is a level of discrimination in the provision of a public service of anything like the scale you imply makes it essential that every individual has to comply with it. The “go with it or get out” philosophy demanded of the state by so many in pursuit of their personal view of their rights is to my mind a greater threat to liberty than the fact that Fred or Freda don’t agree with something and don’t want to do it but George, Georgina, Harry, Harriette etc etc etc etc can do it instead. Ultimately you aren’t stopping someone from exercising their right; you are preventing someone from imposing their requirement on someone else.

            However, I note Kelvin hasn’t responded to my substantive point and I await that with interest.

  2. Iain Brodie Browne Avatar
    Iain Brodie Browne

    Firstly thank you for your posting.
    I have been expressing my concern elsewhere that the main voices we have heard in the debate about Tim’s faith have been firstly from those who think that it wholly a private matter and because his opinions are sincerely held and are derived from his faith the rest of us should back off and secondly those who seem to imply that having a religious faith at all is a negative factor. Until your contribution I am not aware that anyone has directly addressed the issue from different Christian understanding.
    I cut my political teeth at the end of the 1960s opposing the all ‘white’ rugby and cricket tours from South Africa. The dominant voices from the churches were from Trevor Huddleston and David Sheppard. They effectively contested the assertions of those who told us (and they did) that apartheid was part of God’s plan.
    Earlier in that decade Michael Ramsey spoke up clearly in support of what was then called homosexual law reform. David Steel, who pushed through the 1967 Act did so at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise.
    I regret that equal marriage and the removal of other discriminations against gay people –including the issue you raise about Registrars- have not been as effectively championed by Christians as those earlier reforms. It is fair to say that in the minds of those who you describe as ‘decent people in society’ Christians are seen as opposing these reforms. The priority for the churches appears to be to gain protection for those who oppose such reforms. Imagine if that had been the approach to apartheid.
    My own experience gives me hope that things are changing. Our local church got a new vicar who immediately began to pray for the defeat of the Equal Marriage legislation, got up petitions and lobbied. His views on women priests were no more in tune with ‘decent society’. In common with many churches these matters had not really been properly discussed. It was heartening how many members did openly contest his views and a significant portion of the congregation felt so strongly the eventually relocated to other churches. There is a good deal more support for liberal values amongst church goers than is popularly conceived.

    My view is much the same as expressed in the Independent’s editorial this morning which endorsed Tim but added the rider that : ‘It will be for Mr Farron to make clear to party members, the public at large, and this newspaper, that his faith can indeed be reconciled with a liberal view on matters of birth, marriage and death.’ If faith is the opposite of certainty then I have enough to believe that can be achieved but if would be of assistance not only to Tim but to others struggling to reconcile their faith with liberal views if more church leaders provide a Christian narrative as effectively as did Michael Ramsey and Trevor Huddleston did in their day.

    http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/influencial-divine-former-libdem-ppc.html

    Reply
  3. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    Personally, as a non-Christian, I find the attack on Tim Farron’s Christian faith distasteful, even disturbing. With the issue of gay marriage, something I wholly support, it is clear to me that Farron was trying to protect freedom of religious thought whilst also legislating for LGBT equality. There is nothing illiberal about that. Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights, and something liberals should defend. Any definition of liberalism which does not include freedom of conscience, is one I have no interest in supporting.

    Reply
    1. Kelvin Avatar
      Kelvin

      Thanks for commenting, Andy.

      I’m not aware of people attacking Tim Farron’s faith. I am aware of people questioning whether someone who apparently has anti-gay views is an appropriate person to represent the Lib Dems as leader.

      When it comes to the vote about the registrars, that can either be interpreted as defending religious thought or as defending discrimination. I come to the latter view because if I substitute a couple who are gay for a couple being say mixed race (something many people would once have objected to on religious grounds) then I see clear discrimination at work.

      It is a strange day when people are arguing (as some are) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has the right to hold distasteful views about gay people in private so long as he defends their rights in public. He does have that right but not the right to be taken seriously as well.

      Reply
      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        Sadly there have been many who have been attacking Tim’s faith, some directly and some more with disdain. Comments such as listening to his sky fairy are not uncommon. Also portraying his views as apparently anti-gay are without doubt over egging it massively as opposed to the simple fact that as a liberals we should all have views which take into account the “balance of fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and that this inevitably leads to differences of judgement on lots of individual issues, but do not undermine the fundamental decency and liberalism of many people like Tim, who have proved it over a great many years.

        Reply
  4. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    Kelvin,

    It is a great disappointment to me that you have not come back to me with any further reasoning in response to my post on 30 June 02:19. Have you changed your views, reinforced them with new vigour or simply moved on?

    Reply
    1. Graham Evans Avatar
      Graham Evans

      David, perhaps you could clarify what your substantive point is. Having reread the whole thread it’s certainly not clear to me.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Tuesday Update

    Tuesday: Useful comment article by Colette Douglas Home in today’s Herald, on the Roman Catholic Church’s position on #equalmarriage: http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/core-message-of-christianity-is-one-of-love-and-forbearance.18704767 Includes good key quotes from Sunday’s sermon and this: [Kelvin Holdsworth] welcomed gay Christians to the service and discovered, not surprisingly, that his congregation had increased. A senior Catholic source reportedly accused him of “incendiary…

  • New article in Herald

    There’s a new article in the Herald newspaper today reporting on yesterday’s sermon and service at St Mary’s. It is prominently placed, with a nice big pic of me in the pulpit on the front page. I’d probably have preferred a different headline (they are never written by the reporters themselves) but the article is…

  • Sermon preached on 26 August 2012

    Here’s what I said this morning: Jesus said, This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But whoever eats this bread will live forever. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I was trying to think…

  • One Giant Leap

    News this morning of Neil Armstrong’s death will make anyone who remembers the moon-landings immediately turn back in their minds to that extraordinary event. I find myself able (just able) to join them. The landings are the first event that I can date which I have any memory of. I particularly remember my parents waking…