The English Sickness
WITH so many powerful claims on our columns, it is not often that the SPECTATOR feels justified in devoting more than a tenth of its editorial space to a single article. That we do so this week is a measure of the importance we attach to Lord Radcliffe's discussion of what he terms 'the dissolving society.' For we believe that this attempt—originally de- livered at somewhat greater length at a closed meeting at the London School of Economics—to reach beyond the day-to- day preoccupations of politicians to the root cause of our national sickness deserves the widest possible audience.
In particular, it deserves to be read with especial care by the Tories when they can spare the time from cultivating their own image to wonder where they are all going to, new image and all, that Mr Wilson has not got to first. 'One cannot help noticing,' Lord Radcliffe begins, 'how markedly the English have lost their self- confidence in recent years.' So has the Con- servative party, and it will not regain its self-confidence until it has emerged with a philosophy that will, enable the nation to do so, too; until, that -is, it has once again discovered how to become, in • Disraeli's words, a national party.
The article does not, of course, advocate particular policies in specific fields. These, in any event, can only sensibly emerge, so far as the Tory party is concerned, in response to government policies—not as they are announced, but as they work them- selves out in practice. But what matters,, and it matters to the health of the body politic as much as to the electoral fortunes of the Conservatives, is that the Tory party should at least decide on the stance it ought to adopt and the direction in which it ought to .face.
A part of this stance is that it should be conservative. This obviously does not mean that it should be opposed to technological change, economic progress, or indeed worthwhile reform in any field. What it does mean is that the time has come to call a halt to the restless belief that change itself is the only ultimate good, and to seek instead a period of social and intellectual stability during which we can once again put down roots and gain strength.
But where are we to find the soil? The stability that was once based on the cohesion of the family as a unit, a stability which went backwards and forwards in time, has been almost totally destroyed in a society in which, with greater mobility and greater wealth, the gulf between the generations threatens to become even wider than the gulf between social classes. The traditional liberal belief in individual free- dom, which although frequently harsh was more often noble and always clear, has been irreparably wounded by the discovery that big organisations—and in particular big government—are an inevitable conse- quence of a proper commitment to material progress. But at the same time, state pater- nalism, never wholly acceptable to the British, has not only become more remote, but also, thanks to a weak constitution which produces an all-powerful executive, more terrifying.
In. part, the solution is to remedy the defects as they arise. The gulf between the generations need not be pandered to by an absurd cult of youth. The line between the spheres of the individual and of the state—the right 'mix' for the mixed eco- nomy and the political structure appropri- ate to it—needs to be determined. The constitution must be strengthened, so that the supremacy of the national interest over the interest of the governing establishment can be clearly defined and enforced.
But this alone is not enough. A new driving force is needed, one which will transcend individual desires (which are in any case primarily a matter for the indi- vidual himself rather than those who rule over him) and in so doing unite the nation. And- Lord Radcliffe is surely right when he concludes that the/ answer is that we must 'get quickly back to the active realisa- tion of our identity as a nation. . . National feeling is the strongest bond of union that exists in the world today, and an old and experienced people, as we may call ourselves, may be trusted not to abuse it.'
This is unfashionable talk—at least, this side of the Channel—but it is important not to confuse nationalist excesses of the past with what is being advocated here : a nationalism that respects other national- isms, just as the only tolerable form of individualism is one that respects other indi- viduals. Even so, unless it is linked to a definite course of policy, it will degenerate into a vapid and pathetic flag-waving. But as a foundation for the development of policies---economic, overseas and defence alike—that will break the bogus moral atti- tudes of an outdated internationalism and instead firmly define and prosecute our own national interests, it offers the one valid practical and emotional solution to what the rest of the world has pityingly come to regard as the English sickness.
Previous page
