[The following was written for Progress magazine, and appears in the current issue. I post it here with the editor's kind permission.]
The Euston Manifesto came out of a loose grouping of people, several of whom run blogs or other websites, meeting just after the last general election to talk about matters of shared interest. Among those meeting, some had supported the Iraq war and others had opposed it.
But what we had in common was the conviction that a significant part of the movement against the war had expressed its opposition in terms we found unworthy of people on the left. In their hostility to the present US administration and its foreign policy, many had lost sight of the principle of solidarity with people suffering under tyrannical regimes. Some - including well-known veterans of the left - went so far as to express support for the Iraqi so-called resistance and to make excuses for its murderous methods, though these are crimes under international law, crimes against humanity.
In line with such attitudes we felt there were also, across too wide a section of would-be progressive opinion, excuses being made for terrorism - whether in London, Madrid or Tel Aviv - on the basis, supposedly, that one had to be sensitive to its 'root causes'. The voices arguing for this kind of sensitivity were short of an explanation concerning why there have been movements in the past fighting oppression and injustice (the 'root causes' generally referred to) that didn't resort to randomly blowing up civilians.
Those of us who have come together as the Euston Manifesto group think that, by its indulgent attitudes towards anti-democratic political movements and regimes, a section of the left, and of 'progressive' opinion more generally, is in danger of repeating the grave mistakes of the past – as in the 1930s with respect to the USSR.
There is no space here to rehearse all the themes of the manifesto. In brief, it announces a firm commitment to democratic values and procedures, to the traditional liberal freedom of ideas, to universal human rights, to more egalitarian policies in the domestic arena and a just distribution of the benefits of global development. These commitments may appear obvious to some, but we make no apology for reaffirming the obvious on this occasion, because some of it seems not to have been obvious to those whose views we criticize.
In this connection, the manifesto also states what we draw the line against: making excuses for terrorism and tyranny, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and all other forms of racism. It is a charter for a democratic left, as well as for all those - democrats, liberals, radicals - who do not see themselves as belonging to the left but who may feel they can sign up to many of the values the document contains. If it does strike anyone as merely obvious, then good. So, in a way, it should do.
In the two weeks (at the time of writing) since we went public with it, the manifesto has generated a large volume of comment - hostile and sympathetic - from the left, the centre and the right. Some on the right have welcomed it as an effort to produce a healthier left. Others have warned that conservatives should not embrace it or its authors, since we have dodgy-to-dangerous ideas on economic and social policy. Others again have found the manifesto good and sensible in many of its emphases but probably a waste of effort anyway, given the wretched state the left has come to. The most hostile criticism has been from within the left itself.
Leaving aside criticism of an infantile kind, a common line of objection has been that the manifesto is made up of well-meaning platitudes and its strictures against others on the left are not widely applicable - though this has been expressed with a degree of agitation and animus that suggests that one, other or both of these things can't be entirely true.
There has also been more constructive critical comment, some of it having to do with the level of generality of the document. In part this generality results from the manifesto being a statement of basic principles, rather than a schedule of detailed policies. But there are undoubtedly also ambiguities and gaps that need clarifying and filling. We produced the manifesto as a focus for debate, and we are responding to the debate it has already set in motion. Our hope is that it will help to shift the terms of discussion on the liberal-left in a more positive direction.
[The full text of the Euston Manifesto and details of its forthcoming launch meeting on May 25 are here. For some of our responses to critical comment see the complete Euston platforms.]