As regulars will know, one of my pet dislikes is “Rod” Liddle, a man who likes to think of himself as a sturdy Leftie but who, in fact, increasingly sounds like the sort of BNP supporter that you might encounter in a bar and who insists on telling you about how so many of our problems are the fault of “the blacks”, etc. Liddle has strayed, arguably, over the line before, but like a man emboldened by his own seeming ability to keep pushing his agenda without severe damage to his bank balance, he has finally gone over the top with all the mad brio of Prince Rupert of the Rhine charging at Cromwell’s infantry in the English Civil War.
In a particularly stupid article for the Spectator (behind a subscriber firewall), on page 17 of the print edition, Mr Liddle reflects on the problems of Greece, and its horrendous debt. He rightly regards Greece’s decision to join the euro as a disaster, as Greece has proven itself incapable of handling the sort of interest rate more suitable to Munich or Lyon. However, in his clumsy way, he reflects on the differences he sees between southern Europe and the more “puritan” North. His title for the article (possibly written by a sub-editor), is: “How did I get it right on the euro? Easy. I was racist”.
“Insofar as I understood the economic permutations of what it would mean to be in or out of the single currency, I was vaguely opposed to joining. But my real reason for objecting to our membership of the euro was, and still is, I’m afraid, straightforwardly racist. I didn’t want to have the same currency (or government, effectively), as people in the south of Europe, who, I thought were, in the main, lazy, hot-tempered and uncivilized.”
(Emphasis, mine).
Here’s another gem:
“But it cannot be mere coincidence that the countries in trouble are those in the south, and that the further south you go the worse these problems become, until you reached the dislodged chunks of marble and the flaming fast-food shops of central Athens, where one protester said to the camera crews: “We don’t owe any money, it’s the others who stole it!”
What is so cretinous about Liddle is his use of the word “racist” instead of what would be more accurate – “culture”. It is, arguably, the culture of some countries – by no means all – that helps explain such things. But the idea that there is some sort of general rule that says the further south you travel, the worse the population behaves, is bunk. My wife’s small country, Malta, which is even further to the south than Greece, has a conservatively-run banking system, strong public finances and a relatively strong respect for property rights and the rule of law. It is also a member of the euro-zone. Maybe all those years of Malta being under the British Empire might have helped, as our “leftie” Mr Liddle might argue, but Malta exhibited many fine qualities long before the Brits, in the form of Lord Nelson, showed up. It is bizarre to claim that the further towards the Equator you get, the sillier, more corrupt and naughty people become. As Liddle must surely recall, in chilly Scotland, once famous or infamous for its puritanical version of Christianity, for example, a large chunk of the populace now lives on benefits, and many of the traditional characteristics once associated with the land of Adam Smith, James Watt and David Hume seem to be notable for their absence. This is a cultural, economic and political development which cannot be explained by reference to some glib reference to geography, much less the race, of the people in question. Even more unfortunately for Liddle’s notion is the example of Iceland, and its catastrophe of failed banks. Those blue-eyed folk with their blonde hair seriously screwed up.
Good ideas can be discredited by bigots purporting to advance them, if we allow these people to speak without rebutting their biases and showing them for the fools and knaves that they are. And Rod Liddle, however amusing he can sometimes be, or correct about something like the euro in one sense, is a bigot, and the kind of friend Eurosceptics can do without (I sometimes wonder whether he is working for the other side). Well, now he is on the record – he’s a racist, and seems to be proud of it.
For all his faults, most of which he is the first to acknowledge, Rod Liddle is funny. The idea of a simple stereotype being labelled with that most heinous of labels “racist” is, I am sure, intended as humour. I’ve read hundreds of his columns, and it is just the sort of wind-up he revels in. You’ve fallen for it, and for his regulars, this just makes it all the funnier. As will all humour, there is some truth hidden within – but how dull it would be to read another dry article about economics in out of synch cycles. Lighten up !
