XVIII. The Individualist as a Politician

CHAPTER XVIII THE INDIVIDUALIST AS A POLITICIAN THE reader, so far, will have noticed that we have discussed numerous questions of current party con troversy, with a freedom and irresponsibility alto gether inconsistent with active loyalty: to anyone of the political parties. But political parties exist and with the revival in party activity now noticeable in all direGtions, the Individualist has to ask himself what is his duty, what should he do, and, in particular, how is he to vote? At the Individualist Bookshop we are con stantly asked whether it is our intention to run can didates, and whether there will be any attempt to found an Individualist party in the House of Commons itself. I set out our aspirations fairly clearly in the first chapter of this book in the follow ing terms: ,~. The challenge of Individualism is making people think, and when the next General Election comes a very large proportion of the voters will have reached the mental stage in which they can clearly see the two alternatives which face us. Are we to continue the pitiful attempt to erect a State whose sole object is to act as wet nurse to the people, sparing them.the painful.necessity of doing anything for themselves, or are we to develop a people who can support and look after themselves as well as the State? ".

Can these aspirations be realised without some attempt on regular political lines to establish a foot hold in the House of Commons itself? There are 211 212 1~he Return to Laisser Faire those who argue that a cause like ours requires the backing of a party machine. It is said that no good impression can be made upon political thought or political development without the assistance of one or other of the great political parties. The elector is, in the nature of things, bound to attach himself more or less firmly to some political organisation, and so the argument runs, Individualists should have a clear lead and a definite course given to them. But the most superficial examination shows that those who argue this way are the victims of the early workings of the microbe of Collectivism. They are labouring under that favourite political delusion, the most common of all political weaknesses, the idea that "something must be done." In the philosophy of the Individualist, however, the greatest political wisdom is generally to be found in the opposite direction, and in insisting that nothing shall be "done." Political action, described by John Morley as "a choice of second bests," is, in our view, a dangerous and disappointing weapon that should never be used until the absence of an>: other conceivable plan has been demonstrated be yond dispute.

Those who think that we ought to adopt a party label would have us take one of three courses, and, strange as it may seem, anyone of these opposing courses is open to us. Individualists could organise themselves together and declare that· they were Con servatives, Liberals or Labour, for such is the flabbiness and emptiness of party politics to~day that The Individualist as a Politician 213 any of these parties would welcome the introduction of anything so vigorous, so helpful, so sane as the gospel which we preach if they could have it to themselves. Many Conservatives assure me that their party is enthusiastically with us, and if only we Individualists would put o~r weight into it we could silence that latter-day curiosity, the Tory-Socialist, and bring the party back to economy, self help, and non-interference. Similarly, there is a large body of Liberal opinion which is altogether of our way of thinking, and I do not doubt that if the whole force of the Individualists were applied to the cause of Liberalism that great party could be restored to those principles upon which it was founded, and could be saved from the clutches of the synthetic Socialists who, for the moment, appear to have secured control of it.

There is a third course open to us; one, strange to say, that appeals to me much more strongly. We could join the Labour. party and turn it into a real Labour party, as distinguished from a Socialist or Communist party. This is not at all an impossible job; indeed, there is nothing more certain in politics at all than the return of the trade union movement to a constructive as distinguished from a destructive industrial policy. The reception given to my little book, If I Were a Labour Leader, has more than justified this prophecy, and the welcome ac corded to the ideas which I there attempted to develop shows the strength of Individualism even in the most unexpected quarters. The average labouring man wants to get on with the job of 214 The Return to Laisser Faire abolishing poverty, and he knows that trade unionism run in the interests of industry and pro duction is a very different thing from political Socialism. That is why half the wage-earners never vote for a Socialist candidate and never· will.

