A selfless individualism
Menzies’ creed of Liberalism placed faith in the moral character of individuals to determine the well-being of society. By David Furse-Roberts.
Menzies espoused a Liberalism infused with Christian ideals. At least in its understanding of the divine origins of human dignity and freedom, it was not philosophically dissimilar to either the British Whig liberalism of Burke and Gladstone, the US Republican tradition of Lincoln or, more contemporaneously, the Christian democracy of post-war Europe, most notably West Germany.
Like democratic traditions in both Europe and the United States, Menzies’ own philosophy of liberalism was based on a conception of democracy that viewed all individuals as possessing equal dignity and worth in the sight of God. Speaking in October 1942 on the ‘Nature of Democracy’, Menzies pronounced:
Democracy is more than a machine, it is a spirit. It is based upon the Christian conception that there is in every human soul a spark of the divine; that, with all their inequalities of mind and body, the souls of men stand equal in the sight of God.
For Menzies, this foundation to liberal democracy was basic and broad enough to appeal to Protestants, Catholics, Jews and other Australians of faith, particularly when counterposed with the common enemy of ‘godless communism’.
The Christian ideals of the Australian Liberalism that Menzies revived in the 1940s were evident in its applause for humane social reforms, affirmation of a selfless individualism, pursuit of a ‘good neighbour’ foreign policy, commitment to a civilised capitalism, and appeal to the ‘natural law’. Much of this character to the Liberalism of Menzies could be attributed to the historical reality that he represented an heir to the Federation Liberal tradition of Alfred Deakin. Menzies made little secret of his admiration for his fellow-Victorian predecessor, lauding him as ‘one of the greatest men we ever had in Australia’.
In the tradition of Deakin, Menzies held to a Liberal vision for constitutional liberty under the Crown, responsible citizenship, industrial justice, high living standards and a regulated free enterprise that eschewed the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism and socialism.
Deeply influenced by the idealist social liberalism of the British philosopher, T. H. Green, Deakin held to a non-utilitarian form of social liberalism that affirmed the primacy of the common good, the moral duties of the individual citizen within society, and the place for ameliorative social reform. In this vein, Deakin had supported factory legislation and minimum wages to ensure that ‘wealth would be prevented from taking unfair advantage of the needy’ and that ‘all should have what was their due’.
Such social reform measures had deep Christian roots, both in the Evangelical social activism of British statesmen such as William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury, and in the Catholic social teaching of Pope Leo XIII. Menzies, likewise, had identified with these social reform impulses of liberalism, welcoming the ‘abolition of slavery’, the ‘abolition of child labour’ and ‘the compulsory fixing of wages and industrial conditions on a civilised basis’ as some of the great achievements of liberal democracy. In his own record as prime minister, he had also presided over the humane reform to aged care through the Aged Persons Homes Act 1954 (Cth).
With individualism characteristically representing one of the defining traits of liberalism, Menzies’ own particular emphasis on a selfless individualism gave his Liberal creed a decidedly Christian inflexion. By ‘selfless individualism’, Menzies meant that while the state fulfilled an important ameliorative role, it fell primarily to the compassionate spirit and self-sacrifice of individuals to succour the needy and further the common good. In short, it was the moral character and agency of individual men and women who determined the well-being of society.
For Menzies, the ethic of selfless individualism could be summed up in the biblical concept of being ‘my brother’s keeper’, whereby individuals took responsibility for the welfare of their neighbours. Hailing it as the ‘noblest embodiment of the Christian philosophy’, this ethic was so foundational to Menzies that he once observed that the ‘oldest expression of democracy’ was inherent in the question, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ When he founded the Liberal Party late in 1944, he invoked the biblical phrase when emphasising the selfless nature of the new Party’s individualistic focus:
If we stand for anything as Liberals we stand for the inescapable responsibility of the individual, his dignity, his significance, his responsibility for every other individual. In that sense we are an individualist movement, not in the bad sense of saying, ‘Each for himself and the devil take the hindmost’, but in the good sense of saying that every man is his brother’s keeper.
From its inception, the individualist ethic of the Liberal Party perceived individual men and women as beings existing and flourishing within the rich social tapestries of family, friends, community and nation.
In its appeal to individual unselfishness, this Liberal ethos channelled Frederic Eggleston’s principle of ‘the good neighbour’, that the Australian liberal philosopher saw as integral to what he called ‘the Christian ethic’. Drawing upon his Methodist heritage, Eggleston warned that ‘enlightened selfishness’ was ‘not enough’ and that ‘the separate pursuit of material good’ would result ‘in chaos’ and ‘wreck the social structure’.
On the other hand, the ‘Christian ethic’ of ‘individual social responsibility’, that Eggleston regarded as the ‘essence of moral character’, made it possible for individuals to co-operate in all circumstances. It was a principle to which Menzies held fast. As he told an audience of Young Liberals, if Liberalism stood for anything, it was ‘civic unselfishness’; ‘a passion to contribute to the nation, to be free but to be contributors’. As such, it was a vision for individuals that went far beyond John Stuart Mill’s minimalist ethic of ‘no harm’ to others.
David Furse-Roberts is a Research Fellow at the Menzies Research Centre. This is an edited extract of his chapter in The Young Menzies: Success, Failure, Resilience 1894-1942 edited by Zachary Gorman.
