Factionalism and Freedom
When George Washington gave his farewell address in 1796, the fledgling American Republic was still fragile, its unity untested. Washington used that moment to issue one of the most prophetic political warnings in history, a warning against the rise of factionalism.
He feared that political factions would put loyalty to party above loyalty to the common good. He saw that they would pit neighbour against neighbour, make compromise impossible, and eventually erode the foundations of liberty. His words were not idle speculation, they were grounded in a deep understanding of human nature and history. Over two centuries later, we have proved him right in ways he could not have imagined.
How the UK Fell Into the Trap
Factionalism in the UK is now so entrenched that political identity often eclipses personal judgement. We have created a culture where a person's views on immigration, taxation, or education can be predicted almost entirely by whether they are red or blue.
Our media has become an amplifier for this divide. News outlets openly market themselves to one side of the political spectrum, feeding confirmation bias instead of fostering honest debate. Policies are judged not on merit but on who proposed them. A good idea from the “wrong” faction is attacked, and a bad idea from the “right” faction is defended. This is the tribalism Washington warned about, and it is every bit as corrosive now as he feared then.
The Stupidity of Left vs. Right
The “left” and “right” divide itself is an outdated relic. Its roots go back to the French Revolution, when radicals sat on the left side of the National Assembly and conservatives on the right. That seating chart has become a lazy shorthand for politics, reducing the complexity of human values into a binary that fails to reflect the real diversity of thought.
Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind, explores why we think differently, why some people value liberty above all, why others prioritise fairness or loyalty, and why morality cannot be flattened into a single axis. Yet our political system insists on framing everything as Left vs. Right, Labour vs. Conservative, Progressive vs. Traditionalist. This forces people into ideological camps, discouraging nuance and demonising dissent.
The Consequences of Factional Thinking
Factionalism does not just make for bad politics — it makes for a fractured society. When every issue is framed as “us versus them,” communities weaken. People stop seeing their neighbours as individuals and start seeing them as avatars of an opposing ideology. This erosion of social trust is the seedbed of authoritarianism: once you see “the other side” as dangerous or evil, it becomes easier to justify using state power to silence or control them.
Why Liberty Must Be the Guiding Light
The only reliable compass for a prosperous society is the defence of freedom, liberty, and property rights. Central planning and collectivism, however noble their stated aims, are alien to the spirit of a free man. When a central authority decides how society should function, it inevitably overrides the will of individuals. Rights become conditional on the prevailing ideology, and dissent is punished in the name of the “greater good.” History shows that this path always leads to the erosion of personal freedom.
Voluntarism: The Alternative to Factionalism
A truly free society allows individuals to live according to their own values without coercion. Voluntarism, the principle that human relationships should be based on consent rather than force, offers a way out of the factional trap.
This does not mean atomised isolation. People can and will form groups, charities, businesses, and movements around shared goals. But these will be voluntary associations, not centrally imposed mandates. In this way, individuality is respected, while those who choose collective action can pursue it without infringing on the rights of others. The result is a stronger, more resilient society, where diversity of thought is not just tolerated but embraced.
A Local Path Forward
In Bedford, this means rejecting the mindset that our problems will be solved by Westminster, or that solutions must come from a single ideology. We should be building a civic culture where ideas stand or fall on their merits, not on whether they align with the Left or Right.
Take security in the town. There are those who believe crime is on the rise and see a private security team as a great addition. Others believe crime isn’t increasing and view private security as powerless goons. Some believe anti-social behaviour should never be tolerated; others think those committing it should be supported, not demonised. Where you fall on these issues is often dependent on your political ideology.
In a voluntary society, both approaches can exist side by side. One private individual can employ security within the law, focusing on public order. Another can focus on outreach work, supporting the homeless or those suffering with addiction. Neither must compel the other to act their way, each can focus on the issues they see as most important, both grounded in life, liberty, and the protection of property rights.
This is the ethos of Project Bedford. Our manifesto is not a mandate. It’s a set of ideas for those who agree to work on together. Those who disagree are free to create their own project, their own manifesto, their own ideas. As long as all respect the freedoms and liberty of others, respect property rights, and uphold the non-aggression principle, different approaches can operate side by side, each contributing in their own way to the betterment of the town.
The Beauty of Freedom
Freedom, liberty, and voluntarism are the perfect grounding principles for a thriving society. They allow disagreement without destruction. They protect the right to act without demanding conformity. And they make progress possible without central control.
Factionalism divides. Liberty unites. Bedford should choose liberty.
—
Peter McCormack
