Is using your preferred definition of liberalism a means to suppress reasoned dissent?

It's funny really. Once upon a time, I was a Young Liberal on the minority non-radical wing of the Party. Yes, radicals were all well and good, but somebody had to keep the organisational show on the road. Sensible, less emotional people like myself, for example. And yes, I tended to be sceptical about some of the more 'out there' proposals (a surprising number of which went on to become mainstream truths), but disagreement, or even outright dissent, was seemingly tolerated to a greater extent.

As I've grown older, I've developed a greater appreciation for honest dissent, courteously and intelligently expressed. The majority, after all, isn't always right, and the status quo is never disturbed unless someone challenges it. I've always seen liberalism as a philosophy which encouraged dissent and challenge of the orthodoxy. Indeed, some of my colleagues that I've most admired are not those who I consistently agree with.

I also have, over the past five or six years, developed an appreciation of the breadth and depth of liberalism through my involvement with ALDE (our European umbrella party). Social liberals, economic liberals, all coming together under one banner, but able to debate courteously and reach an agreed policy stance through compromise.

And so, I am somewhat disheartened to see fellow Liberal Democrats (and no, not ALL Liberal Democrats...) use their definition of liberalism, usually one which reinforces their view of the world, to attempt to shut down debate. Lines like, "policy X, passed by Conference, is illiberal", or, "Thank goodness we have a President of the Party who does write this. It shows that she understands the fundamentals of Liberalism.". By implying that anyone who disagrees with the argument isn't a liberal, you seek to suppress dissent from your preferred stance.

In truth, I've probably played the 'liberalism' card myself in the past. It is terribly easy to use, even more so when you are so certain of the rightness of your position, and yet more so when the person arguing with you is 'annoyingly persistent'.

But, perhaps, we would do better by respecting the right to dissent amongst ourselves, displaying a bit more courtesy towards those we disagree with. We are, I've always thought, a family. A family that squabbles amongst itself, yes, but one that pulls together when threatened.

And so, the establishment bureaucrat has morphed into a respecter of difference. Perhaps I have mellowed over the years, or perhaps Ros has been a positive influence (very likely, I'd guess...), but either way, I've developed a sneaking regard for those who are outside the perceived mainstream. I can only hope that I'm not in a minority on this occasion...