CHOICES & CANDIDATES

Hokitika Guardian, 7 October 1927, Page 4

CHOICES & CANDIDATES

(Sydney Herald.) Mr Masefield recently wrote a novel of adventure, to which he gave the seemingly incomprehensible title of “ Odtaa.’’ But the aptness of that title becomes plain enough when we remember that its letters form the initials of the words of a famous prha.se which an American philosopher once • employed to definite just what life is. And the unnamed succession ol “things” of which lie deemed life to consist might well he spccifieially asserted to he choices. For human existence is very surely nothing but a series of selections which every one of us is compelled to make. Whether it be books, or boots, or businesses; wines or wives ; friends or food ; houses or hobbies, we are constantly compelled to decide between the many samples preferred for our choice. Much, so very much, depends upon the way we respond to that obligation, even in: what may appear to be its simplest form. AA’e are always at the parting of the ways; and the ways may lead to j such diversity of goals. There are no f finger-posts to mark the destinations of the paths; or, if there he, they are so vague; so unreliable, as generally to be worse than useless. And so we blunder on, choosing as best we may; hoping for the best; often refusing the j advice of those who fain would guide us; or if accepting it, as often findingit of little use. Life is a conjuror who constantly is asking us to choose a card ; again and again “ forcing ” it unfairly upon us; and even when the choice seems open using it to play on us some strange and startling trick. Our attitude towards this gamble is a strange one. “ Alcn and women,” wrote the candid young hopeful, swotting at an essay set him by a soulless Head—“ Alen and women are curious people.” It was a true saying, and they seem, in this particular matter of making choice, to grow, as Alice said. “ euriouser and enriouser” the more they are regarded.

No more striking proof of this general human characteristic could ho deduced, perhaps, than the way we have ol determining who shall represent us in the Parliament of our country. That way is, indeed, so curious as almost to warrant an unsophisticated traveller from Mars concluding on llio evidence that, we have lost all sense of humour and proportion. For consider: If the proprietor of a business, however humble, desires to conduct it successfully, be either takes care to see that lie knows something of the business himself or gets someone who does know .something about it to run it for him. lie who desires a house enlists the services of a bulkier of houses; he who desires relief from the pains of the body hires a doctor to relieve them ; lie who desires to bring or defend an action in the courts will hie him to the lawyer: lie who has the least aspirations towards owning a garden will see to it that the gardener he employs knows something of gardens, and can safely lie trusted to differentiate be-

tween a young tomato and a thistle. Every man may have a standard of comparison peculiarly bis own, and may regard tlio nice choice of his tobacco as a greater matter than the selection of a wife, believing, with Kipling. that “a woman is only a woman,” but “a good cigar is a smoke.” But, however lie may place his choices in point of importance, he will in the vast majority of eases take good care to exercise those choices upon some basis of logic and experience. Not so in polities, apparently. In choosing the men who are to be entrusted with the task of building the nation ; or healing tbe ills of the body politic; or bringing or defending actions against the common enemy; or tilling tile soil of that vast garden that we call tbe State; in choosing these, the average citizen forgets the rules, refuses to rely upon experience, and disregards all elementary common sense. That business which includes and governs all other businesses, and which one would naturally think should be run by the superauthorities in all departments of business, be chooses shall be run by men from whom, as a general rule, be does not ask the least pretence to business

knowledge. lie may get that knowledge ; he often does get it. of course, or things politically would he worse even than they are. But if he gets it. ho gets it by good fortune rather than by good management; by tlie vagaries of bis luck, not by tlie exercise of' bis judgment. As a rule, and that is another Curious tiling about tlie*queer affair, this anomalous way of selecting Parliament turns out fairly well on the whole. Ibis is perhaps the best proof possible of the really high standard of the average human material. It lias been said that we got the Parliaments we deserve. It is fortunately not true. The lack of method we display in selecting our representatives should, if we re- j coived our deserts, give us always such a perfect Nazareth of a Parliament that no good tiling could possibly proceed from it. We rely, not upon feeds to guide us in our choice; but upon words. And that the avalanche

ol words with which we are overwhelmed during the season when the voice of the candidate is heard in the land does not altogether defeat the

very purpose for which it was let slip is perhaps the most curious thing of all. New South Wales just now is suffering from a rush of words to the head ; and though speech, instead of having been given to man as the cynic alleged, to disguise bis thoughts, is often obviously given to him to disguise his want of them. Yet we will probably find, when “the tumult and the shouting dies,” that we have emerged from the turmoil not worse —for that could hardly he—but better, by far than when we entered it. !