CHAPTER
1
THE
FORGOTTEN PEOPLE
Quite
recently, a bishop wrote a letter to a great daily newspaper. His theme
was the importance of doing justice to the workers. His belief, apparently,
was that the workers are those who work with their hands. He sought to
divide the people of Australia into classes. He was obviously suffering
from what has for years seemed to me to be our greatest political disease
- the disease of thinking that the community is divided into the rich
and relatively idle, and the laborious poor, and that every social and
political controversy can be resolved into the question: What side are
you on?
Now,
the last thing that I want to do is to commence or take part in a false
war of this kind. In a country like Australia the class war must always
be a false war. But if we are to talk of classes, then the time has come
to say something of the forgotten class - the middle class - those people
who are constantly in danger of being ground between the upper and the
nether millstones of the false class war; the middle class who, properly
regarded, represent the backbone of this country.
We
do not have classes here as in England, and therefore the terms do
not mean the same; so I must define what I mean when I use the expression "middle class.
Let
me first define it by exclusion. I exclude at one end of the scale the
rich and powerful: those who control great funds and enterprises, and
are as a rule able to protect themselves - though it must be said that
in a political sense they have as a rule shown neither comprehension nor
competence. But I exclude them because in most material difficulties,
the rich can look after themselves.
I
exclude at the other end of the scale the mass of unskilled people, almost
invariably well-organized, and with their wages and conditions protected
by popular law. What I am excluding them from is my definition of middle
class. We cannot exclude them from the problem of social progress, for
one of the prime objects of modern social and political policy is to give
to them a proper measure of security, and provide the conditions which
will enable them to acquire skill and knowledge and individuality.
These
exclusions being made, I include the intervening range - the kind of
people I myself represent in Parliament - salary earners, shopkeepers,
skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers, and so on. These
are, in the political and economic sense, the middle class. They are
for the most part unorganized and unselfconscious. They are envied
by those whose social benefits are largely obtained by taxing them.
They are not rich enough to have individual power. They are taken for
granted by each political party in turn. They are not sufficiently
lacking in individualism to be organized for what in these days we
call "pressure politics". And yet,
as I have said, they are the backbone of the nation.
The
communist has always hated what he calls the "bourgeoisie", because
he sees clearly that the existence of one has kept British countries
from revolution, while the substantial absence of one in feudal France
at the end of the eighteenth century and in Tsarist Russia at the end
of the last war made revolution easy and indeed inevitable.
You
may say to me, "Why bring this matter up at this stage, when we are fighting
a war in the result of which we are all equally concerned?" My answer
is that I am bringing it up because under the pressures of war we may,
if we are not careful - if we are not as thoughtful as the times will
permit us to be - inflict a fatal injury upon our own backbone.
In
point of political, industrial and social theory and practice there are
great delays in time of war. But there are also great accelerations. We
must watch each, remembering always that whether we know it or not, and
whether we like it or not, the foundations of whatever new order is to
come after the war are inevitably being laid down now. We cannot go wrong
right up to the peace treaty and expect suddenly thereafter to go right.
Now,
what is the value of this middle class, so defined and described? First,
it has "a stake in the country". It has responsibility for homes -
homes material, homes human, homes spiritual.
I
do not believe that the real life of this nation is to be found either
in great luxury hotels and the petty gossip of so-called fashionable suburbs,
or in the officialdom of organized masses. It is to be found in the homes
of people who are nameless and unadvertised, and who, whatever their individual
religious conviction or dogma, see in their children their greatest contribution
to the immortality of their race. The home is the foundation of sanity
and sobriety; it is the indispensable condition of continuity; its health
determines the health of society as a whole.
I
have mentioned homes material, homes human, and homes spiritual. Let
me take them in their order. What do I mean by "homes material"?
The
material home represents the concrete expression of the habits of frugality
and saving "for a home of our own". Your advanced socialist may rage
against private property even while he acquires it; but one of the
best instincts in us is that which induces us to have one little piece
of earth with a house and a garden which is ours: to which we can withdraw,
in which we can be among our friends, into which no stranger may come
against our will.
If
you consider it, you will see that if, as in the old saying, "the Englishmans
home is his castle", it is this very fact that leads on to the conclusion
that he who seeks to violate that law by violating the soil of England
must be repelled and defeated.
National
patriotism, in other words, inevitably springs from the instinct to defend
and preserve our own homes.
Then
we have homes human. A great house, full of loneliness, is not a home. "Stone walls do not a prison make",
not do they make a house. They may equally make a stable or a piggery.
