Interested by this? Share it on social media. Join our monthly e–newsletter to keep up to date with our latest research and events. And check out our Friends Programme to find out how you can help our work.
Looking back it now seems predictable.
Tim Farron was always going to be walking a tightrope as an evangelical Christian leading the Liberal Democrats in 21st century Britain. And yet his resignation statement still came as something of a shock, with its talk of how it had been ‘impossible’ to remain as leader while living as a ‘committed Christian’. We’re used to politicians resigning when they lose elections or are found out for some personal scandal. Senior politicians resigning because of a crisis of conscience are much rarer, and so when they happen it’s right to reflect on what has led someone to the point where they feel they have to effectively end their political career to salvage their soul.
The finger of blame can be pointed in various directions – at Farron himself for mishandling the questions about homosexuality which dogged him in the election campaign, at his colleagues who seemed poised to launch a coup if he hadn’t jumped himself (in spite of an acceptable return of 12 seats at the general election), at the journalists who interrogated him on his personal beliefs rather than focussing on his publicly stated positions. But behind all of this is a much deeper issue that cuts to the heart of our democratic culture. We imagine that we live under a liberal regime, where politics is the reasoned discourse how best to achieve public goods. In fact, politics as we have it is not conversation but war.
Politics is, of course, very often a brutal affair, with harsh words, strong alliances and long–standing vengeances. Many of the political achievements we most cherish – the abolition of slavery, the ending of the death penalty, civil rights for women – were achieved through painful and prolonged struggle. The same can of course be said for LGBT rights. So it’s perhaps no surprise that for social liberals in particular, politics often is viewed entirely through the lens of war, with the result that ‘winning’ looks like not just achieving particular policy goals but eliminating enemies from the battle field altogether.
The problem with this is that the process of finding and eliminating enemies never seems to end, and people like Tim Farron end up as casualties of the perpetual war for political purity. Niamh Ni Mhaoileoin on the Left Foot Forward blog said of Farron that “Although there is no reason to believe that he would legislatively oppose gay rights, LGBTQ people will inevitably have doubts about being represented by someone who privately believes their intimate relationships are sinful.” Put another way, it’s not enough that Farron voted the right way, he may have suspicious private views and therefore he had to be got rid of. John Rentoul in the Independent was even more stark. He bemoaned the way that Farron in his resignation speech “sounded as if he were complaining that British society should have tolerated his unwillingness to tolerate gay sex”. Luckily, “the UK is…putting such intolerance behind it”, and as a result Farron had to go. Notice here how the definition of ‘tolerance’, that great watch word of liberalism, is stretched well beyond the traditional sense of allowing others to believe or behave in ways that one might not necessarily agree with. Of course in that sense Tim Farron absolutely tolerated gay sex, but for people like Rentoul that kind of tolerance is not in fact the goal at all, but rather whole–hearted advocacy of the whole social liberal platform. Fail to pass this test not of your public policy but of your heart and soul and you have no place on the front line of British political life.
The sadness is that this ‘politics as war’ mentality in the end isn’t just bad news for social conservatives but for liberals too. Tim Farron was no enemy of the LGBT community but a valuable ally, a rare and skillful bridge between the worlds of progressive politics and evangelical Christianity. These groups which share a huge amount in common but often find it extremely difficult to work together due to exactly these contested moral issues. As I argued in the Theos report, Making Multiculturalism Work, when liberals insist on enacting strict ‘progressive tests‘ for anyone they might collaborate with, they undercut the very diversity they claim to champion. They also make it harder for people from very different traditions and worldviews to find a meaningful sense of solidarity and common purpose.
The deep differences in our society are being exposed like never before, often with violent and tragic consequences. At such a time we need a vision of politics that is more generous and expansive than a war mentality if we want to have anything to say about how we might live together well in our deep and irreconcilable diversity. The fall of Farron shows that we still have a long way to go.
David Barclay is a Partner at the Good Faith Partnership and author of the Theos report, Making Multiculturalism Work: Enabling Practical Action Across Deep Difference.
Image by David Spender from Flickr, under this Creative Commons Licence
