My riposte to Donal Blaney’s comments about the BBC’s Asian Network has prompted not only a lively debate in comments here but also a response from the man himself, one that is, by turns, both amusing and not just a little sad in the extent to which it serves to emphasise that even a university education (and a professional qualification in law) offers no certain antidote to deep-seated and wilful ignorance. On a more general note, Blaney’s further remarks, which I’ll outline in a moment and which, from experience, advance a worldview that is far from being uncommon in certain conservative circles, provide a useful example of just how far the Conservative Party still has to go in its efforts to rid itself of its reputation as ‘the nasty party’ when dealing with the issues of race, ethnicity and the demands of providing political leadership in a culturally pluralistic society.

Let’s start at the beginning with Blaney’s opening gambit:

One of things that I find so frustrating about blogging is dealing with people who are either stupid, venal or willfully choose to misrepresent your views. More often than not, these people post anonymously and decide to tar their opponents with the epithet “racist”, “homophobic” or “fascist” in the hope that by using such a description, debate is closed down and they win by default. Such is their intellectual insecurity that they will not engage in honest debate and instead they resort to infantile abuse in an attempt to stifle debate. I cannot help but wonder whether these people would not prefer to live in a police state where only certain views (theirs) are allowed to be held because the venom and vitriol that flows when you dare to stand up to them is quite astonishing. It says a hell of a lot about them and their upbringing.

Oh dear, it seems that Donal’s ‘projecting’ already and he’s barely out of traps with his argument.

To be absolutely clear, as he’s obviously having a few comprehension issues in dealing with my original post, I did not ‘tar’ Blaney with any particular epithet, least of all those of being ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’. What I did point out was that:

a) his comments in regards to an apparent invitation to appear on the BBC’s Asian Network were exhibited a deep-seated ignorance of both the origins and raison d’etre of the radio station – despite these being set out clearly in the Wikipedia article that he professes to have provided almost the sum total of every thing he knows about it;

b) that the rhetorical tone and language in which he couched his remarks were all but indistinguishable from a common set of tropes that are manifestly characteristic of the far right in Britain, and in particular the British National Party; and

c) that taken together these gave the appearance that Blaney’s arguments were underpinned by a distinctly monocultural ‘vision’ of Britain and the nature of British society, one that is manifestly out of keeping both with the reality of modern Britain and, more important, with Britain’s long-standing tradition of being a liberal, pluralistic and tolerant society. Indeed, as I indicated, although perhaps a little too obliquely for Blaney’s limited comprehesion, rigid cultural outlooks of this kind are commonly a component of totalitarian ideologies, and in doing so mentioned both Fascism and Stalinism as [opposing] ideological exemplars of precisely this kind of worldview, although one could just as easily cite any one of a variety fundamentalist religious outlooks as possessing the same characteristics.

These are all eminently debatable points, as is the question of whether Blaney, as an alumni of the conservative Leadership Institute – not to mention someone who appears, from his blog, to revel in having been described as a ‘young Karl Rove’ – is advancing such arguments out of a sincere, if ill-judged and desperately mistaken, belief in their veracity or simply indulging is a little cynical ‘show-boating’ as a means of advancing an altogether different agenda.

One way or another, what Blaney actually attacks in his original article is not the actuality of the BBC’s Asian Network but a caricature, a straw man that is entirely of his own devising and construction, and having used that tactic once it is, of course, no great surprise to finding him doing exactly the same thing again in ‘responding’ to my criticism of his original article…

…and what has yet to be determined here is whether his choice of tactics is the product of deliberate and conscious calculation or whether he is simply too ignorant to recognise the fundamental flaws is his outlook.

And with that we’ll move on to his next set of remarks…

All too often those of us who dare to have a differing worldview will allow themselves to be bullied into submission for fear of being labelled as a racist, homophobic fascist (even David Cameron). Not that it makes any difference to these onanists but it is the case that all of us they label as being racist, homophobic fascists are neither racist, homophobic or fascist in our worldview. I wonder whether they even know what these words mean – they are so overused, they risk losing all meaning.

