The Practical Liberal

The way to affirm this principle is, quite simply, to affirm it, and go on affirming it, and be seen to go on affirming it, which includes explaining and defining its mean ing and the manner in which it works in practice. In most actual societies there exist institutions and laws which are inconsistent with this principle - ranging from nationalized in dustries to specific controls on hire purchase [buying on credit]. The nonpolitician can and must denounce these. The politician, meaning thereby a person who is or, by the nature of his situation, may in the future be, in political authority, must in the first place not approve them. This is the great essential. In politics it is frequently 76 THE FREEMAN February neither possible, nor necessary, nor even right, to volunteer the truth. What never is right or nec essary is to speak untruth; that is, to make statements inconsist ent with one's belief and opinion.

It may be, and often is, unavoid able to tolerate and even admin ister institutions and .laws repug nant to liberalism. A liberal does not have to refuse office as Minis ter of Power on grounds that he will then be responsible for na tionalized power industries. What he may not do is to show approval of the principle or speak or be have in such a way as implies such approval. So long as we do not estop our selves by express or implicit ap proval of what we do not believe in, it remains possible to contem plate an alterna tive in theory, and to bring forward proposals for change in practice, when the op portunity is propitious. One can never know when op portunity will ripen. Frequently, it does so for reasons which are fortuitous or even undiscoverable. The opportunity, however, cannot be taken when it comes if the principle has meanwhile been con ceded to one's opponents. Two cases in recent British politics are subsidized and controlled house rents and the legal privileges of trade unions. After decades in which both principles were unquestioned and apparently unques tionable, it has suddenly in the last two years become possible for practicing politicians to denounce them publicly, even though we still shrink from practical proposals of a radical character to reverse them. Both parts of the .opera tion, however, are unavailable for those who have admitted these principles in the past, whether ex animo or with mental reservations.

There is thus a division of function between the politicians (as defined) and the nonpoliti cians. The politician may, and often does, have to take a view upon what is "politically practic able," though only for the immedi ate future; he must beware of the vulgar error" of supposing that there are acts or propositions which are permanently, necessar ily, and inherently "politically im practicable." On the other hand, the nonpolitician has no business at all with judging what is "polit ically practicable." He has neither competence, responsibility, nor motivation for doing so. It is a tragedy, though one not infre quently enacted, when the non politicians withhold opinions, af firmations, or arguments, because they fancy them "politically im practicable," and thus make it difficult, if not impossible, for the politicians to espouse and act upon them. ~ LEONARD E. READ PROGRESS and regress occurring simultaneously!