Just as in most other Western nations right now, the centre-right political party here in Australia, called the Liberal Party, is going through an existential crisis. That crisis is particularly relevant because the Liberal Party was founded in 1944, and the demons that beset the party are very largely the same ones threatening the entire post-war paradigm at the moment.
The founder of the Liberal Party was Robert Menzies and he therefore stands as a highly illuminating figure to understand the current situation. There’s a whole series of posts that could be written on Menzies’ contribution to post-war Australia. Maybe I’ll do that in the weeks ahead. But, for now, let’s look at a specific issue that Menzies was instrumental in and which is becoming a major problem these days, namely, the massive expansion of university education in the post-war years.
It’s hard for those of us who’ve grown up in recent decades to believe, but, prior to the world wars, the higher education sector in Australia was not a very important part of national life, certainly not for the average person. The original institutions, sometimes called the “sandstone universities”, had been established on the British model and were therefore almost exclusively the domain of elites on the grounds that only the rich could afford the tuition fees. The only chance that the general citizen had to gain entry was via the small number of scholarships that were available.
That is precisely the path that Robert Menzies took. He was born into a relatively poor farming family in the west of Victoria. However, via his excellent academic record and his performance on scholarship exams, he was able to work his way into the elite schooling track and ended up at the University of Melbourne, where he studied law. He would later practise law before moving into politics and becoming Attorney-General and then Prime Minister.
The fact that Menzies studied law at Melbourne University was not an accident. The traditional universities at that time were following a model that stretched back centuries. The goal of that model was to provide a classical humanist education, with a focus on subjects such as law, philosophy, ancient languages, etc. University education functioned as a kind of finishing school for British elites who were expected to go into the legal profession and politics.
The British model was contrasted at the time against the German one established by Frederick the Great, which had a focus on vocational education, including science and technology. Although British universities did eventually incorporate this vocational and scientific aspect, in truth, the great advances in science and technology that happened in Britain took place mostly outside of the formal educational system.
In between the British and the German styles of education was what was called the Scottish model. The British model was elitist and abstract. The German was egalitarian and vocational. The Scottish model aimed for somewhere in between. It also implied a certain type of student, namely, a farmer’s son. A classic example of this would be the man who invented the combine harvester, Patrick Bell, who left the family farm to study theology, became a parish minister, and revolutionised agriculture in his spare time.
One of the things that makes Robert Menzies particularly relevant on questions of education is that he sat right in the middle of these different traditions. He was born into a Scots farming family but received a British elite-style education. Meanwhile, by the time Menzies came of age, German-style vocational training had become much more important with the growth of industry.
In the aftermath of World War Two, Menzies began his long run as Australian prime minister (he would eventually be the longest-serving PM), and he made education one of his foremost priorities. It is not an exaggeration to say that he, more than anybody else, created the modern Australian university system.
Given his background, it’s especially interesting to ask what Menzies was hoping to achieve from his new educational system. Like so many people of that era, Menzies was horrified by the destruction of the two world wars, and he saw the ignorance and gullibility of the general public as being one of the driving forces behind the conflict. Menzies also believed that democracy had been failing for much the same set of reasons. Thus, he hoped an increase in education would both see an end to war and conflict while allowing democracy to fulfil its highest ideal. The purpose of the new system was to produce informed democratic citizens, not just elites like the British system, not just workers like the German, and not just educated yeomen like the Scottish.
Now, it has to be said that, in terms of addressing ignorance, the new system was a definite improvement and did elevate general knowledge, especially among the working classes. In an era prior to modern mass communication technologies, that was no doubt of great benefit. In response, however, the operation of propaganda became more sophisticated. Previously, it had been possible to lie to the public in a straightforward manner, either directly or through omission. That became more difficult when the public was better informed. The battleground shifted away from facts and towards ideology.
Menzies lived long enough to see that the university system he had created had become one of the primary battlegrounds for this ideological tussle. More painfully for him, it was clear that his political opponents (the left) had taken control of the institutions.
The ascension of ideology was one set of problems that beset the new system. The second set revolved around the financial realities that came with mass education. During the post-war boom years, it seemed that the sky was the limit. However, by the late 1980s, things were looking different. It was the Hawke Labor government which first introduced tuition fees for university students. These have been regularly increased by successive governments.