Brick walls, dormer windows and central heating need not make more
than a hotel. My home is where my wife and children are. The instinct
to be with them is the great instinct of civilized man; the instinct
to give them a chance in life - to make them not leaners but lifters
- is a noble instinct.
If
Scotland has made a great contribution to the theory and practice of education,
it is because of the tradition of Scottish homes. The Scottish ploughman,
walking behind his team, cons ways and means of making his son a farmer,
and so he sends him to the village school. The Scottish farmer ponders
upon the future of his son, and sees it most assured not by the inheritance
of money but by the acquisition of that knowledge which will give him
power; and so the sons of many Scottish farmers find their way to Edinburgh
and a university degree.
The
great question is, "How can I qualify my son to help society?" Not, as
we have so frequently thought, "How can I qualify society to help my son?" If
human homes are to fulfil their destiny, then we must have frugality
and saving for education and progress.
And
finally, we have homes spiritual. This is a notion which finds its
simplest and most moving expression in "The Cotters Saturday Night" of
Burns. Human nature is at its greatest when it combines dependence
upon God with independence of man.
We
offer no affront - on the contrary we have nothing but the warmest
human compassion - towards those whom fate has compelled to live upon
the bounty of the State, when we say that the greatest element in a
strong people is a fierce independence of spirit. This is the only
real freedom,
and it has as its corollary a brave acceptance of unclouded individual
responsibility. The moment a man seeks moral and intellectual refuge
in the emotions of a crowd, he ceases to be a human being and becomes
a cipher. The home spiritual so understood is not produced by lassitude
or by dependence; it is produced by self-sacrifice, by frugality and
saving.
In
a war, as indeed at most times, we become the ready victims of phrases.
We speak glibly of may things without pausing to consider what they
signify. We speak of "financial power", forgetting that the financial power of
1942 is based upon the savings of generations which have preceded it.
We speak of "morale" as if it were a quality induced from without - created
by others for our benefit - when in truth there can be no national morale
which is not based upon the individual courage of men and women. We speak
of "man power" as if it were a mere matter of arithmetic: as if it were
made up of a multiplication of men and muscles without spirit.
Second,
the middle class, more than any other, provides the intelligent ambition
which is the motive power of human progress. The idea entertained by
many people that, in a well-constituted world, we shall all live on
the State in the quintessence of madness, for what is the State but
us ? We
collectively must provide what we individually receive.
The
great vice of democracy - a vice which is exacting a bitter retribution
from it at this moment - is that for a generation we have been busy
getting ourselves on to the list of beneficiaries and removing ourselves
from the list of contributors, as if somewhere there was somebody elses
wealth and somebody elses effort on which we could thrive.
To
discourage ambition, to envy success, to hate achieved superiority, to
distrust independent thought, to sneer at and impute false motives to
public service - these are the maladies of modern democracy, and of Australian
democracy in particular. Yet ambition, effort, thinking, and readiness
to serve are not only the design and objectives of self-government but
are the essential conditions of its success. If this is not so, then we
had better put back the clock, and search for a benevolent autocracy once
more.
Where
do we find these great elements most commonly? Among the defensive
and comfortable rich, among the unthinking and unskilled mass, or among
what I have called the "middle class"?
Third,
the middle class provides more than perhaps any other the intellectual
life which marks us off from the beast: the life which finds room for
literature, for the arts, for science, for medicine and the law.
Consider
the case of literature and art. Could these survive as a department of
State? Are we to publish our poets according to their political colour?
Is the State to decree surrealism because surrealism gets a heavy vote
in a key electorate? The truth is that no great book was ever written
and no great picture ever painted by the clock or according to civil service
rules. These things are done by man, not men. You cannot regiment them.
They require opportunity, and sometimes leisure. The artist, if he is
to live, must have a buyer; the writer an audience. He finds them among
frugal people to whom the margin above bare living means a chance to reach
out a little towards that heaven which is just beyond our grasp. It has
always seemed to me, for example, that an artist is better helped by the
man who sacrifices something to buy a picture he loves than by a rich
patron who follows the fashion.
Fourth,
this middle class maintains and fills the higher schools and universities,
and so feeds the lamp of learning.
What
are schools for? To train people for examinations, to enable people to
comply with the law, or to produce developed men and women?
Are
the universities mere technical schools, or have they as one of their
functions the preservation of pure learning, bringing in its train not
merely riches for the imagination but a comparative sense for the mind,
and leading to what we need so badly - the recognition of values which
are other than pecuniary?
