The eminent historian who believes ‘centrists' are extremists
'I do enjoy argument very much,' says Prof Jonathan Clark. 'When my wife wants to be mean to me, she says 'you would have made a good lawyer.' Somebody once said [the same] to Samuel Johnson. Johnson got angry and replied 'why do you say that to me now, when it's too late?''
At 74, it is possible Clark has left it too late for a law conversion course. As a provocative historian of 17th and 18th British and American history, however, he has had his share of contentious debates. He helped to coin the term 'long eighteenth century' to describe the elongated period between the beginning of the Nine Years War in 1688 and the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. Now his latest book takes on his biggest challenge yet: the entire notion of the Enlightenment.
But it is Clark's views on how history relates to contemporary politics that are moving him out of the history pages and into current affairs. As well as being a strident critic of what he calls 'Wokeish' language, Clark has coined the term 'far-Centre' to characterise those in every party who 'depict themselves as balanced moderates, as experienced technocrats, as the only sensible adults in the room,' he wrote in The Telegraph in January. These extreme centrists are more radical for being unable to recognise their own positions. 'The most intolerant people of all are those who insist most loudly on their moderation.'
Rather than traditional ideologies, he says, these Centrists cling to shibboleths about climate change and human rights, protected by lawyers rather than voters. 'All parties are saying 'our opponents are extremists, they are far-something'' Clark says, over tea and cake at his home in Northumberland. 'But according to what scale? What do [far-Centrists] believe? They don't believe very much coherently. There is no grand ideology.'
Clark lives at Callaly Castle, just outside Alnwick, a Grade I listed pile, mostly built in the 17th century by the Clavering family, which has been subdivided into several handsome residences. Clark's neighbours include the financier Jeremy Hocking and the former Labour MP Chris Mullin. Courteous and punctilious, dressed in a suit and tie, Clark seems mildly out of time in an era when some historians seem to spend more time on social media than in the library.
He shows me into a grand drawing room decorated with ornate plasterwork. As Catholics, the Claverings hoped to 'fling open the doors and welcome Charles Edward Stuart' and his triumphant Jacobites in the event of an invasion. This house would have been a power centre of the restored monarchy. Clark points out apparently-innocuous paintings that are in fact full of Jacobite symbols: a cottage with an open door, an oak tree, two herons fishing in the lake. '[Herons] were Jacobite icons,' he says. 'They're very quiet, they stand there silently and then suddenly they strike.'
Clark argues that although the Enlightenment has come to look like a single neatly defined idea, it was in fact composed of many different strands of thought developed at many different times. During the 18th century, Clark says, while 'enlightenment with a small e was everywhere, the Enlightenment was nowhere.' But in the 20th century, particularly after the Second World War, the Enlightenment was enshrined as a single concept, a period of secular and scientific liberalisation across Europe, from which many modern beliefs can be traced.
At a seminar in Oxford two days after we meet, Clark defends his idea from good humoured but firm criticism by postgraduates and fellow academics in a packed room. One line of dissent is that Clark is fighting an old battle; that few modern historians of the Enlightenment would argue it is the kind of single concept he presents.
Perhaps this is because for Clark, attacking the old view of the Enlightenment is also about breaking this connection with more recent social and political theories that he says are running out of steam. Twentieth century movements for religious, racial and sexual equality all took the Enlightenment as a founding myth. If the Enlightenment is tired, so are other ideas.
'The Enlightenment is an ideology, a doctrine and therefore it shares the experience of all the great ideologies, from conceptualisation through development, popularisation, hegemony, decline, to de-conceptualisation,' he says. 'I think of myself as a de-conceptualiser.'
Although the Enlightenment was coined in the 19th century as the German Aufklärung, Clark argues it was not until after the Second World War that it started to gain real traction in European thought. Whatever Nazism had been, the Enlightenment was its opposite. Over the following decades it became inseparable from liberalism and social reform. As Clark puts it, the Enlightenment was 'the abstract programme which makes possible modernity', and became 'a shorthand for all those people who have adopted causes of social reform, whether it's education or state schools or the health service or the quality of daily life.'