Skipping the issue of being self-opinionated (as who writing here is not), a bigot is (in rather simple terms) an extreme hypocrite, often with a religious element.
Avoidance of actuality, and certainly of accusation, of (some modest) hypocrisy is not given to the vast majority of people, even the very best of us: it is the most human of failings.
However, such accusation by the pseudonymous is even more troubling than the usual such accusation. How do we know the accuser is not, themselves, an above average hypocrite – and hence doubly hypocritical?
Best regards
I have a distinct fondness of Rob Liddle, which is perhaps improved by having never met him.
Despite his sartorial inadequacies (which are perhaps, as he claims, irrecoverable) he amuses very often. This is by such simple calls as “the emperor has no clothes”, “said the opposite only last year”, “has just said things of such stupidity that we can only stare in wonder”, and so on.
As to his being left-wing or BNP, is there a difference? [On this, the political meaning of left and right has long been confused. Right originally, IIRC, meant the rich keeping nearly all the money and left meant giving much of it to them. Now, if right means anything, it means not socialist: that there is any sophistication in that category is something that seems to escapes all modern socialists: such as conservatism being different from libertarianism, conservatism itself having wet and dry parts, and libertarianism being a broad church covering at least anarcho-libertarians, minarchists and classical liberals.]
On the disputes between anti-socialists (including those within the broadly libertarian movement and there near-thinkers), I am saddened: though of course, through my own writings, open (most properly) to accusations of hypocrisy.
Returning to Mr Liddle, he is not a small-mouthed person. No irony from him can be heard: it is drowned out by full-blooded sarcasm and by world-weary, often vicious, cynicism. He also suffers from hyperbole, and under the misunderstanding of it.
As linked by Johnathon in over the line, Rob (honestly and perhaps compelled by propriety) links the ‘adverse adjudication’ of the Press Complaints Commission.
On Rod’s sin of inaccurate reporting of statistics racial demography and crime, the PCC seems oblivious of the concept of purposeful exaggeration for effect. It also seems oblivious that, according to Wikipedia and back in 2007, African-Caribbeans represented 9.8% of the population of London (the total for ‘blacks’ was 10.6%). If this demographic subset is similarly represented in male youth, it is ‘committing’ variously 32%, 58%, 49% an 71% of certain classifications of crime and extent of consideration. I don’t quite know what is the normalisation to apply to those statistics (of 32%, 58%, 49% an 71%) WRT the 9.8% of the population: maybe ‘overwhelming majority’ does not cut it, but it is bloody awful and near to overwhelmingly worrying.
It is, IMHO, also near to overwhelmingly worrying that the PCC and Johnathan don’t quite get how good are the non-sartorial non-PC parts of RL.
Best regards
“a man who likes to think of himself as a sturdy Leftie but who, in fact, increasingly sounds like the sort of BNP supporter”
There is no contradiction here.
The guy is a waste of pixels and is as funny as toothache.
I increasingly like Liddle. Pisses off the right kind of people.
Some unconvincing responses here, I am afraid. The fact that as “M” writes, Liddle “pisses off the right kind of people” misses the point that he also pisses off the wrong kind as well. As I said, he has managed to provide, say, pro-euro people with ammunition by associating his position with racism. And there is, unless I have missed it, no sniggering irony or “of course I am not being serious” sort of tone of voice.
I have had enough of these writers who indulge in bigotry and then, when called out for it, reply, or their admirers reply, with a sort of standard “oh but I was not really serious and don’t take so much offence” kind of line. This is cowardice: if Liddle thinks that the Greeks are genetically backward, he should say so. If he is not talking about race per se, but something else, then he should be more precise in his use of language. The man is a good writer and he knows exactly what he is doing.
Sorry, he’s not getting a pass on this.
And in case anyone asks, no, this is not a case of my being politically correct, or silencing “free speech” or whatnot. If the Spectator wants to publish Liddle’s declarations of racism, or Taki’s endless comments to the same, then that magazine is entitled to do so, just as others are entitled to point this out, and highlight the weakness and contradictions in their views, as I have done.