One
of the great blots on our modern living is the cult of false values, a
repeated application of the test of money, notoriety, applause. A world
in which a comedian or a beautiful half-wit on the screen can be paid
fabulous sums, whilst scientific researchers and discoverers can suffer
neglect and starvation, is a world which needs to have its sense of values
violently set right.
Now,
have we realized and recognized these things, or is most of our policy
designed to discourage or penalize thrift, to encourage dependence on
the State, to bring about a dull equality on the fantastic idea that all
men are equal in mind and needs and deserts: to level down by taking the
mountains our of the landscape, to weigh men according to their political
organisations and power - as votes and not as human beings? These are
formidable questions, and we cannot escape from answering them if there
is really to be a new order for the world.
I
have been actively engaged in politics for fourteen years in the State
of Victoria and in the Commonwealth of Australia. In that period I
cannot readily recall many occasions upon which any policy was pursued
which was designed to help the thrifty, to encourage independence,
to recognize the divine and valuable variations of mens minds.
On the contrary, there have been many instances in which the votes
of the thriftless have been used to defeat the thrifty. On occasions
of emergency, as in the depression and during the war, we have hastened
to make it clear that the provision made by man for his own retirement
and old age is not half as sacrosanct as the provision the State would
have made for him had he never saved at all.
We
have talked of income from savings as if it possessed a somewhat discreditable
character. We have taxed it more and more heavily. We have spoken slightingly
of the earning of interest at the very moment when we have advocated new
pensions and social schemes. I have myself heard a minister of power and
influence declare that no deprivation is suffered by a man if he still
has the means to fill his stomach, clothe his body and keep a roof over
his head. And yet the truth is, as I have endeavoured to show, that frugal
people who strive for and obtain the margin above these materially necessary
things are the whole foundation of a really active and developing national
life.
The
case for the middle class is the case for a dynamic democracy as against
a stagnant one. Stagnant waters are level, and in them the scum rises.
Active waters are never level; they toss and tumble and have crests and
troughs; but the scientists tell us that they purify themselves in a few
hundred yards.
That
we are all, as human souls, of like value cannot be denied. That each
of us should have his chance is and must be the great objective of political
and social policy. But to say that the industrious and intelligent son
of self-sacrificing and saving and forward-looking parents has the same
social deserts and even material needs as the dull offspring of stupid
and improvident parents is absurd.
If
the motto is to be, "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you will die,
and if it chances you dont die, the State will look after you; but
if you dont eat, drink and be merry, and save, we shall take your
savings from you", then the whole business of life will become foundationless.
Are
you looking forward to a breed of men after the war who will have become
boneless wonders? Leaners grow flabby; lifters grow muscles. Men without
ambition readily become slaves. Indeed, there is much more slavery in
Australia than most people imagine. How many hundreds of thousands of
us are slaves to greed, to fear, to newspapers, to public opinion - represented
by the accumulated views of our neighbours! Landless men smell the vapours
of the street corner. Landed men smell the brown earth, and plant their
feet upon it and know that it is good.
To
all of this many of my friends will retort, "Ah, thats all very
well, but when this war is over the levellers will have won the day." My
answer is that, on the contrary, men will come out of this war as gloriously
unequal in many things as when they entered it. Much wealth will have
been destroyed; inherited riches will be suspect; a fellowship of suffering,
if we really experience it, will have opened many hearts and perhaps
closed many mouths. Many great edifices will have fallen, and we shall
be able to study foundations as never before, because the war will have
exposed them.
But
I do not believe that we shall come out into the over-lordship of an all-powerful
State on whose benevolence we shall live, spineless and effortless - a
State which will dole out bread and ideas with neatly regulated accuracy;
where we shall all have our dividend without subscribing our capital;
where the Government, that almost deity, will nurse us and rear us and
maintain us and pension us and bury us; where we shall all be civil servants,
and all presumably, since we are equal, heads of departments.
If
the new world is to be a world of men, we must be not pallid and bloodless
ghosts, but a community of people whose motto shall be, "To strive, to
seek, to find, and not to yield". Individual enterprise must drive us
forward. That does not mean that we are to return to the old and selfish
notions of laissez-faire. The functions of the State will be much more
than merely keeping the ring within which the competitors will fight.
Our social and industrial obligations will be increased. There will be
more law, not less; more control, not less.
But
what really happens to us will depend on how many people we have who are
of the great and sober and dynamic middle-class - the strivers, the planners,
the ambitious ones. We shall destroy them at our peril.
22
May, 1942
|