A New Tradition
The party’s founders in Albury in 1944.
The party founded by Robert Menzies in 1944 remains both connected to its roots in Western liberty as it is able to adapt to modern times, says David Furse-Roberts.
Penning the first of his two memoirs, Afternoon Light, in 1967, Menzies explained why he called the party he helped form in 1944 the “Liberal” party: “We took the name 'Liberal' because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary but believing in the individual, his rights, and his enterprise, and rejecting the Socialist panacea.”
Ever since Menzies wrote these words, this mini-blueprint of the Liberal Party’s philosophy has been quoted and contested by political pundits from university students and political scientists to newspaper columnists and Liberal MPs. With the 75th anniversary of the Liberal Party upon us and the shift in etymology behind some of Menzies’ key concepts since that time, it is timely to provide a little exegesis and historical context to this oft-quoted yet seldom understood passage.
First, what did Menzies actually mean by “Liberal” in 1944, given the perennially contested nature of the term? If the dominant centre-right party in Australia was then the United Australia Party, what “Liberal” tradition was Menzies really appealing to?
From his myriad speeches, it was certainly evident that Menzies identified as a “liberal” before a “conservative”, or for that matter, anything else. Philosophically, Menzies was an avowed liberal with his creed firmly rooted in the soils of both Australia’s “Federation” liberalism and the earlier Whig liberalism of 19th-century England.
From the English Whig tradition, Menzies imbibed the notions of contract and “natural rights” formulated by the 17th-century philosopher and “father of Whiggism”, John Locke, and affirmed by Edmund Burke. For Menzies, these formed the touchstones of his faith in the dignity and freedom of every individual.
In the Victorian era, the Whig liberals were best represented by the figures of TB Macaulay and WE Gladstone. Menzies’ parliamentary colleague, Paul Hasluck, observed that the Liberal Party founder saw himself as the political heir to Gladstone. Humane and reforming yet deferential to the Crown and the constitution, the Whig liberals of Victorian England had a laudable track record of advancing human dignity and freedom. Campaigning for the abolition of slavery and child labour, they favoured the expansion of education and the rise of living standards for all.
Accordingly, when Menzies took the word “Liberal” for his new Party in 1944, he consciously assumed the mantle of the old English Liberals to realise the same ideals of individual dignity, freedom and opportunity for Australians in the mid 20th century.
Robert Menzies with Winston Churchill in 1952.
Looking to the more recent tradition of Australia liberalism at the opening of the 20th century, Menzies’ concept of “Liberal” drew from Federation-era Liberals such as George Reid, Alfred Deakin and Joseph Cook: constitutional liberty under the crown, industrial justice, high living standards, nation-building and free enterprise capitalism moderated by humane state intervention.
In what he called the “Revival of Australian Liberalism”, Menzies saw his new Liberal Party as returning to the ideals of the Deakin-Cook Commonwealth Liberal Party yet recalibrating these to the needs of the postwar years.
The other contested idea behind Menzies’ choice of the name “Liberal” were the terms “progressive” and “reactionary”. Now in what sense did he regard his new Party as “progressive” and “in no sense reactionary”?
In contrast to today's parlance, “progressive” for Menzies was not so much about being at the vanguard of fashionable, trendy causes as it was about advancing the social and economic wellbeing of the nation.
Taking economic progress first, this was about the Liberal Party fostering individual initiative, free enterprise and reward for effort as the engines of prosperity. For Menzies, the key to a growing and flourishing economy was not to be found in expanding government planning and control, but rather in harnessing the industry and resourcefulness of the nation’s citizens. Menzies’ decision to introduce tax deductions for school fees was just one example of he and his party’s economically progressive approach.
Social progress, meanwhile, was not about attempting to weaken or re-engineer age-old institutions but about nourishing the existing social bonds of families, communities and voluntary associations to produce a more stable and cohesive society. The Menzies government's Matrimonial Causes Act of 1959 was an example of “progressive” legislation that aimed to promote stability in a social institution.
Menzies' definition of “reactionary” also differed from today’s. For Menzies, reactionary impulses came not from Australia’s patriots, social conservatives or God-fearing church goers, but rather from the extremes of Marxism and selfish, laissez-faire capitalism. The socialists/communists were deemed reactionary for seeking to undermine the pillars of Western civilisation, such as property rights, Christianity and the protection of children and the poor from exploitation. With Menzies’ liberalism proposing to “march down the middle of the road”, the Liberal Party would have a bar of neither.
Finally, what did it mean for Menzies’ new Liberal Party to be “willing to make experiments”? Essentially, it meant taking a fresh and innovative approach to public policy and forging new ground for future generations to build. Far from simply embarking on radical, untested and abstract ideas, it was about delivering on farsighted yet realistic policy objectives. Some of the experiments Menzies’ Liberal Party was willing to make included the 1951 Colombo Plan, the brokering of the 1957 Commerce Agreement with Japan and the decision to grant state aid to Catholic and independent schools in 1963.
Properly understood, therefore, the statement of Menzies in Afternoon Light reveals the Liberal Party founder to have been a conviction liberal, both relevant to his time and loyal to a rich tradition. It reveals him to have been at once philosophical and practical, as well as conservative and reforming. With the Liberal Party exhibiting these traits throughout its 75-year history, at times imperfectly, it still bears the image of its maker to be a “progressive party, willing to make experiments and in no sense reactionary”.