I think my earlier comment have established not only that I do understand what terms like ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ actually mean and, more than that, know how to use those terms in a precise and meaningful context. This is, however, significantly less important than understanding exactly what is it that Blaney is attempting to do here, which is to set himself up as ‘the victim’ as a means of covering his unwillingness, or perhaps inability – let’s leave that question open for the moment – to address any of the substantive criticisms raised in my original comments.

(In case anyone has got this far without having read my original comments, or Blaney’s original article for that matter, I feel that I should point out that Blaney’s references to ‘homophobia’ – and David Cameron, come to think of it – are something that Blaney has introduced into the discussion for reasons known only to himself, neither topic being germane to matter that hand)

The fact that, for example, I am a free-market classical liberal and a passionate defender of democracy, the rule of law and freedom of speech is ignored by my detractors: because they hate my views, I am automatically a fascist. Yesterday a website I had never heard of accused me of “pandering to racist attitudes and promoting a manifestly fascist vision of society” notwithstanding the views I hold and express. Because they me a fascist, ergo I must one – so runs their “logic”!

Mmm – If I had a quid for every right-winger who mistakenly thought the ‘b-b-b-but I’m a classical liberal’ line amounts to a valid defence when confronted over their own ignorance and inability to construct a ‘classical liberal’ narrative on race, ethnicity and culture…

If you want to know what a ‘classical liberal’ narrative on such issues actually looks like then look no further that Perry De Havilland’s comment on my original article:

I think it is a great idea to have radio stations aimed at wherever sub-cultures exist because having a pluralistic cosmopolitan meta-culture is a wonderful thing… so the idea of one for ‘Asians’ seems innocuous (whatever ‘Asians’ means given that people in the UK from Japan and Pakistan have nothing whatsoever in common culturally).

The only thing I object to is providing radio stations for anyone at all with my tax money.

Perry’s objection to the use of public funds to provide radio stations is both unsurprising and, to some extent, philosophically contestable from a classical liberal standpoint – there are legitimate and eminently debatable questions as to whether and to what extent culture and cultural artefacts may legitimately be regarded as ‘public goods’ – but otherwise he’s right on the money in his outlook. If one correctly applies the principles of classical liberalism to questions of race, ethnicity and culture then one arrives at a narrative which Perry describes as a ‘pluralistic cosmopolitan meta-culture’ but which could, just a easily, be referred to a ‘liberal multiculturalism’.

Liberal multiculturalism is, in essence, nothing more than a logical consequence of a liberal society in which there is both a clear boundary between the private ‘space’ accorded to individuals and the communal public space in which individuals interact with each other and with various organisations and institutions, and clearly defined limits on the extent to which the political entity responsible for the maintenance of the public sphere is permitted to define the parameters of acceptable conduct in the public space and/or extend its influence into the private space. Liberal multiculturalism is what you get in societies where people are free to order their lives and manifest their beliefs, opinions and general worldview individually or in voluntary associations under conditions in which these freedoms are limited, by the rule of law (which embodies a defined set of common values), only to the extent necessary to provide for equal basic liberties for all.

The opposite of multiculturalism (and liberalism, of course) is totalitarianism, a rigidly enforced monoculture of a kind that is possible, in practical terms, only if there is no separation between public and private space and under conditions in which the ‘rule of law’ – as defined exclusively by the state – extends into every aspect of the lives of individuals. To say that one is opposed to multiculturalism is indicate either a desire for totalitarianism of, as is more likely in Blaney’s case, to indicate that one has no real understanding of what multiculturalism actually means.

