Brown doesn't get it

Yet again, Brown is calling for a "national purpose":

We know that other countries have a strong sense of national purpose, even a sense of their own destiny. And so should we. And it helps us deal with issues as varied as what Britain does in Europe; to issues of managed migration and how we better integrate ethnic minorities.

I've got three objections to this:
1. It fails to see that the state is not like a private company. Companies have obvious single objectives, but states do not. Nowhere has Brown considered, let alone rebutted, Michael Oakeshott's view that the function of government is to be an umpire adminstering the rules of the game, not the captain inspiring and directing his players. As Oakeshott asked: "We tolerate monomaniacs, it is our habit to do so; but why should we be ruled by them?"
2. It's illiberal. Brown claims that "Britain can lay claim to the idea of liberty." But the point of liberty is that each individual chooses his own purposes, his own life. To disregard these in favour of a national purpose is to misunderstand the very basis of liberty.
3. It's impractical. Brown seems to think a shared national purpose will help defuse Muslim fundamentalism. But will it really? Will we really integrate marginalized Muslims by imposing some spurious invented national purpose upon them? Or wouldn't we integrate them better by showing that people thrive best within liberal diversity rather than struggling under a common yoke?
* Brown's demand that immigrants do community service before being accepted as citizens is too silly to merit comment.

Comments

[Will]

But the United States, as the name suggests is an entity with which those lucky enough to be citizens of are proud to identify. They may not agree with the President but the constitution and the rights, checking the power of the state, are well known and, for the most part, supported.

I'm not with you on immigration, Chris, generally. If Brown goes anywhere with that particular idea, you can be sure that the communities actually served will be whatever sub-community within our mulicultural society the prospective citzen feels he or she is truly part of.

[Mark Wadsworth]

I totally agree, well said.

[mat]

Yes, spot on. A national purpose would be dreadfully illiberal. In particular, a national purpose of wealth redistribution, such as through a Citizen's Basic Income. Or have I missed something?

[dearieme]

Why does an intelligent chap like Brown spout this dreary rubbish? What's he up to?

[chris]

Mat, Will. You can call the US and basic income national purposes if you want. But their purpose (in their different ways) is to give people freedom. Brown's purpose seems rather different.

[Steve]

Usually, when countries' leaders have decided they have a national purpose, it has resulted in other countries being conquered.

[ally]

New Labour's obsession with 'national purpose' is fascinating I think.

They all come out with it: Blair, Brown, Blunkett, Reid, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grub. My hunch is that when politicians cease to adhere to ideology they begin to question their own sense of self. What's the purpose in a politician who doesn't believe in anything? Maybe this search for a national identity guff is a projection of their lost political identity? Or maybe I'm just talking shite.

Anyway, some more reasons why Brown's plan is too silly to merit comment here: http://oldtraffordviews.blogspot.com/

[ManBearPig]

Why does an intelligent chap like Brown spout this dreary rubbish? What's he up to