"New" Politics, Old Governance:
A Reaction To "Innovative Politics’ - (Cont'd.)

These factors have marked the 20th century society. The housewife has
suddenly discovered that she is no longer as "'sovereign'' in the market place
as she once believed herself to be. The rapid take-over of jobs by machines,
leading to rapidly rising unemployment, poses a serious challenge both to old
economic doctrines and more particularly to the crucial issue of man's survi-
val through dependence on gainful employment.

Any modern government - Free Enterprise or Socialist - justifies its
existence in terms of the welfare, security and happiness of its people.
Hence, to the extent that government acknowledges the obligation to provide
for the welfare and orderly development of the people, it is necessarily
committed to a socialist goal. The rise of what is sometimes referred to as
"Democratic Socialism" is in direct response to the social changes imposed
upon us by science, technology and man's curiousity itself.

Yet in the partisan politics of today some have argued that the only
viable solution to our twentieth century problems lies in a return to the
rules of 18th century economics. While socialism is held out as a bugbear
potentially destructive of individual freedon, "free enterprise" is extolled
as the ideal form of economic organization protective of individual freedom.
But the popularity of the term "free enterprise" rather than "individual
enterprise’ or “free competition" indicates a subtle process of transmutation
of values. The free enterprise concept clearly signifies "corporate enterprise",
and corporate enterprise is basically a collective entity and hence, in a
limited sense, socialistic. It is. therefore, arguable that advocates of ‘free
enterprise” are in reality advocates of a certain variant of socialism. But,
even if it were accepted that a free enterprise solution to our current social
and economic problems is desirable, is it entirely practicable? My immediate
answer would be that an exclusive "free enterprise solution" to our present-
day problems does not exist. First, on the plane of humdrum common sense, it
may be observed that all politicians are birds of the same feather regardless
of their ideological labels. What must, therefore, be noted is that, confronted
with the prevailing conditions, any party in power, whether in Ottawa or in n
Victoria, will seek to grapple with the pressing social and economic problems
of the day through increasing reliance upon expanded governmental powers, invo-
lving accelerated intervention in important sectors of the economy.

As I see it, the economic philosophy, in abstracto, of all the conservative
parties seems to be dominated by two largely contradictory themes. On the one
hand, there is the traditional insistence upon the preservation of the status
quo, with a certain degree of benevolent paternalism based on the unavoidable
claim that the function of government is not only to govern but also to provide
for the welfare of members of society. On the other hand, one finds the perva-
sive nostalgia for the heyday of laissez fairism which is conveniently sought
to be concealed by the use of the slogan "free enterprise’. For this school of
thought, free rein is to be given to private enterprise in whatever form, regard-
less of how monopolistic it might be. Consequently, government intervention in
the economy must be effectively circumscribed, if not totally barred, especially
where its objective is service to the people. What seems to be ignored is that
the motive force of private enterprise is maximization of profit, not social