What is actually being debated, in the current public discourse on multiculturalism is NOT multiculturalism versus an alternative of some description – ‘integration’, which is commonly (and fallaciously) presented as the ‘alternative’ to multiculturalism is not an alternative at all, it is merely a process by which individuals, and groups, are socialised into the limited set of common values that are necessary if there is to be a commonly held public space in which individuals and groups can interact without coming into direct and violent conflict. Rather it is the case that what is being debated, and quite legitimately when addressed intelligently, is the nature and scope of the common values that are deemed necessary to ‘regulate’ the public space and the manner and extent to which the state may legitimately intervene in society to enforce those values. As with so much else, the central question that needs to be addressed is that of how society should best balance the positive and negative liberties afforded to individuals and group in order to provide the best possible balance of order, stability and personal liberty.

De Havilland’s view is categorically that of a classical liberal and, moreover, that of someone who has embraced classical liberalism as an all-encompassing philosophy. Blaney may lay claim to ‘classical’ liberalism as a personal credo but his understanding of what classical liberalism actual means is, on the evidence of his arguments, no more than that of a dilettante – if you want good working generalisation for the difference between a bona fide classical liberal (or libertarian) and a ‘free market’ Tory/Republican, which is what Blaney appears to be by his own remarks, then its that when the latter read Locke they only got as far to the bit about property ownership being a ‘natural right’ before deciding that ‘that’ll do for me’ and ignoring the rest…

…and to quote the immortal Mr Benn, ‘As if by magic…’

The fact that I do not believe in multiculturalism, cultural apartheid or so-called positive discrimination automatically makes me, in their eyes, a racist – despite the fact that in opposing these beliefs I share the same worldview as the likes of Martin Luther King, Bishop Nazir-Ali and Trevor Phillips.

I must admit to having been in absolute stitches when reading this for the first time. It is, quite literally, one of the funniest things I think I’ve read in ages.

Look, I think we’re all familiar, by now, with the classic ‘but some of my friends are black’ defence, but this really has to be the first time I’ve seen anyone attempt to defend themselves from an (entirely imagined) charge of racism by advancing the idea that ‘I’m not racist because there are some black people I agree with’.

How the hell can one possibly respond to such an obviously crap argument except by noting that, henceforth, this shall be know colloquially as ‘The Blaney Defence’ and like Godwin’s Law its deployment as anything other than satire shall be taken as an immediate admission that one has lost the argument.

Of the remaining four paragraphs in Blaney’s attempted riposte, two amount to nothing more than the repetition of themes that I’ve already dismantled, which leaves me only to comment on…

It says a lot about these people that they are desperate to import negative motives into the actions of those with whom they disagree. Not only does it show intellectual weakness on their part but it suggests they are deeply unhappy, insecure and lonely people. Their bitterness at life radiates from every sentence they write. You wonder whether they’d be better off ending it all so as to avoid the further trials and tribulations of life.

Look, if you’re going to try to put up a credible claim that you’re somehow the ‘innocent’ victim of ad hominem attack then it generally better not to do so by writing an article that amounts to nothing more than an extended ad hominem – you might think you’re clever but in reality it makes you look either like a complete idiot or like someone whose general contempt for the intelligence of others leads you believe that you get away with taking pretty much everyone for a prat.

I simply wish that those who cower behind anonymity or the written word would have the courage to debate me in person or in the media. Whenever you challenge them to debate, they run a mile.

Yes, its the cheapest of all cheap shots. I may be notionally ‘anonymous’ in the sense that I write under a pseudonym in order to maintain a clear separation between my on-line activities and my life out here in the real world but I am far from being an unknown quantity – ‘Unity’ is a well established on-line identity with an easily verified track record in terms of views expressed both on my personal blog and in comments on numerous other blogs.

As for debating with Blaney ‘in person or in the media’, just what the hell does he think I’m doing right now, or indeed what does he think I was doing in my original article. My comments are posted openly on a publicly accessible blog, in a form that directly addresses specific criticisms towards Blaney and under conditions in which he has the choice of responding, equally publicly, either on his blog or is comments here. Given the growing popularity of blogging and the extent to which bloggers are increasingly attracting the interest of the MSM and, on occasion, even pushing the agenda, one has to wonder just how much more ‘in the media’ one has to get before Blaney considers that he’s being debated ‘in person’.