He sees the exhaustion of political thought everywhere around him. 'At the last general Election I realised all the great ideologies have run out of steam. Liberalism was famously defeated by socialism; socialism ran out of steam and Tony Blair abandoned it. Conservativism was abandoned by Margaret Thatcher, who turned it into [Friedrich] Hayekian radical individualism. It was a great symbolic moment in the Conservative party when they threw Roger Scruton under the bus.'
The dearth of ideas was brought home to him when he did what he had never done before and read the party manifestos. 'They are, intellectually, remarkably shallow and astonishingly lightweight,' he says. 'The Lib Dem manifesto doesn't express liberalism. The Labour manifesto doesn't express socialism. The Conservative manifesto makes no mention of conservatism. They're a collection of ideas scrambled together at the last moment. What draws them together? Nothing. They are not eternal truths. They are ideologies which have all hit the ground.'
He is unsure about what will fill the vacuum. In Britain, he says 'some sort of reunion between the Conservative party and Reform has become inevitable,' and that he was pleasantly surprised by what he found at a Reform UK meeting.
'I went along wondering if I would find a collection of loonies and nutcases, racists and extremists,' he says. 'But no, I found a collection of people who struck me like the Conservative party would have been 20 years ago.'
Then there is Scottish Nationalism, 'which may revive', and radicalised Islam which is 'powerful and may grow'. We speak days before the German election, when it looks as though the AfD might do well. 'It might be a good thing if AfD becomes a larger organisation,' he says. 'If you have proportional representation, whoever you vote for you get the same government. Germany has had the same government since the Second World War.'
Perhaps the scariest force of all is 'wokery', or 'wokeish', which Clark sees as a grave threat to the intellectual fabric of the country. 'Without a new English, Wokeish will win,' he wrote in an essay titled 'Bonfire of the Verities' for The Critic last year.
'The language of Wokeish is a wide application of the language of victimhood, which has been permitted by the rapid proliferation and diffusion of universal human-rights language,' he says. 'Everyone is now a victim. They're not poor, they're not suffering from disease. They're victims. The lever one has on society is to claim to be a victim. Nobody is interested if you say you are poor. There are many real victims in the world, but wokery ignores them. That's why it's objectionable.' Equally, however, he says it is possible that a Trump-esque movement will be replicated elsewhere, and 'we will look back on wokery as a strange short-term aberration.'
Clark has seen first-hand the effect of wokery on university life, where it has perhaps been most pronounced. He was born in 1951 and grew up in Surrey. His father was an electrical engineer and his mother was a housewife. After grammar school he went on to study history at Downing College, Cambridge. He briefly worked at the London Stock Exchange before he returned to academia, via teaching posts at Cambridge and All Souls, Oxford. In 1989, he was teaching a seminar at Oxford when he noticed a graduate student had dropped her glove. 'I picked it up and said 'I think you've dropped your glove.'' He and Catherine married seven years later, around the time they moved to the University of Kansas, where Clark was appointed Joyce C. and Elizabeth Ann Hall Distinguished Professorship of British History, where they stayed for 20 years.
Reflecting on his early time in academia, he says debate was much freer. 'There was much more free speech then,' he says. 'Looking around me at Cambridge, there were giants. Their lives had been messed up by war and revolution and disaster but somehow they had struggled through. This was reflected in their willingness to think seriously about serious subjects. Now everything is identical and homogenised.
'It's still difficult to get a job in academia but it's more of assimilating oneself to the identical image,' he adds. 'The academic world has been trivialised.'
He retired from teaching in 2018, and he and Catherine swapped a townhouse in Oxford for their Northumbrian castle, where life is pleasantly social and 'one of the local sports' is dinner parties. 'Geographically, I'm between Chris Mullin, who's slightly north of me, and Jeremy Hosking slightly south of me. I'm in the middle. There's no difficulty or antagonism at all. Chris Mullin and I get on fine.' One wonders whether a radical-Centrist would get such a warm welcome, if one were to make it to Northumberland.
