The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1943. AN ELECTION EPITHET ANALYSED

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 16, 14 October 1943, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1943. AN ELECTION EPITHET ANALYSED

It may be recalled, as one of the incidents of the recent election campaign, that certain Government candidates in attempts to disparage their chief political opponents, the Nationalists, referred to them as “Tories,” and their Party as the “Tory Party.” The purpose of the epithet was obvious enough, but judging by the election figures, this time-worn trick of the hustings does not appear to have made much impression on the electors, if, indeed, it made any at all. . At the same time, it may be worth while to study the epithet in the light of Twentieth Century Conservatism, if for no other reason than to expose its present-day pointlessness. A very timely article on the subject, by a Conservative member of the British House of Commons, Mr. Quintin Hogg, in the August Fortnightly, throws an interesting light on the attitude of the socalled “Tory Party” toward the political and social problems of the day. In this article the writer discusses “Politics and the Present Generation,” from “a definite viewpoint, that of a young, and, it is hoped, progressive Conservative.” This observation, _ incidentally, disposes of another hackneyed method of political disparagement, namely, that Conservatism makes no appeal to the younger generation of up-coming politicians. It is to this younger generation, he points out, that the Conservative element in politics and Parliament looks for’ the inspiration and stimulation of progressive ideas. With this prefatory observation Mr. Hogg proceeds to define the conception of Conservatism, of “Toryism” as he frankly calls it, which appeals to the young men of his own generation as the soundest basis foi political action.

All Tories (he says) start with a respect for tradition. We differ from the Parties of the Left in that we regard society not as a mechanical construction, but as something in the nature of a living organism. For this reason we dislike violent change, because it disorganizes the life of the community—hut we dislike a rigid and unchanging view of society still more, because a living organism which does not constantly change ceases thereby to be living. . . . Our attitude to change is that of Mr. Churchill: “In- moving steadily and steadfastly from a class to a national foundation, we must not forget the glories of the past, nor how many battles we have fought for the rights of the individual and for human freedom.

From this broad statement of political faith, the writer proceeds upon an examination in detail of the attitude of .Conservatism towaid various questions of public policy in their relation to the. welfare of the State as a whole. Among these is the future of private enterprise. Conservative opinion, he says, accepts the warning of its leader, Mr. Churchill, against bureaucracy. “The sovereignty ot Parliament and the public control of monopoly should not mean the appointment of a vast number of officials —here he quotes his leader —‘we must beware of trying to build a society m which nobody counts for anything except a politician or an official . Responsible citizens with a right conception of what is due to the State as a whole and the welfare of the people will no doubt perceive in this presentation of the case for Conservatism an element of prudence, a desire for sound progress based on safety and security, that must constitute a strong bulwark against the forces which at present are endeavouring to convert the living organism of human society into a vast piece of mechanism operated by officials and regulations.