If Blaney is so desperate for a challenge, then he’s got it right here – who I am out here in the real world is entirely irrelevant to matter at hand as what’s being contested here is not Blaney’s private outlook on life but his public utterances and the ideas and values that appear to underpin them – my original and specific criticism of Blaney’s original article was not that it demonstrated that he, personally, is either a racist or a fascist, but rather that he advanced a series of arguments that were, in the first instance, predicated on an ignorant misapprehension of the origins and purpose of the BBC’s Asian Network and which, secondly, advanced a position that was/is, in terms of rhetorical style and choice of language, near indistinguishable from that routine adopted by the British National Party to advance what is a manifestly racist/fascist agenda and, which, in addition, implied support for a monocultural ‘vision’ of Britain analogous to that favoured by supporters of totalitarianism. Whether or not that ‘style’ is indicative of Blaney’s own personal beliefs or merely the product of a cynical exercise in populist demagoguery is an open question – given Blaney’s background I’m much more inclined to the latter view if somewhat unsure as to whether to properly regard the intellectual poverty of his arguments as being a carefully contrived artifice, i.e. that he’s consciously ‘playing’ at populism, or the consequence of a deep-seated and wilful political ignorance – one of the more common intellectual failings that tend to afflict political ideologues, of all descriptions, is an unwarranted belief that the merits of their chosen position are so clear, obvious and meritorious that are self-evidently ‘right’ and ‘correct’, thus rendering anything other than the most cursory understanding of alternative/opposing viewpoints unnecessary and irrelevant. That said, the rhetorical similarities between Blaney’s arguments and those of the BNP are, regardless of their actual foundations, entirely of blaney’s own contrivance and, therefore, fair game as far as I’m concerned.

Ideologues, particularly those with a penchant for demagoguery, may well be highly intelligent, in general terms, but are, equally, often extremely ignorant in as much as their understanding of political outlooks other than their own is often, at best, cursory and founded on crude generalisations, stereotypes and fallacies all of which renders them incapable of advancing any for of criticism over and above that of attacking straw men of their own devising. Based on these last two articles, Blaney may well fall into precisely this category – he’s not stupid, per se, but his capacity to advance either a coherent and reasoned argument in favour of his own position or mount a valid critique of opposing views is severely curtailed by his extremely limited understanding of exactly what it is he’s trying to argue for, or against. This kind of ingrained and wilful anti-intellectualism used to be, in the UK, much more characteristic of ideologues at the far extremes of the political spectrum, on both left and right, but seems to be increasingly creeping into mainstream British conservatism, in no small part due to growing influence of American conservatism/republicanism on certain strand of conservative thought over the last 10-15 years or so.

One can, I think, rightly consider this to be one of the unintended consequences of Thatcherism. Having been first stripped, by their own party, of their ‘spiritual leader’ and then unceremoniously removed from political power by the electorate and deprived, again by their own party, of credible political leader created in their own image, adherents to this particular strand of conservatism have increasing come to look on the US for their ‘political sustenance’ and have come to absorb, and import in Britain, many of the social and cultural mores of American conservatism, not least of which being the rabid anti-intellectualism of the Christian Right, this having been Bush’s ‘conservative base’.

Now, personally, this is something I consider to be a particularly pernicious and unwelcome trend in British political culture, something that is not too dissimilar in effect to the introduction of Japanese knot-weed – I’ll happily take a good honest British Tory or a genuine philosophical libertarian any day, either is infinitely preferable to this new-ish breed of (mostly) pig-ignorant Republi-cons. It’s also something that, returning to an idea I floated pretty much at the outset, creates a very particular and difficult set of problems for David Cameron in his efforts to defenestrate the Conservative Party of is prior reputation as ‘the Nasty Party’ when dealing with questions of race, ethnicity, culture, immigration, etc. because many, if not most, of the [most vocal] adherents to the new right-wing credo seem congenitally incapable of recognising their own intellectual limitations, all of which makes them particularly gaffe-prone in ways that even some of the old-school Tory bigots of yester-year could barely imagine.