In addition, in the last couple of decades we have also seen the massive expansion of full fee-paying international students whose money, the universities themselves now admit, subsidises the tuition of locals. Menzies’ university sector has become a giant cash cow and part of what I like to call Australia’s Education-Immigration-Real Estate Axis of Evil.
In fairness, Menzies had dealt with a similar set of issues in his time. His highest ideal was for a nation of educated citizens willing and able to fully participate in the project of democracy. However, he had also noted how easily Australians would trade political ideals for materialist interests. One of the things he hoped for from his new education system was that it would lift the quality of democratic debate above such base concerns.
It’s fair to say, then, that the modern university sector would likely horrify Menzies. It has somehow become a combination of ideology and materialism. It has morphed into little more than a credential factory whose purpose is to profit from the degrees that confer access to the professional employment sector for local students and to the visa mill for international ones. The idea of producing enlightened democratic citizens seems to have disappeared entirely.
In truth, the modern university system operates in service to the technocracy, and it is here that Menzies must take some responsibility for the current state of affairs. Although he believed in democracy, Menzies also massively expanded the role of the public service and other technocratic institutions. The primary beneficiaries of that expansion were the middle class university students who found employment in those sectors on completing their degrees.
What Menzies and others of his era do not seem to have foreseen was the extent to which the technocracy would become anti-democratic. In fact, it still appears to be the case that most politicians in our time do not realise this, or that they don’t see it as a problem. This makes sense because they themselves have been educated in a system predicated on technocratic assumptions.
While the technocracy, and the economy more generally, were expanding, the problems with them were able to be overlooked. However, it seems that the growth period has now ended and the technocracy is becoming a major burden both financially and politically. One of the effects of that is that university education no longer makes financial sense for individual students. The Australian government’s recent cancellation of student debts is one attempt to prop up the system, but that’s just a drop in the bucket in the grander scheme of things.
Short of some unforeseen developments, the middle class that represented Menzies’ core constituency seems to be in permanent decline. That would certainly explain the declining position of the Liberal Party in Australia and its correlates oversees.
If Menzies represented the ascending middle class, what sort of politician would represent the declining version, and what would be their ideal for the future? It will be a demographic that is better educated than any in history. Ignorance is no longer the problem. The problem now is lack of real opportunity. Whoever can solve that problem could become the next Menzies.
Hi Simon,
Received an email a few weeks ago from the professional body, whom purport to represent my interests. So the results of a salary survey were provided for those who worked in the profession directly with the public. From memory, a graduate got about $90k and a senior was on $110k to $120k. To put those numbers into context, the average salary in the country is around $100k and the median house price is now over ten times that.
The numbers suggest that there is not a lot of return on investment in ‘an education’ these days. And much experience, will get you not much more. At next to no cost, well maybe a little, you might have to do a cert-IV course to get a ticket (!), you can make about the same amount driving a forklift, with far less stress. I was surprised that the article appeared to have lost self awareness when it raised the question as to the generally mystifying lack of new people wanting to work in this area of the profession. Hmm.
The decline of the middle class is perhaps a return to the historic norms. Go back far enough, when technology and energy were less widely and readily available, and 90% of the population were involved in agricultural pursuits, the rest, well, let’s just say that large standing armies were not a thing.
I’m not sure the ALP represents the interests of the working class, but they are perhaps perceived as being less-worse than the competition. It’s difficult to ignore that One Nation is gaining in popularity as it gathers those who don’t fare so well in the present system. The Greens, well, I don’t know what they stand for.
As self defeating as it appears to me, I don’t believe that the majority of the population have issues with super-expensive house prices, and I note that genuine reform was mooted in previous elections, and was shown to be unpopular by the outcome. It’ll be the inflation at the check-out register which brings the current lot undone, I believe, but also don’t really know and am merely guessing.
The bureaucracy system in the US is in the early stages of being dismantled, and most certainly that process will allow the debt to be funnelled into other societal channels, and reduce the size of the middle class. Populism I guess, in some ways allows the inequalities to be highlighted, the burden of bureaucracy discussed, and in other ways directly addressed. The media and politicians are reluctant to have those discussions, so perhaps the next Menzies may be able to navigate those issues?
Cheers
Chris
Hey Chris – all of this is the perfectly logical outcome of the neoliberal reforms, which were in one respect the victory of the technocracy over democracy. The reason why no politicians have any answers to our problems is that any solution would require democracy (nationalism) to prevail in a world where the technocrats and billionaires hold all the cards. Who can offer anything better than technocratic feudalism? Apparently nobody.