'North Northumberland is where you move to if you want to live in superb countryside but you don't want to mix with the people from the Cotswolds,' he adds. 'I've never lived in the Cotswolds but I can imagine them being part of group-think. We are more open to debate than they are likely to be.'
For the argument-loving Jonathan Clark, nothing could be more important.
The Enlightenment: An Idea and Its History by J. C. D. Clark (OUP Oxford) is out now
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Newsom: Pentagon lying over LA to justify National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Monday accused the Defense Department of 'lying to the American people' in justifying deploying National Guard troops to the state to quell Los Angeles protests against federal immigration raids, asserting that the situation intensified only when the Pentagon deployed troops. 'The situation became escalated when THEY deployed troops,' Newsom posted to X, referring to the Pentagon. 'Donald Trump has manufactured a crisis and is inflaming conditions. He clearly can't solve this, so California will.' Newsom was responding to a post from DOD Rapid Response on X, a Pentagon-run account, which claimed that 'Los Angeles is burning, and local leaders are refusing to respond.' President Trump on Saturday deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area amid the ICE protests, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying the decision was made due to 'violent mobs' attacking 'Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations.' While protests have intensified in recent days, devolving at times into violence, the majority of gatherings have been largely peaceful. Still, California National Guard troops began arriving in Los Angeles on Sunday morning, with some 300 deployed on the ground later that day at three locations: Los Angeles proper, Paramount and Compton. White House officials have sought to highlight images of burning vehicles and clashes with law enforcement to make the case that the situation had gotten out of control. 'The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They're insurrectionists. They're bad people. They should be in jail,' Trump told reporters on Monday. In addition, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has threatened to deploy approximately 500 U.S. Marines to the city, with U.S. Northern Command on Sunday confirming the service members were 'prepared to deploy.' The use of American troops has rankled California officials, who have said the federal response 'inflammatory' and said the deployment of soldiers 'will erode public trust.' Newsom also has traded insults with Hegseth, calling him 'a joke,' and that the idea of deploying active duty Marines in California was 'deranged behavior.' 'Pete Hegseth's a joke. He's a joke. Everybody knows he's so in over his head. What an embarrassment. That guy's weakness masquerading as strength. . . . It's a serious moment,' Newsom said in an interview with podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen. The tit-for-tat continued when chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell then took to X on Monday to attack Newsom. 'LA is on FIRE right now, but instead of tackling the issue, Gavin Newsom is spending his time attacking Secretary Hegseth,' Parnell wrote. 'Unlike Newsom, [Hegseth] isn't afraid to lead.' Newsom, who has formally demanded the Trump administration pull the National Guard troops off the streets, has declared the deployment 'unlawful' and said California will sue the Trump administration over its actions. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,' David Sapp, Newsom's legal affairs secretary, wrote in a letter to Hegseth on Sunday. 'Accordingly, we ask that you immediately rescind your order and return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary.' In the past 60 years, a U.S. president has only on one occasion mobilized a state's National Guard troops without the consent of its governor to quell unrest or enforce the law. That was in 1965, when former President Lyndon Johnson sent Guard members to Selma, Ala., to protect civil rights protesters there.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's broad definition of ‘insurrection' looms over Los Angeles
In September 2020, President Donald Trump suggested he was hamstrung to crack down on at-times-violent racial justice demonstrations in cities like Portland, Oregon. 