Democracy and Progress

And yet, friends, while the kind of "strenuousness" exemplified in America is to be avoided as inflicting a hell upon earth—to say nothing of its injustice—on the vast masses at the base of the social pyramid, we must not, on the other hand, in our desire to redress inequalities of wealth, destroy the stimulus to exertion or the reward of exceptional ability. And this is where many would-be reformers have gone wrong in their political and social theories. They have forgotten that while much can be done towards equalising human lots without in the least reducing—perhaps sometimes even increasing—the total industry of the community, yet, if we go too far along this road, the energies of its members may be diminished even to paralysis, and the equality resulting will be an equality of destitution, and not an equality of comfort. Now who, of political administrators on the earth, has come so near to the happy medium in this matter as he who, for more than a decade, has made New Zealand the Utopia of all Socialistic reformers, and yet, at the same time, has so safeguarded its business energy and progressive enterprise that reactionaries, the world over, are gnashing their teeth in impotent rage at the stubborn refusal of our community to break down as they had hoped and expected it would? A hundred times, during my residence abroad, I have seen in the capitalist Press venomous articles by anti-labourite writers, of which one in the London "Financial News" may serve as example:—

"Break-down of the New Zealand Commune." "Mr. Seddon's Policy a Failure," stared me in the face in flaming headlines; while perhaps, in the very same issue there would be an article lauding him for the South African contingent—welcome boon to the capitalist employers of the Rand! Yet we go on, obstinately refusing to "fail," and our prosperity advances, as page 9 Sir Julius Vogel would have said, by "leaps and bounds." If we have a temporary set-back (as here in flax), to what administrator could your member go with more hope that all a government can do would be done to recover our market? Not Emperor William himself is a better Consul General of his nation than Mr Seddon has been of our little country. And, in speaking to farmers, as I do in this electorate, can I not appeal to gratitude alone for endorsement of the substantial support I propose to accord the administration? I have been here many years ago—before the "Advances to Settlers Act" was passed. I know what the regime of dear money meant. Ten per cent, was very pleasant for us mortgagees, and it used to constitute a nice little addition to my salary as a civil servant. But how many thousands of struggling pioneers has not Mr Seddon put on their legs by the regime of 5 and 4½ per cent? Do not abandon the tried friend in favour of leaders who might lead—I tremble to think where.