News in Review (Heath takes the Tory helm)
Adlai Stevenson
If Adlai Stevenson was truly the witty and learned man he was reputed to be, he would have been appalled at the mush of vulgar cliches served up as his obituaries.
All the obituarists were agreed. Stevenson had everything but success and the tragedy of his life was that he never made the White House, because he had so many good ideas, he was so liberal, so peaceloving, that it only needed him to become President for the whole darn world to be an unrecognisably better place.
This old, drab story is the basis of many of the obsequies of men who spend their political lives in opposition and never in government. We heard the same regrets when Hugh Gaitskell died. Apparently a cruel fate is always denying us the benefits of being ruled by humane and capable men.
It should surprise nobody that the journalists never ask why the supposedly humane men never get to the top or why, if they do make it, they always cease to be humane.
The truth is simple. Capitalism requires that its administrators comply with certain priorities and if humanity is among them it is a long way from the top of the list. If a man gets power—as often happens—on a plausibly humane programme he must quickly change his ideas.
This is why Johnson’s policies have changed, and why before him Kennedy’s changed and Roosevelt’s changed. Stevenson did not have to change his for the simple reason that he never got power.
And as for that, it was not so much a case of Stevenson having admirable principles which were never applied because he did not get to the White House, as of Stevenson not getting to the White House because his policies did not match up to capitalism’s needs.
Tucked away into a comparatively unnoticed job, Stevenson could look after his dignity. He could discreetly let it be known that he had his reservations on United States policy on such issues as Cuba and Vietnam. Nothing was changed by this, nothing was even disturbed. It was all very cosy, and it allowed a cultured man to live his life in peace. It also allowed those obituaries.
An insignificant corner is the place for such reservations, and for a witty and learned man—if indeed such animals exist in politic’s jungle world.
The brave ones
One essential for a successful politician is the ability to sell the electorate the old gag “heads I win, tails you lose.” And it is clear that the Labour Party, in the midst of the financial crises of British capitalism, are learning the truth of this.
It is really quite simple. If a Minister does something which he thinks will be well received among the voters (higher pensions, lower income tax, more houses) he claims that this is entirely the result of the government’s wisdom and ability.
Heads, in other words, they win.
If, on the other hand, the government imposes measures which are going to be unpopular (higher taxes, housing cuts, higher national insurance payments) their approach is different.
These, they say, are also a result of their wisdom and ability. Much as they regret having to bring in the measures, they do it all for our benefit; somewhere in the future which we never seem to reach, we shall gain a great deal from the privations which we suffer today.
Meantime, the politicians are quick to claim another sort of credit for their unpopular measures. Such things, they say, show that whatever else they may be none can deny that they are men of courage.
Thus Mr. Wilson, on Mr. Callaghan’s Budget last April 11th:
“He told a cheering audience that it was a courageous and purposive instrument designed to strengthen Britain and to strengthen the pound.” (Daily Telegraph 12/4/65).
Thus Lord Stonham on 10th July last:
“By courageous and decisive action we have weathered the storm we inherited, and as our policies bear fruit . . .” (Guardian, 12/7/65).
In other words, although it is tails it is we, and not they, who have lost.
This kind of two-timing propaganda, thrives on the short memories and the apathy of the voters. It thrives on their forgetting, for example, that however high or low taxes may be the condition of the working class remains the same.
This condition does not depend on the day to day financial juggling of capitalism’s latest set of administrators, but on the social situation—the class position—which the working class necessarily holds in capitalist society. Whatever government is in power, and whatever they do, has no effect on this.
When the working class have grasped this fact, they will have seen through the politicians’ deceits. As a start, they might realise that when a Minister says that he is going to do something courageous it is time for the rest of us lo run for cover.
Mr. Heath takes the Tory helm
Mr. Edward Heath, the new Conservative leader, is said to be a moderniser; a strange recommendation to a party which waited until 1965 to select its leader by ballot. Heath’s reputation is largely based on his forthright debating ability, his personality appeal, which Conservatives judge to be electorally attractive, and his determined application of policies which he conceived to be in the overall interests of British Capitalism without regard to sectional interests.
Mr. Heath was at the centre of controversies such as the abolition of retail price maintenance and the British application to join the Common Market. With bad luck, Mr. Heath’s part in these two issues may well have led to his political death. As it is, Tories are now pointing to them as examples of Mr. Heath’s courage, sincerity and modern approach. In fact, being modern or old fashioned doesn’t come into it. Whatever alleged doctrinaire differences are puffed up and attributed to various personalities in Government, actual policies largely arise from the economic requirements of situations that Governments find themselves in. The practical necessity of these policy demands are made equally on both grammar school bright boys and plus-foured squiredom.
