The central concept of political liberalism is humility. Political liberals believe there may well be answers to the differences that separate people, and we may even find them one day — indeed someone in our society might even have found them already (thus it is optimistic).  However, though each of us presumably believes her or himself correct, we should all accept the possibility that we might be wrong — even in many, if not all, of the beliefs we hold most strongly. Perhaps the greatest virtue of having plurality of opinions and approaches is that I might find out where I am wrong and be corrected.

A political liberal will therefore want to tolerate those seeking to argue for all kinds of unpleasantness and foolishness  — authoritarianism, communism, racism, strange religious taboos, astrology, Spiritualism, ESP, homeopathy and a thousand other inanities and insanities. Perhaps more fruitfully, a political liberal will also want to tolerate those arguing for different understandings of ideas we hold precious. What does it mean to be “anti-racist”? Some of us are convinced that means treating all races the same; others argue that such “colour-blindness” perpetuates historically-created structural racism. In a liberal society we will give both sides a hearing.

Yet this basic principle of political liberalism is now under attack right where we might have thought it most entrenched: in the rules currently proposed to permit anyone to serve as an MP. In its most recent report, the Commons committee on standards has proposed adding a “respect” rule to the requirements for MPs’ conduct, which would require that they demonstrate “anti-discriminatory attitudes and behaviours through the promotion of anti-racism, inclusion and diversity”.

A more flagrant rejection of political liberalism could hardly be imagined. This proposal would literally ban anyone that did not accept, and behave in accordance with, the promotion of anti-racism, inclusion and diversity. Perhaps almost all of us agree with things being anti-racist, inclusive and diverse according to our own understanding of those things. But even if that were all there were to it, why should we forbid someone from becoming an MP who disagreed? Perhaps we are wrong to believe in anti-racism, inclusion and diversity just as our forebears were wrong about so many things they were certain about at the time?

And even if we are not wrong on the general point, maybe our understanding of these things or of how best to promote them are wrong? In the 1980s, almost everyone would have agreed that treating everyone the same regardless of their skin colour was the absolute epitome of anti-racism. By contrast, many wokefolk today believe that such an approach perpetuate structural racism. Should wokefolk have been banned from being MPs in the 1980s? If these woke ideas become the majority opinion, should MPs that want to argue that treating all races the same is the best way to achieve a harmonious society be banned even from being MPs at all?

Our MPs should be among those whose freedom of thought and conduct are most firmly protected in law. How are we ever to evolve as a society if we take a set of ideas we happen to have at one moment in time, set them in aspic, and forbid anyone who disagrees from even participating in our legislature? Clearly once such a set of anti-racism, inclusion and diversity “standards” were in the book, advocates of the status quo would use them, combined with the conventional interpretation of them at the time, to exclude MPs that dissented or at the very least to neuter the ability to express their dissent.

Political liberalism is a hard idea to accept. It means putting up with a lot of stuff we think wrong – even bizarre. But every now and then it helps us to discover our own errors and move on. We only need to look at how different our mainstream beliefs are today from mainstream beliefs in the past to see how that works over time. Don’t let’s make the mistake of believing our generation has finally found the ultimate answer and we no longer need the humility to believe we might yet be wrong.