But if Individualists as a class took anyone of these three courses and entered the arena of party combat they would assuredly weaken their powers for usefulness. We should make one friend and two enemies whichever course we took. The moment we call ourselves Blue all the Yellows and the Reds are against us; such is· the tyranny of the party machine. If we elect to be Yellow the Blues and the Reds declare war upon us, and that is the one great disadvantage of the party method from our point of view. We have a higher purpose, a nobler mission, a more definitely useful work to do. We can exercise a widespread influence upon public opinion asa whole. We can carryon an educa tional mission in all parties, and in that way establish a basis of sound public opinion on which party politics can operate with less damage to the commonweal than is possible at the moment. I am not objecting to the opposition of the Reds and the Blues. Opposition,-discussion, dispute, argument are all necessary to get a balance and a judgment into public affairs. If the Home Secre tary appoints a Commission to inquire into the ~avidge case, and arranges for it to meet the following day,it is important that the Opposition should point out with-emphasis. the dangers of this un seemly speed. If, on the other. hand, the Home The Individualis t as a Politician 2 I 5 Secretary arranges for the Commission to do .its work in a more orderly and judicial manner, it is equally important that the Opposition should lash itself into fury at the intolerable delay.

This illustration from the detail of the Savidge case illustrates political method generally, and political method for party purposes is right and good. Each political party seems to think it neces sary to have a housing policy, and whatever that policy may be, whatever its details, whether, indeed, they are even known or not, the other two parties will declare the whole thing to be bad, ill conceived, unworkable and wrong. Exactly the same thing happens with mines, or pensions, or taxation, or anything that a political party handles. The Labour party stumped the country to denounce the trade union policy of the Conservatives, and in the most blatant, though perfectly proper political way, made 'it clear that, whatever the policy turned out to be when later the Prime Minister announced it, they would offer it the most strenuous opposition. When this sort of thing comes down to economic detail, party politics degenerates into the most de grading auction. Thus, if the Conservatives offer a pension of 5s., the Liberals say it should be lOS., and the Socialists claim that they will give a sovereign. All this is proper politics. We must have a Government, and we must have His Majesty's Opposition. These are the safeguards, the finishing touches of political life, but they are not the whole of life. Individualism is something deeper, more fundamental ,more'necessary , and 216 The Return to Laisser Faire Individualism must not weaken or degrade itself by association with party strife.

The right method for· the Individualist is the Gompers method~ If we were operating in America instead of more sober Britain, we should probably adopt some expressive slogan like "To Hell with Politics." Such a slogan would not be fair (but slogans never are) ,because weare, of course, the real politicians, we are concerned with the well being of the whole body politic, and we must be free from the necessity of vote catching and place seeking. There is nothing in the whole world in the shape of real political success to approach the position of the American· working man. That posi tion was secured by Samuel Gompers, who for forty years led the American Federation of Labour and kept it right outside established party limits. "Only once have I ever been a member of a political party," says Gompers in his Seventy Years of Life and IJabour. ~'When I became of age I joined the Republican organisation in the district in which I lived. To me it was an organisa tionwhich still had a great purpose to fulfil.

Lincoln typified that purpose in my mind. When I left the Republican party I joined no other. It will be observed that in recent years I have voted for the Presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket, and this has been interpreted by many to mean that I am a member of the Democratic party. As I have already stated, in the first four years of my citizenship I was a member of the Republican party. F or years The Individualist as a Politician 2 17 after in Presidential elections I cast a protesting vote. I believe that the Republican party had ful filled its mission, growing out of the Civil War, and so far as the Democratic party was concerned it had no concept of the political and industrial problems of the times. " Anyone who will doubt the sincerity of the non partisan policy which I have endeavoured to pursue may compare the platform declarations of the Democratic and Republican parties and judge for himself whether I was not justified as a Labour man. I have always sought to use political situations for Labour's advantage."

All parties in America paid their respect to Samuel Gompers; all of them competed to serve the cause of. Labour which he represented. He de clined absolutely to have a party of his own, or to be associated with any party. He steered this difficult course with such success that there is to-day about as much chance for a Socialist party in America as for the Strict Baptists in the Sahara Desert. In the short time that the Individualists have been a vocal force operating from the little bookshop in Charing Cross Road, we have demonstrated the advantages to be gained from a non-party policy. We have had the privilege of entertaining on our platform leading thinkers from every party, and from circles where politics count for nothing. The proper attitude of the Individualist to party politics is not unlike the proper attitude of the Churchman. The Church exists, or, in my judg ment, it should exist, to exercise an influence on 218 , The Return to Laisser Faire' every aspect of life, politics included. The Church should welcome members of every political party, but should stand aloof from party controversy,and rely upon the principles which it exists to inculcate, to influence party controversy .for ·good.