'Look, we have laws. We have to go by the laws,' Trump said at an ABC News town hall, adding: 'We can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor.' Trump noted there was one way he could do that – by invoking the Insurrection Act – but added that 'there's no reason to ever do that, even in a Portland case.' Something has clearly changed since then. Trump this weekend became the first president in about 60 years to call in the National Guard without a request from a governor – to help quell protests in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. He did so without invoking the Insurrection Act – the 1807 law that allows the president to deploy American soldiers to police US streets in extreme circumstances. That means the guard has limited authorities that don't include law enforcement, as CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck noted. Even that more limited decision, though, has been criticized as overzealous and heavy-handed by some experts, given fears it could inflame the situation. unknown content item - But Trump has clearly left open the possibility of ratcheting things up and possibly even doing what he said five years ago there was 'no reason to ever do': invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with demonstrators. Northern Command said Sunday that 500 US Marines were on 'prepared to deploy' status. Trump was asked Sunday whether the situation was an insurrection, and he said no. But just after 10 p.m. ET, he posted on Truth Social: 'Paid insurrectionists!' The president again used the term on Monday, telling reporters upon his return to the White House that the 'people that are causing the problem are professional agitators' before going on to call them 'insurrectionists.' Top White House adviser Stephen Miller has been calling the situation in Los Angeles an insurrection for days. And indeed, for Trump, Miller and their allies, the bar for 'insurrection' appears quite different than it was five years ago. After many labeled the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol an insurrection, Trump and MAGA have spent years applying that label extremely broadly to other things. The idea seems to have been to 'whatabout' the term and water it down by suggesting other events are the 'real' insurrections – like the protests after George Floyd's murder. But Trump's broad definition of that term looms large as the administration considers something he's long entertained: dispatching the military on US soil. It has almost seemed like Trump and Co. see themselves surrounded by insurrections. Among the situations Trump has previously attached the 'insurrection' label to: Antifa ('they're causing insurrection') His baseless claims of a 'stolen' 2020 election ('the real insurrection happened on November 3rd') Unspecified enemies within the United States ('insurrectionists roam free') A border influx ('when you talk about insurrection, what they're doing, that's the real deal') Then-President Joe Biden ('I'm not an Insurrectionist … Crooked Joe Biden is!!!') Miller – a key figure in the White House on such matters – has appended that label to many of these things and more. He's most often used it in relation to the border under Biden. But he's also repeatedly accused judges who ruled against Trump of a 'legal insurrection.' He's called pro-Palestinian demonstrators a 'pro-Hamas insurrection.' And he accused those who protested the Supreme Court in 2022 – including in some cases apparently illegally at justices' homes – of waging an 'open insurrection.' It's worth emphasizing that many of these things don't qualify as insurrections. While Trump and his allies balked at people labeling January 6 an insurrection, there's little doubt that it met the definition. That word is generally defined as a violent revolt or rebellion against the government. The attack on the US Capitol was a violent attempt to effectively change the makeup of that government by overturning the election result – and by attacking an actual seat of power. In other words, an insurrection isn't about the level of violence; it's about the target and purpose of it. Merely protesting or even engaging in violence while doing so doesn't automatically make something an insurrection. Nor do adverse court rulings and an influx of undocumented immigrants constitute a rebellion. Of course, Trump has shown he's more than happy to stretch the bounds of words and the law in his quest to expand his power and go after perceived enemies. The question from here is why Trump hasn't gone there on invoking the Insurrection Act. He and Miller have now invoked that specific word multiple times in reference to the situation in Los Angeles, and preparing the Marines to possibly come in suggests this is very much on the table. Perhaps the White House has some qualms about the politics of what could come from the more in-your-face federal presence Trump has spent years entertaining. Or perhaps, as Vladeck wagers, the initial deployment of the National Guard could be a precursor. 'In other words, it's possible that this step is meant to both be and look modest,' Vladeck wrote in his newsletter Saturday, 'so that, if and when it 'fails,' the government can invoke its failure as a basis for a more aggressive domestic deployment of troops.' Only time will tell. But we're clearly operating in a very different political world than we were five years ago. Trump seems to have developed a very broad sense of what constitutes an insurrection and plenty of reasons to potentially do what he said 'there's no reason to ever do.' Indeed, he's already gone further than he did before.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Labour MPs call for action on benefits after winter fuel U-turn
