Patronising the “liberal unionist”

I’ve often noticed a strange but predictable phenomenon, and last week I experienced it directly here on Slugger. It was on Jay’s thread about the merits or otherwise of the established unionist parties. When I bookended criticism of the two main unionist parties with similar criticism of the priorities of Sinn Fein, I had a number of responses deriding me as a poor representative of “liberal unionism” or as a member of the “liberal wing” of unionism.

That got me thinking. I’m not concerned about criticism of my viewpoint. I offered that viewpoint so it’s out there to be shot at. It’s more the terms used that set me off. Not only have I never claimed to be a “liberal unionist”, but I don’t think I’ve ever even used the term, on Slugger or in any other context. That’s because I think it’s a meaningless term that contributes nothing to anyone’s understanding of unionists or the unionist community.

When I say I don’t believe “liberal unionism” exists, I can imagine heads nodding throughout Sluggerland, followed by a collective “aha! I knew it” from a number of readers. But I don’t mean it in the accepted sense. What I mean is that most unionists are united in identity and nationality but are otherwise as diverse as any other similar sized community. It’s insulting to say otherwise.

“Liberal Unionist” implies that unionist people are homogenous mass with a few minor differences in emphasis. That’s not the case, just as it’s generally not the case with sizeable communities. It implies that we are generally politically extreme weirdos with a few of us who are a bit less weird. That’s patronising and insulting, and shouldn’t go unchallenged. What the people who use the term – even in innocence – really mean is “liberal Protestant”. Which is equally wrong since most of us don’t attend church.

In the context of last week a couple of people made those comments, with the implication that by criticising (albeit in strong terms) politicians who glorify IRA actions I had somehow let some sort of mask slip and I should be put back in a box with the rest of them. That’s not really an attitude I would see as liberal, but it has become increasingly prevalent towards the pro-union community in recent times. One would nearly suspect that there’s a feeling abroad that demographics are moving in such a manner that the views and concerns of the unionist community can be disregarded. An illiberal unionist might suggest that its fear of that sort of attitude that defined him or her in the first place!

I don’t see my politics as defined by my constitutional preference. I tried to explain this fully in my debut piece back in March here. It’s best explained in the context of the communities I grew up in and have lived within. We were totally at ease with our Britishness because that was what we were born into. It was our nationality and what we identified with. Not the church. Not the Twelfth (though we enjoyed it). Not anti-Irishness (I was always conscious of being Irish and I never struggled with that. I’m still totally comfortable with my Britishness and my Irishness. But it doesn’t define my political outlook.

The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland have the same constitutional preference and cultural identity as their parents. Who got it from their parents and so on. Yet there’s an increasing tendency for people within republicanism to try to pretend this is something they’ve sat down and figured out for themselves. It isn’t. It’s something they got in the cradle. Just like me. Some people in both sections of the communities obviously had their attitudes hardened by terrible experiences during the troubles. It would be daft to ignore that and unfair to blame them for it.  Other people

Yet here we get people who offer up the most intolerant invective about unionists, like we’re not real people. People who no doubt count themselves as “liberal” or (even worse) “progressive”, making it clear that they don’t consider our input, let alone consent, to be necessary to forging the new society they claim to want. It’s not a majority here by any means, but it’s a very voluble element.

These are the same people who, demonstrating an incredible lack of self-awareness, question the existence of “liberal unionism” in such a pejorative manner. This came up – when I had nearly finished this article – in a discussion about David Trimble who I know from personal experience was keen to see an agreement acceptable to the SDLP (and by extension Dublin) as far back as 1981.

The debate then quickly and inevitably took a turn towards questioning how “liberal” Trimble really was, The word is completely inappropriate. The question is how pragmatic he was. He proved to be very pragmatic once he was elected to a position that gave him the freedom and muscle to demonstrate it. That’s what mattered.

Of course, a majority of the electorate immediately rejected Seamus Mallon in favour of Gerry Adams and Gerry Kelly (and fi you’re sceptical, check the timelines?), which in turn assisted the rise to dominance of the DUP. Yet the term “liberal nationalism” is rarely if ever used. Does that show a certain lack of self-awareness among those who most volubly question the “liberalism” of unionists.

I’m not referring to the DUP here or its obvious illiberalism on social issues. Like most people I have always considered them the biggest threat to unionism and the union, increasingly so know as they have so little in common with the bulk of their voters. I’m referring to members of the unionist community and their attitude to others.

The crux of the issue here is that most of the pro-union people I know, unless its directly challenged, park the constitutional question when making their mind up about other issues. Pretty much like most people of whatever background. I Lived in England for the 2001 and 2005 general elections and (despite misgivings about Blair and his cronyism) voted Labour both times. It never seriously occurred to me not to do so. Many thousands of unionists here – including many who feel corralled into voting DUP – would love little more than the opportunity to do likewise.

Obviously, I don’t think attitudes on social media are especially reflective of broader society. But the increasingly aggressive demonisation and dehumanising of an entire community – the vast bulk of whom are guilty of nothing, just as the vast majority of nationalists didn’t support the IRA during its campaign – is unhealthy and unacceptable.

It says to those unionists whose emotional commitment to the traditional union may be waning, that when the time comes, they will face extreme payback for what people a few generations ago may have done.  It certainly doesn’t act as a persuader. Also, I doubt if its found particularly edifying by too many in the Republic.

So in a mirror image of the DUP, those attitudes serve as a major obstacle to a United Ireland, if not the biggest.


Discover more from Slugger O'Toole

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

We are reader supported. Donate to keep Slugger lit!

For over 20 years, Slugger has been an independent place for debate and new ideas. We have published over 40,000 posts and over one and a half million comments on the site. Each month we have over 70,000 readers. All this we have accomplished with only volunteers we have never had any paid staff.

Slugger does not receive any funding, and we respect our readers, so we will never run intrusive ads or sponsored posts. Instead, we are reader-supported. Help us keep Slugger independent by becoming a friend of Slugger. While we run a tight ship and no one gets paid to write, we need money to help us cover our costs.

If you like what we do, we are asking you to consider giving a monthly donation of any amount, or you can give a one-off donation. Any amount is appreciated.