Michael White's latest post on Comment is Free is an interesting one. He makes an argument that will feel counter-intuitive to many: that the media is being too critical of the government over civil liberties.

I'm in two minds as to whether I disagree. My initial reaction is that the only reason the media (and I'd very much include bloggers in this) are making such a fuss is that the government has, beyond any doubt, introduced legislation which does curtail some civil liberties. But the Hitler/Stalin/Mao comparisons are wide of the mark, Guantanamo is not Auschwitz and Blair does not have Pinochet-style death squads eliminating his opponents.

White is right to call for an end to the Cold war-era style of debate. Advocates of liberty do themselves few favours by invoking the worst excesses of the 20th century in cases where such comparisons do not hold up to scrutiny. But there is a strong, principled case against authoritarian government, borne out by historical evidence. Britain's broadly liberal traditions may have emerged accidentally, a product of various compromises going back to Magna Carta and beyond, but there can be little doubt that they have helped to protect us from totalitarian government when other countries have succumbed. I worry that this preventative notion has been overlooked.

Most sensible critics of the government do not believe in a direct comparison of Guantanamo to Auschwitz. But the fact that Guantanamo is not Auschwitz does not equate to Guantanamo being a good thing. Guantanamo can be opposed without reference to the past, not because it will usher in a new age of fascism but because it contravenes basic principles in which, as liberals, we believe in.

So I agree with Michael White insofar as I find some of the more over-the-top criticisms of the British and American governments to be embarassing to our cause. But this can never be a blank cheque to the government to do as it likes, so long as it can pass the "not as bad as Hitler" test. That is no way to conduct a debate. We must be willing to engage the government on the merits - or otherwise - of their proposals without resorting to hyperbole.