Labour MPs have broadly welcomed the government's decision to reinstate winter fuel payments for three-quarters of pensioners but some are using the U-turn to renew their calls for planned benefit cuts to be reversed. Nine million pensioners in England and Wales with an annual income of £35,000 or less will now be eligible for up to £300 to help with energy bills this winter. Labour MPs thanked the government for listening to their concerns, arguing means testing the payment was fair but that the threshold was set too low last year. However, several urged ministers to also think again on planned cuts to disability payments, while others called for the two-child benefit cap to be scrapped. Under planned changes to the benefits system it would be harder for people with less severe conditions to claim personal independence payments (Pips), while the government is promising more support to help people get into work. While the two-child benefit cap policy prevents most families from claiming means-tested benefits for any third or additional children born after April 2017, which critics say has pushed people into poverty. Ministers are considering lifting the cap, with a decision expected in the autumn, when a child poverty strategy is published. Pressure from Labour backbenchers over the issues - as well as on winter fuel payments - has been growing since the party's poor performance at local election's in May. The winter fuel payment was previously paid to all pensioners but last year the government announced only those receiving pension credit or another means-tested benefit would be eligible in England and Wales. The original cut last year was estimated to save £1.7bn, with the government arguing it was necessary because of the state of the public finances. But the move, which meant more than 10 million pensioners did not receive the payment in 2024, was criticised by charities, unions, opposition parties and many Labour MPs. Following mounting pressure, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced a U-turn last month, with the details of who will get the payment this winter set out on Monday. The chancellor said she would detail how the £1.25bn policy would be paid for in the autumn Budget. How much is the winter fuel payment and who will get it? Labour hope to put winter fuel misstep behind them At-a-glance: Key changes to benefits in welfare shake-up Imran Hussain was among the Labour MPs to call for the planned benefit cuts to be scrapped in response to a government statement in the Commons on changes to winter fuel payments. "It is clear the government has listened, so I ask them to listen again to the growing calls in this chamber and scrap their planned, devastating cuts to disability support," the MP for Bradford East said. Fellow Labour MPs Nadia Whittome and Richard Burgon also welcomed the winter fuel U-turn but urged the government to listen to backbench concerns over benefit cuts. In response, Torsten Bell, who is both a Treasury minister and pensions minister, told MPs there needed to be "a better system focusing on supporting those who can work into work". He added that the status quo - where 1,000 people a day are going onto Pips - was not "a position that anybody should support". Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who has been a leading campaigner for restoring winter fuel payments, welcomed the government's change in policy, saying it was "long overdue". She told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme the £35,000 salary threshold for the payment was a "sensible measure". However, Maskell called on the government to consider a larger payment following increases in energy prices over the past year. The MP for York Central also urged a rethink on planned benefit cuts, adding: "You can't rob disabled people in order to pay older people, that doesn't make sense." Meanwhile, she was among several MPs to reiterate their calls for the government to scrap the two-child benefit cap. In the Commons Rebecca Long Bailey, Labour MP for Salford, also asked for reassurances minsters "are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible" to bring children out of poverty. In response Bell said "all levers to reduce child poverty are on the table". The minister added: "She's absolutely right to raise this issue, it is one of the core purposes of this government. "We cannot carry on with a situation where large families, huge percentages of them, are in poverty." The Conservatives have called for the government to apologise to pensioners who lost out on winter fuel payments last year. Shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately described the U-turn as "the most humiliating climbdown a government has ever faced in its first year in office". She told the Commons "this rushed reversal raises as many questions as it answers", arguing the move was "totally unfunded" and could lead to tax rises. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: "Finally the chancellor has listened to the Liberal Democrats and the tireless campaigners in realising how disastrous this policy was, but the misery it has caused cannot be overstated. "Countless pensioners were forced to choose between heating and eating all whilst the government buried its head in the sand for months on end, ignoring those who were really suffering." Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.