My advice, therefore, to Individualists is to keep within any party where they can find a sufficient measure of sympathy to make their presence wel come to others and ,comfortable to themselves. They should strive to keep the party straight from their point of view, and to restrain the natural move rnent of every party towards further developments of State action at the expense of the Individual. .When the time comes to vote I shall support the candidate who will undertake to "do" the least, who will offer the smallest bribes to the electors, and who will.promise to restrain the mad modern rush for wealth and happiness through legislation. If a candidate is to be found with the pluck to tell the electors the real truth, and Mr. Baldwin comesre markably near to it now and again, I shall take off my coat and work and fight for him. Such a candidate would go to the polls with an address .framed in something like the following terms: To the' electors of London or Rome. Ladies and Gentlemen, I ask your support at the forthcoming election as an Individualist. I am firmly of the opinion that the craze for Government has been overdone, and that the need of the country to~day -is for less Government, not more. I view with the gravest alarm the ever-increasing tendency of large The Individualist as a Politician 2'19 masses of the people to look for State help, not only in the form oIdoles for the poor, but of subsidies and reliefs for the rich. I believe the economic power of the State to be very limited, and the power of the Individual to be capable of indefinite expan.sion. The candidate who tells you that the State can feed and clothe and house its citizens is lying.

If we have a prosperous State composed of p~os perous Individuals these things can be done for the small minority which fails, but that is the limit of the possibilities of political or State action. I there fore offer you nothing, promise you nothing and I call on you as good citizens to strive to strengthen your personal positions and thus strengthen the State. If you make a personal success of life I will,as a member of Parliament, vote a part of that success, in the name of charity and good social policy, for the support of those who fail. I denounce as false, degrading ,and anti-social the notion that failure can confer any rights. Success, to be complete, embodies the obligation to help failure, but failure does not carry with'it the right to share success. Life is a personal thing. The power to strive, the obligation to serve and the responsibility to move forwards or backwards on your road· whatever it may be, are all personal to you alone and single handed. You have few' rights, but many duties.

Through the collective machinery of politics, civilisation has developed certain political rights . . The State can, give you political liberty, the right to talk and think, the right to peace and quiet, the 220 The Return to Laissef Faire right to knowledge, if you have the personal capacity to contain it, but the State can give you very little else. F or the rest it is up to you~ ,I claim tQ represent all that is most worthy in our national life, a life which will prosper or decay in proportion to our acceptance or rejection of the gospel of Individualism. On these grounds I ask for your support. Your obedient servant, The Individualist. There is nothing in all this which can be described as practical politics, there is not a shred of vote catching about it. It ignores altogether the pos sibility of some party or another winning some par ticular election on some particular crisis. It dismisses as mere detail most of the matters of day by-day controversy, but it does bring politics back to principles, and that is surely what is really wanted.

F or fifty years laisser faire nas been discarded as a national policy and to-day the term is not only derided ~nd misunderstood but deliberately misre presented. Many people even think the words mean " leave alone" and give to the policy a nega tive or "don't care" implication. Laisser faire means, of course, "let do," "leave to do," do not interfere with action, and as all action comes from the individual the denial of the policy of laisser faire has robbed us of a tremendous and beneficent mass of action, which had it taken place, would have kept this country the happiest and wealthiest place in the world.

The Individualist as a Politician 221 If England recovers its Individualism, it will scorn the helpless, dependent, pauper-like frame of mind which present-day politics has created, and all political parties will be obliged to mend their ways. Individualists, as such, therefore, will know no party; they have the higher duty of providing a wise, truthful, philosophical, and intellectual basis on which detailed political controversy at any given moment can operate with much more promise of good and safety than is possible in the present state of party politics.