If this is progressivism . . .

. . . sign me up.

Have you read The Euston Manifesto?

I might not call myself "left" or agree with every point, but the combination of common sense, firmness and fairness on such clear display here has about everything that counts in common with what I've been calling centrism.

Some substantial excerpts:

3. Human rights for all

We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are equally to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context. We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights that are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples.

4. Equality

We espouse a generally egalitarian politics. We look towards progress in relations between the sexes (until full gender equality is achieved), between different ethnic communities, between those of various religious affiliations and those of none, and between people of diverse sexual orientations — as well as towards broader social and economic equality all round. We leave open, as something on which there are differences of viewpoint amongst us, the question of the best economic forms of this broader equality, but we support the interests of working people everywhere and their right to organize in defence of those interests. [ . . . ] Labour rights are human rights. [ . . . ] We are committed to the defence of the rights of children, and to protecting people from sexual slavery and all forms of institutionalized abuse. [ . . . ]

6. Opposing anti-Americanism

We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. Its peoples have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions. That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people.

7. For a two-state solution

We recognize the right of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution. There can be no reasonable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that subordinates or eliminates the legitimate rights and interests of one of the sides to the dispute. [ . . . ]

10. A new internationalism

We stand for an internationalist politics and the reform of international law —in the interests of global democratization and global development. Humanitarian intervention, when necessary, is not a matter of disregarding sovereignty, but of lodging this properly within the ‘common life’ of all peoples. If in some minimal sense a state protects the common life of its people (if it does not torture, murder and slaughter its own civilians, and meets their most basic needs of life), then its sovereignty is to be respected. But if the state itself violates this common life in appalling ways, its claim to sovereignty is forfeited and there is a duty upon the international community of intervention and rescue. Once a threshold of inhumanity has been crossed, there is a ‘responsibility to protect’.

11. A critical openness

Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the ‘anti-war’ movement with illiberal theocrats), we reject the notion that there are no opponents on the Left. We reject, similarly, the idea that there can be no opening to ideas and individuals to our right. Leftists who make common cause with, or excuses for, anti-democratic forces should be criticized in clear and forthright terms. Conversely, we pay attention to liberal and conservative voices and ideas if they contribute to strengthening democratic norms and practices and to the battle for human progress. [ . . . ]

15. A precious heritage

We reject fear of modernity, fear of freedom, irrationalism, the subordination of women; and we reaffirm the ideas that inspired the great rallying calls of the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century: liberty, equality and solidarity; human rights; the pursuit of happiness. These inspirational ideas were made the inheritance of us all by the social-democratic, egalitarian, feminist and anti-colonial transformations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries — by the pursuit of social justice, the provision of welfare, the brotherhood and sisterhood of all men and women. None should be left out, none left behind. We are partisans of these values. But we are not zealots. For we embrace also the values of free enquiry, open dialogue and creative doubt, of care in judgement and a sense of the intractabilities of the world. We stand against all claims to a total — unquestionable or unquestioning — truth.

Read about and download The Euston Manifesto here. For the backstory on how it came to be, read this New Statesman article. (Thanks to The Glittering Eye for that link trail.)

(H/T: Unwilling Self-Negation.)

Cross-posted on Donklephant

Comments

[PooterGeek]

Thank you for your link and your kind words. Our official real-world launch takes place in London on 25May06. Do watch our Website for further developments. (And do sign up online if you haven't already. We "turned 1000" today, May Day.)

[eusto]

Excellent!

(And it is an added bonus that Euston is close to my moniker!)

I share your general approval with some lingering questions. I recall Harvey Mansfield saying on C-SPAN that conservatism actually was the little brother of liberalism, that it lived under its shadow.

And that is how I feel about this document. I agree with its general principles but I want that little black dot of conservatism, of pragmatism, of doubt in the white half of the tai-chi to restrain and chasten its spirit. (Don't get all racial on me, people ;) An analogy is just that.)

Meaning I want it to retain its principles but to always place pragmatism above them -- I want a very hard-headed liberalism that makes sure its interventions are likely to have the intended effects and be willing to embrace more conservative principles if in fact embrace of those principles will bring us closer to the ends outlined.

And I hope that they will embrace some of those on the right who actually stand for many (classically) liberal principles. Like Lindsey Graham, for instance.

They certainly show signs of this openness. I guess I just want to encourage it further and drag 'em a little more to the center so they can take over our government and kick the bums out! So that even independents and conservatives could embrace it.

But they are probably better suited, at least for right now, for smacking the left out its PDS (presidential derangement syndrome) and reviving its best principles.

It's a strange day when you have to ask whether a poorly-spoken, Texas oilman might actually be more liberal (despite his many illiberal failings) than some liberals. (Always knew Bush was just a RINO ;)

[amba]

Eusto: talk about pragmatism, one of the points on which I might part company with them is their (apparently) uncritical support of the "Make Poverty History" campaign. Don't get me wrong -- who could argue with the commitment to make poverty history?! -- but I have read enough about aid and development to realize that the notion that the developed world should and can rescue the developing world is very paternalistic. There is much that the developed world can do, but simply throwing money at problems doesn't work -- only a ground-up change of institutions does.

[eusto]

What strange demon has conspired that we agree so often :)

Sometimes I get the impression that the right is corrupt and the left is just dumb. I think there's a quote by Oscar Wilde where he quips to a beautiful woman that their children could get HIS looks and HER intelligence. Sometimes our politics looks like the bastards of such an unholy union. And of course, centrism [cue angelic music] is just the reverse.

Spotless, immaculately conceived, and all that jazz. . . . It's so fun to be self-congratulatory ;)

[Winston]

Thanks, amba. I read and downloaded the entire manifesto. First impression: I am in full sync with and support the equality of fundamental freedoms, rights, and accountabilities as described throughout the manifesto. There is nothing to argue with.

It is written with a chip on its shoulder. Usefulness as a rallying point would be enhanced by removing that tone, which could be a turnoff for many who might otherswise be in full support.

[Dave Schuler]

I've been following the Euston Manifesto since Norm Geras's introductory post on it. The overwhelming preponderance of the attention it has received has been from the Right Blogosphere. In most cases when the Left Blogosphere has paid it any attention at all it has been to mock it.

I have a mini-roundup here. See also Matthew Yglesias here and here.

[Tom Strong]

It's entirely predictable that the "left" blogosphere would come out against the Euston manifesto, if come out at all; because the manifesto is transparently a criticism of that left. A simple parallel would be the frequent contempt expressed towards Andrew Sullivan by many members of the "right" blogosphere. In a charged partisan atmosphere, if you criticize your teammates, you're going to get kicked off the team.

I don't know what to think of the Euston manifesto. I like much of what it says, including its none-too-subtle digs at the reflexive anti-ness of the prominent left. And I'm not troubled by their stance on economics, which remains necessary in this increasingly libertarian age.

But at the same time, I don't see what the Eustonites are doing as being very productive. I mean, a manifesto? That's so 1840's. They're trying to redefine the left as nonpartisan (or only partisan when it comes to fascists), but in this day and age that just means they're not left, they're center (albeit socialist-center). And the center will be weak under any system that rewards partisanship as much as our current one.

[realpc]

I don't see how it's different from the neocons.