Evening Post TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1938. FREEDOM AND UNITY

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 58, 6 September 1938, Page 10

Evening Post TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1938. FREEDOM AND UNITY

One of the drawbacks of freedom is that it does not always mean unity. There are so many different, kinds of freedom that free people feel free to quarrel about them. There is the freedom of private enterprise, and there is the freedom which seeks to elevate taxation into a levelling weapon by means of which all wealth is to be redistributed and all people are to be placed on an equality, so far as equality can be conferred by taxation. The freedom claimed by private enterprise and the freedom claimed by the levelling taxationists are liable to clash; yet both sides claim the highest ideals of liberty and justice. Then there is the freedom of self-determination. The people of Ulster claim (judging by their Parliamentary elections) that an Ulster separate from the rest of Ireland is, for Ulster, liberty; but from the rest of the Irish come complaints that an Ireland divided can never be an Ireland free. And this nationalistic clash is just as serious as is the social-economic clash. Yet all the clashing factions give lip-service to one god, freedom. How, then, are the free to find unity? The answer seems to be that they find unity when all the clashing sections of freedom-worshippers find themselves confronted by a greater tyrant than the. one they imagine—by a more deep-seated menace to human rights. Nothing in Belfast or in London can be as stifling to liberty, and as oppressive to freedom, as is the totalitarianism of Berlin and Rqme; and the fact is realised in Dublin. Faced with the totalitarian menace, speakers at the British Commonwealth Relations Conference at Sydney "make it clear that Irish opinion is as strongly opposed to Dictatorships as is British opinion." The iron of unity loses its temper when Dublin and Belfast dispute, but is welded and retempered on the anvil of Berlin. Faced by totalitarianism and its open challenge to all democratic freedom, the various kinds of freedom-seekers in the democratic countries know, if they are realists, that if they do not hang together they will hang separately. They learn the virtue of patience. It may be a long time before Dublin converts' Belfast, and it may be a longer time before the last "investment surplus" (Mr. Lee's obsession) is "disgorged." But wealth will never be redistributed, and Dublin and Belfast will never kiss if Socialistic or united Ireland wreckers upset the boat and invite foreign conquest. So it is not surprising—but it is welcome—to learn from the British Commonwealth Relations Conference that "Ireland would be with. Britain in the event of war." Ireland, now given all freedom except the absorption of Ulster's freedom, which is a matter obviously requiring patience and persuasion, cannot be expected to welcome Hitlerist patronage, and [may therefore cease to be "the Achilles heel of the Empire." And Mr. Lee, now given all kinds of freedom but not yet the power of dictation over investment surpluses, may well be expected to realise that the overthrow of capitalist finance is not likely to come from Berlin or Rome; and that, while the Berlin-Rome axis exists, even the capitalist finance of Great Britain is a sure shield— indeed, the only shield—against a regime which would deprive active Socialists of the only real asset that | they possess—free speech and a free | printing press. All freedom is relative. The over-zealous pursuit of a disputed freedom can easily endanger aggregate freedom. And neglect of defensive unity, by the distraction of Socialist aims and divergences, can just as easily undermine the national cohesive strength without which no democracy in the modern world has a ghost of a chance of surviving. When Mr. Baldwin belatedly accepted rearmament, he did so with reluctance. He stated that re-arma-ment expenditure would delay social reform. The British Labour Opposition assumed against re-armament an attitude of obstruction which broke down through sheer lack of consistency. Common. sense demanded that British Labour, while demanding "sanctions possibly involving war," could not leave the nation unarmed. British Labour's hatred of totalitarianism compelled it to accept a re-armament based on capitalist finance and heavy taxation; and this is an effect of totalitarianism that must never be forgotten, for no one believes that British Labour would regard re-armament against Communism as it regards re-arma-ment against Hitler and Mussolini. But while British Labour accepts a huge expenditure that delays social reform, and while capitalist finance in Britain groans under the rearmament burden, the shielded social reformers and Socialist reformers of New Zealand press on with their huge social expenditures, and some at any rate of them demand the overthrow of the system without the shelter of which their freedoms and liberties as well as their legislation could not for one moment exist. If a Social Security Bill is being passed in this country today, it is because the wealth and freedom of Britain guarantee New Zealand's wealth and freedom. The signature of the Labour Government to the social contract is worthless without the signature of the British Government to the defence contract; and if Ireland is with Britain in the event of war, it is doubly necessary that New Zealand should be. Totalitarianism at least serves one good purpose if it drives this fact home to people who otherwise would ignore it.

BEYOND THE SAFETY ZONE

Labour's oft-repeated claim that it is following in the footsteps of Seddon and taking up the task at the point at which the great humanitarian statesman laid it down was the subject of a searching analysis by Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb at Stratford on Saturday evening. At a time when every effort is being made to cloud the issues which are confronting the country such a clear statement of the vital differences between the outlook of Labour and the outlook of Mr. Seddon is welcome and should assist the electors in deciding between the two schools of political thought. In its desire to provide a greater measure of-social security for the masses the Government may claim to be following Seddonian principles, but only up to a point. Like Mr. Savage, Mr. Seddon came to office on a wave of prosperity, but, unlike Mr. Savage, the great Liberal leader was content to remain with the wave. He did not venture too far and run the risk of getting out of his depth. Mr. Savage, on the other hand, is prepared to take a plunge into the breakers and trust to luck whether he is able to get back to shore or not. It will be for the people of New Zealand to say whether they are prepared to follow him or whether they prefer to take notice of warnings which are pointing so clearly to the dangers ahead. In all the humanitarian legislation which Mr. Seddon introduced and which made New Zealand the envy of older countries, one factor was always kept in mind—the ability of the country to stand up to the cost involved. The Seddon Liberalism was, in the main, tempered by the necessity for maintaining the financial stability of the country. Very fittingly, Mr. Mazengarb, in his Stratford address, quoted the last public speech given by Mr. Seddon in which he issued "an earnest and weighty warning to Labour not to be led into extravagant excesses, but to choose the golden mean, the path of moderation by which only true and permanent progress can be made." Can it be said that Labour today is following that path? In its social security legislation it has certainly wandered far from the safe course which Mr. Seddon's great concern for the welfare of his countrydictated. The Government is taking a risk on the future which cannot be justified, and that is quite incompatible with Seddonian principles. These and other facts demonstrate very clearly that Mr. Mazengarb is fully justified in doubting the validity of the claim that the mantle of Seddon has fallen on the shoulders of Labour.