Racism is the oldest and most primitive form of collectivism. It should surprise no-one that a blog like Samizdata that celebrates human individuality should take a hard line against those who want to lump whole masses of the population together, in terms of public policy, on the grounds of their race.
Sorry, he’s not getting a pass on this.
I’m sure he’ll be so distressed when he finds out. I agree with M; anyone who regularly pisses of lefties and libertarian ultras must have something going for him.
The problem is, Rod still possesses the typical BBC mindset where to criticize race or culture are indistinguishable acts. Both are racist. The difference lies is that Rod thinks it is justifiable (at least some of the time).
That being so, the problem lies not in Rod per se but in the deliberate greying of concepts.
I think you have just suffered a sense of humour failure. Bluemoo has it right.
Like Taki, he says some outrageous things, and no doubt believes some of them.
But giving someone a platform doesn’t mean you agree with them: It just means you think they are worth a hearing.
I am amazed that on Samizdata of all places people are sticking up for Liddle. My reading of JP’s quotes of the Liddle article lead me to the conclusion that Liddle is just attempting to be sensational in a farting in a school assembly kind of way.
And I second what JP says of Malta. It really does spoke Liddle’s wheel. As does the example of Iceland.
Nah, we have a long history of racist blog roaches popping up here from time to time.
Wrong again. Since when is it okay to excuse bigotry as a joke? No deal.
One thing that libertarians/non-socialists have struggled to do, with some success in recent years, is rebut the canard that we’re secret racists, etc. The trouble with people like Liddle and even some “libertarians” I can think of, is that their indulgence towards such crap threatens to undo all this good work.
If anyone wants to paint Euroskeptics, etc, as nutters, then Liddle gives them ammunition. And I sometimes wonder what his real game actually is, beyond simply trying to drive attention to himself by being a sort of shock artist. He might as well drop his trousers in the High Street and make a face for all the intelligence involved if that is what he wants to do.
As for Taki, he’s been peddling anti-semitic tropes for years and getting away with it because “he is just well connected, and a great wag, dahling”.
“I sometimes wonder what his real game actually is, beyond simply trying to drive attention to himself by being a sort of shock artist. He might as well drop his trousers in the High Street and make a face for all the intelligence involved if that is what he wants to do.”
I think JP you are paying too much credit to Liddle’s ambitions.
We get the same crap over here in the Tea Party movement. Bigoted nutters always seems to glom onto more morally acceptable movements in order to not feel like the outcast losers that they really are.
“…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”
Bigotry diminishes these words, and by so doing diminishes our justification of self governance.
@Johnathan Pearce, you are confusing joking about bigotry with treating bigotry as a joke.
You are confusing listening to bigots in order to hear some of the other, non-bigoted things they have to say, or even perhaps to understand why they hold the views they do, with sympathising with bigotry.
These are not difficult things to understand. I suspect you are misunderstanding on purpose.
”
As for Taki, he’s been peddling anti-semitic tropes for years and getting away with it because “he is just well connected, and a great wag, dahling
”
Yes, exactly so. You do understand after all. As far as I can tell Taki is a vile man, whom I dislike without having met, and would certainly hate more if I did. It doesn’t mean I don’t want to read his accounts of meeting the other vile high-and-mighties who rule us. It’s interesting stuff.
I am not at all sure Liddle is a bigot, no more than average anyway. I read the article as a culture argument, and the self-accusation of racism as a criticism of the way culture arguments are too often shut down by cries of “racism”.
Even if he is a bigot, I want to know what bigots think. I want to know why they think it. If they know something I don’t, I want to know it.
Why don’t you?
