There's been a revolution here, too

PERSONAL COLUMN MAURICE COWLING

Maurice Cowling is a Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge, and author of 'Disraeli, Gladstone and Revolution.'

Over the, last two months we have witnessed what in retrospect may turn out to have been a remarkable change in English political life. It is not merely that the Labour party has for- feited confidence, for that may just possibly be a temporary phenomenon. Nor is it that the Conservative party is attracting what is cer- tainly a high. but what may also be a tem- porary, measure of public favour. What is much more important is that for the first time in many years 'liberal' has ceased to be a word that commands uncritical acceptance.

`Liberal' is a word of many. meanings : I use it in a special sense. I don't mean the belief that men should be left as free as possible from governmental direction, for that position I think of as libertarian. I don't mean scepticism about the indefeasibility of political principles which is often, though not always, the mark of a civilised man. Nor do I mean the home-spun liberalism of provincial non-conformity which, whatever its impact on families and individuals, has long since Jost its power to move the public mind.

What I mean by 'liberal' in this context is a moral rectitude and intellectual certainty claimed by a small but -powerful sect of pub- licists and politicians on behalf of an arbitrary collection of policies, some of which are sen- sible and some bogus, but which in bulk are made offensive by the way in which they are presented.

I mean a liberal doctrine and condescending manner which is particularly strong amongst undergraduate politicians and higher journ- alists, which is to be found in parts of all poli- tical parties and which, having its heroes in each generation, in this generation favours Messrs Jenkins, Crosland, Grimond and certain Conservatives whose names can easily be guessed.

I mean the liberalism which .parades con- science more often than conscience ought to be paraded and which assumes that anyone who feels unable to use its language, or support its policies, is an idiot, a knave or a reactionary. I mean the liberalism to be found in the Guardian, the Observer and the new Times whose topics are race relations, crime, Africa, underdeveloped peoples, the indiscriminate ex- pansion of university education and the main- tenance of the illusory influence of a liberal Britain through'the multiracial Commonwealth and the United Nations,

I mean the permissive, metropolitan liberal- ism which uses the language of protest, pro- gress and the open mind but which has by now become orthodox, predictable and is in many cases the mindless slogan of empty minds. Above all I mean the liberalism which over the last twenty years has encountered virtually no opposition and for which the events of the last six weeks have come as a particularly nasty revelation of the state of public thinking. It is not will be expected that this sort of liberalism will be eradicated completely from English public life: nor is it desirable that it should be. As a guide for a genuine ruling

class, it has certain merits whose importance should not be underestimated. Mr Gaitskell's death, however, did it great damage. It has tended since to become a caricature of itself and to care less and less about the feelings of the people whose best interests it claims to be pursuing. Now that its credentials have been questioned, the public mind may be freed from many fashionable superstitions. In political or journalistic terms, this would amount to a revolution.

The feelings on which this revolution feeds have been generated silently and obscurely over many years: the revolution has come about suddenly and unexpectedly. It has been brought about by three main agencies—by the economic situation, by Mr Enoch Powell and by the merits and demerits of Mr Wilson. The question we have to ask is, what should Mr Powell and Mr Wilson do now?

In classing Mr Wilson as an agent of revolu- tion, I mean something specific. I was not one of those who, at the height of his popularity, admired him because he was 'an administrative genius.' The white heat of the technological revolution' left me cold: I expected politicians, if they were geniuses, to be political rather than administrative ones.

Nor did I know at first hand whether Mr Wilson was a great parliamentary performer. What I admired was the impression he left of not believing the improving nonsense he was talking, of using liberal catchwords merely as instruments of advancement.

This may have been a false impression : it was based on the merest and most distant hunch. But I thought then—and believe now —that Mr Wilson was distinguished from Mr Gaitskell by the lenity of his commitment to progressive liberal causes and that this promised a desirable erosion of that liberal certainty which to me has always been the most objec- tionable aspect of English political life.

Many intellectual arguments can be deployed against the liberalism I am discussing, but it is not argument which has brought about its pre- sent disrepute. Some of it has been caused by `student power' which, though militantly anti- liberal in doctrine, flourishes in the permissive climate created by the liberal teachers who have borne the brunt of its attacks. Much more has come from the fact that it enjoyed esteem alongside Mr Wilson and suffered damage as economic crisis involved it, and him, in common ruin.

Mr Wilson's style is neither Gaitskellite nor metropolitan. At its best, which is not very fre- quent, it is rather like the Conservatism of Mr Baldwin. That Mr Wilson should be respon- sible for the liberal debacle is ironical for every- one concerned, but that does not alter the fact that the debacle has occurred. Whatever may

happen to Mr Wilson himself it is difficult to believe that liberal self-confidence will ever be quite the same again. It is for this reason that Mr Wilson's experience is important to the nation's life. It is in this sense that Mr Powell is his legatee.

To the question, what should Mr Wilson do now? the answers may be as numerous as the standpoints of questioners and the estimates made of the economic situation. If one's in- terest is in the future of the Labour party, it may be that Mr Wilson should resign, though I doubt it. For my own part I have no interest in the future of the Labour party, but the tone and temper of British politics seems to me a matter of great importance. and from that point of view I am sure that Mr Wilson should stay where he is so long as the Labour government lasts. Mr Wilson as Prime Minister will be a cautionary reminder of the difficulty involved in performing what politicians promise and a permanent affront to the improving nonsense with which the progressive intelligentsia is always attempting to deceive itself.

In the last six weeks Mr Powell has attracted an enormous amount of public attention, and this both imposes a responsibility and provides an opportunity which few politicians ever have unless they actually lead a major party. This, however, does not mean that Mr Powell is in a position to expect to lead his party. A party leader has not only to be a coalition of opinions in himself, he has also to command' confidence among his colleagues. Though Mr Powell is capable of being as liberal as he is conservative, and of being powerful as either, it is far from clear that his popularity in the country is matched by an equal popularity in the House of Commons. In these circumstances he need not do anything spectacular and he would be ill-advised for the moment even to try to. He should persist in the course he has adopted so far of giving official Conservative policy an intellectual edge and emotional twist so that, while no one can accuse him of ignor- ing the party line, no one will mistake his con- tribution for the party line either.

In relation to immigration and the prices and incomes policy, he has done this already. He should do it now, in relation to Rhodesia and the terms we should insist on before being will- ing to enter Europe. The important point, however, from the Conservative party's point of view, is both that he should do this and that he should do it without exaggeration, since he alone at present among Conservative leaders has the requisite freedom and commands enough of the public's attention.

Whatever subject Mr Powell chooses to talk about, he will find it difficult to consolidate the success he has had in putting the Conservative party in touch with the deepest strand of pub- lic feeling. In order even to stand still, he may have to run fast and he will have to run very fast indeed if Mr Wilson decides to enter the particular race he is running.

For the sake of the Conservative party, I hope that Mr Wilson will not enter the race. His government, and the party he leads, carry an enormous burden of the higher nonsense, so it is, I suppose, unlikely tha: he will. But if he decides that he has to, then no doubt he will do so if his party will let him. If he does, Mr Powell will have gained an interesting ally in one of the most interesting struggles that is tak- ing place at present—the struggle to destroy the insufferable moral condescension characteristic of certain sections of the British ruling elite when it addresses the English people.