In spite of the interest centred on the contest for the leadership of the Conservative party, and in spite of the avalanche of press comment and speculation that went on, the only new thing about Mr. Heath is his face. Of course new faces have their usefulness in creating the illusion of a fresh determination to grasp fresh opportunities. They provide the renewed hopes without which capitalism would be even more intolerable. For as many faces that become jaded in the depressing aftermath of anti-climax and failure, there is always a new one to replace it. Enter Mr. Edward Heath.
To say that Mr. Heath is a flexible realist whose mind is unshackled by doctrine is another way of saying that he holds no firm political principles. Indeed he is the administrator par excellence. It is not for Mr. Heath to question the basic drives and ends of modem society. The objects of profit and private ownership are accepted without demur. He is the business organisation man in Government. At their widest, his differences with Mr. Wilson or any other reformist politician boil down to a quibble over technique of administration and even these are largely contrived for electoral considerations. As ever the watchword will be mind public opinion, but administer capitalism.
Reformist parties like the Labour and Conservative parties consider that persodalities in politics are important, and in electing Mr. Heath, conservatives were concerned not only to create a bright image for the future but also to provide a means of escape from the discredited past. From this point of view, Mr. Heath seems to fulfil requirements.
It seems probable now that in accepting the leadership of the Conservative party two years ago, Sir Alec Douglas Home played a stop-gap role on the promise that he would resign “as soon as the time was right for me to go.” At that time, the claims of men like Heath and Maudling were to weak to withstand the influence of men like Butler and Quintin Hogg, especially under the existing means of appointment. Yet in spite of their prestige, both Hogg and Butler were undesirable candidates, apart from other reasons, both wore the tarnished mantle of the MacMillan era.
During Home’s stop-gap term of office, the claims of Heath and Maudling to Conservative leadership became more credible, and at the same time, Conservative M.P.’s were given the means to elect their leader by ballot. In the meantime, the political fortunes of Butler and Hogg have evaporated. Conservative M.P.’s now have the man they want.
But this is politics carried on at a trifling level that is completely removed from serious consideration of the important social problems of the time. Though they command wide interest, these paltry manoeuvrings don’t begin to touch the problems of war, poverty and frustration that arise from world capitalism. The task is to abolish capitalism, not to appoint new office boys in the running of it.
Thomson erupts
In the House of Lords on July 21st, 1965 it became apparent that Lord Thomson, who owns a lot of newspapers and who has been on television and who is a very rich man, could contain himself no longer.
It was not that he had anything irrepressibly original to say—he was actually riding a very old hobby horse which is ridden a thousand times a morning on all the Tube trains going into the City of London.
It was that mangy old nag the selfish, lazy, stupid British working man who never puts his back into it, who is always on strike (but who seems to manage to buy a car and a washing machine and a television to watch Lord Thomson on his strike pay) and who is generally no good.
“In other advanced countries,” (Lord Thomson speaking) “business is highly professional, management is completely dedicated to success. It completely dominates the lives of the executives.”
Now anyone who has ever come across an executive who is dedicated to success, and whose life is completely dominated by his work, knows what a ghastly human being Lord Thomson was praising.
Some dedicated men have considered it part of their success to support dictators and others have done their bit to make our lives that much less tolerable by replacing something beautiful like an unspoiled coastline or a rolling valley with something ugly like an atomic power station or an underwear factory.
Others have dedicated themselves to convincing us that our troubles were due to night starvation or that the only way to keep our teeth was but brushing them with chlorophyll or that nobody is switched on unless they have a tiger in their tank.
What Lord Thomson’s standard of success amounts to is a ruthless, single minded drive for profit—for the scientific, technological exploitation of human beings, organised by machines and by dedicated sociologists, psychiatrists, technicians and any clean-collared graduate who falls for the patter.
We may be excused if we insist that human life should, and can, hold more than this.
As a matter of fact Lord Thomson did drop a hint, at the end of his speech, about his idea of a successful and dedicated man:
“I greatly appreciate the actions of George Brown. I think he is trying to do something in the interests of this country and he has my complete support in every respect. I regret that some employers and some trade unions are not co-operating with him.”
Yes!