Again, no deal. I am not “misunderstanding on purpose” – what are you implying? I think my original post and subsequent comments have been clear, but in case of any doubt, let me recap:
Liddle is correct that Greek membership of the euro has been a disaster;
Liddle may be correct that there are differences between parts of Europe that explain why the euro-zone cannot work as currently created;
Liddle writes utter rubbish when he says the reason for such differences can be described in terms of “race”.
Several people on this board have told me to “lighten up” or “see the joke” or not be such a pussy, or whatever. That sounds to me as if people are trying to make excuses for Liddle. I am not prepared to do that.
As for the argument that a bad man can sometimes make a good argument, well indeed. But it is also necessary to point out, as I did, that good arguments can be tainted, and misrepresented, if the people making them mix good and vile arguments. This is particularly the case when people routinely confuse race with religion and culture. They may do this deliberately, or more innocently, but the confusion causes all kind of problems for rational debate.
I don’t mind bad or silly people making arguments as we can sometimes learn from them; however, it is not the case that their bad arguments should be free from condemnation and criticism.
“it is not the case that their bad arguments should be free from condemnation and criticism.”
Right – the best cure for bad ideas, and bad speech is good ideas and good speech.
But Liddle didn’t make a racist argument. He said he was going to make a racist argument, then proceeded to make a cultural argument. I thought the pre-emptive, joking self-accusation of racism was cleverly mocking the way cries of “race” or “Islamophobia” or whatever are used to shut down legitimate debate about cultural differences.
People often – and I do this myself – self-censor: “if I say that, people may think I am a bigot, even though I really am not”. That hurts public discourse.
I think he is saying “I don’t give a damn if you think I am a bigot, I am going to say what I think.” That’s valuable, even if he is a bigot.
The joke is also his protection. Nobody can say to him “you are just saying this because you hate Wops/Eyeties/whatever” when he just said it himself.
But I really don’t think Liddle is a bigot, unlike Taki.
Ben, if it were not the fact that Liddle has made ugly comments on these issues before, I probably might have taken the same line as yourself and cut him some slack.
Let’s not forget that Liddle, when he could have put the word “racist” inside sneer quotes, to highlight that was talking about something else and mocking a sort of daft PC mindset, did not do so. He could have said that what he meant is something other than the shared genetic inheritance of people, and talked about a shared culture, but he did not do so. The paragraph and words that I highlighted in bold are pretty damn clear; he said, remember, “straightforwardly racist”.
So, in summary, you are saying not only has the court jester insulted the king, but… He’s done it before!
That’s treason! Once you could overlook, but twice!
Rod Liddle is not a bigot. You are having a sense of humour failure.
Oh, and not using scare quotes – it’s called “deadpan”.
–
Secondly: Should bigots be hounded out of public discourse?
No, no, and three times no.
We need to give a hearing even to bigots. It is not only the right of the Spectator to give a bigot a platform, they are right do so. Even if the only lesson we learn is that some people hold that opinion, that is still valuable. No opinion, provided it remains opinion and not action, should be beyond the pale of public discourse. Even a bigot should be able to get a letter to the editor printed, if only so the editor can point out what is wrong with it.
In other words, don’t answer with “shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up shut up“. Answer with “Greeks are not workshy” or “Greeks may be workshy, but that is because they have grown fat on cheap loans, and we would do the same in their position”. Or answer with whatever the answer is.
But answer, dammit. “Shut up” just sounds like you don’t have an answer.
“It’s called “deadpan”.
How lame.
And I have not argued for a creep like Liddle to be shut up. If the Spectator, Sunday Times, or any other organ wants to publish his “court jester” routines about blacks, Greeks, or any other group of people that supposedly leftwing character deems a target for his oafish prose, then those organs are of course entirely within their rights to publish it, just as I, or you, or anyone else, is entitled to point out said oafishness.
Whether humankind is enlightened by the supposed “comedy” of Mr Liddle is hard to say. I am sure he is a veritable Peter Cook of our times, and I am too much of a simple-minded Suffolk lad to grasp it.
(sorry for the sarcasm).