Since becoming Tory leader, I’ve seen nothing in David Cameron, at a personal level, to suggest that he is anything other than sincere in his efforts to broaden the appeal of the Conservative Party and rid of some of the less salubrious elements of its recent past. Yes, to address Blaney’s reference to homophobia head-on, Cameron’s personal voting record on liberalising measures in legislation impacting on the gay community is not as good as it might be – if one looks back to the IDS period, Cameron consistently voted with the Tory Whip and against liberalising measures at the time unlike, for example, Boris Johnson whose voting record on such issues has been consistently liberal (and liberalising) throughout his entire tenure as an MP, even where this meant voting against the whip. That is, by no means, evidence of homophobia on Cameron’s part, rather it does suggest that Cameron can be prone to put political expediency ahead of principle under certain conditions and that, when we come to look at where he has reached in his efforts to remodel his party’s public reputation on race and ethnicity does suggest that should he run aground on the vicissitudes of his own party membership, it is likely that he will, to some extent, have contributed to his own short-comings.

Thus far, Cameron has, by and large, succeeded in quelling the worst excesses of the Conservative Party’s prior public reputation for resorting to playing the race card when things got a bit tough but he (and other modernisers) still have a long way to go before the party can rid itself of that reputation once and for all. What the party needs to develop, in the medium-long term, is coherent conservative narrative around race/ethnicity, something less directed and rigid than an ideological position but equally something rather more than they have at the moment, which too often seems to amount to nothing more substantial than a few weak platitudes and the occasional foray into tokenism – it needs to develop a set of principles, a philosophy of sorts, which incorporates a modern, coherent and relatively enlightened narrative on race into the mainstream canon of conservative thought. Taking on board the proposition that ‘liberal multiculturalism’ is a logical outcome of a free, pluralistic, society and that the ongoing public discourse on multiculturalism is not, in actuality, about a making choices between multiculturalism and ‘something else’ but a matter of balancing positive and negative liberties and setting/adjusting the parameters of private and public ‘space’, what Cameron needs is to formulate and present a set of coherent ‘solutions’ to these questions, a task that can be achieved only by constructing a balanced and carefully nuanced conservative narrative on race and ethnicity.

In that, Cameron’s biggest obstacle is not that there is necessarily a residual, genuinely racist element in the Conservative Party – there is such an element, but then it would be stretching credibility too far to suggest that any political party is entirely free of such elements and if the reputation of the Tory Party has suffered more than most at the hands of its own ‘idiot tendancy’ is it, at least, in part due to its having been much less successful in quietly managing out such problems than its opponents. What is likely to be a significant problem for Cameron is the general crudity and lack of nuance in the prevailing narrative on race and ethnicity amongst members of his own party’s right-wing. Blaney and others of broadly similar character may well not be personally racist in outlook but in their seemingly inability to express nuanced arguments and their lazy and unthinking appropriation of the rhetoric of the far right in discussions of multi-culturalism they can, and often do, make a damn good job of creating the appearance of harbouring such attitudes, and having created such a perception in their audience then I’m afraid they’ll find that all their high-minded allusions to ‘classical liberalism’ and ‘free speech’ – not to mention The Blaney Defence, of course – are likely to turn out to be no defence at all.

We’ve come a long way in this piece, from rebutting a very poor piece of ad hominem writing through to the challenge – for conservatives – of constructing a viable public narrative on race and ethnicity and the manner in which one particular strand of right-wing ‘thought’ may easily come to fatally undermine the best efforts of the Conservative Party and its present leader to develop a modern conservative narrative on race and ethnicity.

Where we go from here, if anywhere, who can say…

About the author
'Unity' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He also blogs at Ministry of Truth.
· Other posts by Unity

Filed under
Blog

Reader comments

Reactions: Twitter, blogs