The Forgotten People
by Robert Menzies
May 22, 1942
The headings in this speech did not form part of the original text.
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 relatively rich and the 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 would 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 war; the middle
class who, properly regarded represent the backbone of this
country.
Defining the Middle Class
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-organised, and
with their wages and conditions safeguarded by popular law. What
I am excluding them from is my definition of the middle class. We
cannot exclude them from problems of social progress, for one of
the prime objects of modern social and political policy is to
give 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 unorganised and unself-conscious. They are envied by
those whose 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 organised for what in
these days we call "pressure politics." And yet, as I
have said, they are the backbone of the nation.
The Historic Place of the Middle Class
The communist has always hated what he calls
the "bourgeoisie", because he sees clearly 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, the result of which
we are all equally concerned?" My answer is that I am
bringing it up because under the pressure 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, and 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
the organised 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 order. What do I mean by
"homes material"?
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 rave 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 Englishman's 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.
Homes Human
Then we have homes human. A great house, full
of loneliness, is not a home. "Stone walls do not a prison
make", nor 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 civilised 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 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.
Homes Spiritual
And finally, we have homes spiritual. This is a
notion which finds its simplest and most moving expression in
"The Cotter's 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 - toward 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 of many 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 is 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 else's wealth
and somebody else's effort on which we could thrive.
To discourage ambition, to envy success, to
have 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 any
other 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 are the things 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 find 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.
The Thriving of the Thrifty
Now, have we realised and recognised these
things, or is most of our policy designed to discourage or
penalise thrift, to encourage dependence on the State, to bring
about a dull equality on a fantastic idea that all men are equal
in mind and needs and deserts: to level down by taking the
mountains out 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 recognise the
divine and valuable variations of men's 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 present 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 if he had 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 the 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 don't
die, the State will look after you; but if you don't eat, drink
and be merry and save, we shall take your savings from you",
then the whole business of life would become foundationless.
Towards Individual Enterprise or Slavery
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 in 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 that's 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 war will have exposed them.
But I do not believe that we shall come out
into the overlordship 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 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 laws 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|