Hi Simon. This ‘axis of evil’ has been a long time developing in Australia, but it looks to me like it has accelerated since 2020. Alot of social bonds were broken at that time and we were told to obey rules (curfews, 23 hour a day confinement, untested vaccines etc) in a way that I believe changed many peoples view of society. Attitudes now seem to become far more polarised, with the middle being a distant memory. This is reflected in our politics. I would also add the rise of the mega-corporations as being problematic, as their markets are global and they have the ability to haggle with Governments about taxes / rules / censorship etc. On the ground, I see all of this reflected in all of the technological rules that are being introduced at rapid speed, binding up small/medium business like a mummy covered in red tape! Or massive education debts dragging down younger people. House prices are insane and violent petty crime is up. If I was young now, I would leave Australia as I don’t see that there any opportunity for the average person to improve their lot or have a level of autonomy over their life. This ties in with your idea of the monetisation of everything. Debt and high costs take your choices away. Sandra
Sandra – as I mentioned to Chris, this is all the natural outcome of the neoliberal reforms. What’s particularly revealing at the moment is that governments are refusing even to make obvious concessions to appease popular anger. My guess is that they think that allowing small concessions will create a “slippery slope” of political momentum that will quickly destroy their plans. I suspect they also never thought that things would change as rapidly as they are and therefore that the average person wouldn’t realise how badly they are getting screwed.
So, now we have a system that nobody really supports except a handful of multinational elites, many of whom really are ideological lunatics. The only general support remains from those who still benefit economically. But that number is rapidly shrinking. I don’t know what will happen, but the whole thing looks like a car careening towards a brick wall.
Simon,
There’s a failed assumption here. Democracy isn’t made through training people in modes that leave the spirit behind. Being informed is nothing if one is not wise. But when one is wise through integrated spiritual training the question of what kind of political system one lives in – a rather strange modern obsession – naturally loses it’s glitz. The problem of the entire post-war era has been the now unquestioned assumption that a new and better world can be made on purely secular foundations.
Religious education can do, has done and is doing much damage. But my bet is that the way out of this civilisational pyre is to do religious education well.
There is one sure thing here, so long as we do not engage the question of how killing, stealing, fornicating and lying might bear on our prospects after we die, whatever noble plans and ideals we claim to serve, hard times will see expedience ascend. How is a democracy to succeed if truth is upheld until a dollar is waived before one’s greedy eyes or even hungry belly? Where will we find courage and integrity in a generation that will sell out every orifice for internet likes because, apparently, we only live once. There is no greater danger than a fool with a first class degree.
Jinasiri – The state quite deliberately muscled the church out of the education sector in the 19th century, so you might say modern education is explicitly anti-religious.
I think that’s a very important point about the difference between facts and wisdom. In the last few decades we have had unprecedented access to facts and it seems to have only made us dumber.
The ideal of an enlightened democratic citizen was at least a goal to aim for. I have no idea what sort of person the current education system is supposed to produce. An ideologue, perhaps?
Simon,
Any drugged up hippy or technocrat can make plans. Building something for real is something else. The problem is, as distinct from AI, one can’t build a mature human being on hash or dollars (not even dollars made out of hash).
The story of the mankind is the tragedy of the man who has a dream, fails to understand how hard it really is to build something properly, doubles down, only to falls backward into the shithole he dug for himself. The essential ingredient to learning is humility. The system teaches kids now that they’re good no matter what they do which is a great way to churn out reckless idiots in suits and gym muscle.
Of course, that too is a dumb reptilian response to years of being told people are bad no matter what they do by the Church. The middle way is to teach the wise don’t kill, steal, lie or fornicate; that this set of external ethics is bound to a commitment to a life of internal happiness through harmlessness, love and generosity; and that it doesn’t matter a mote how many prayers or stock options one accumulates if one is bereft of wisdom. I’d prefer a penniless neighbour who won’t lie to me to a dapper banker’s dinner party crowd any day of the week. I’d also prefer to not be reborn as a slug for my negligence on these matters.
It’s quite amazing how quickly things have accelerated in only two years or so. The average person I know now openly expresses opinions that would have been completely off limits before 2022, and some express opinions that haven’t been heard in 80 years. It seems to me that the more the internet is censored, the less people are censoring themselves.
Jinasiri – no arguments here. I suspect that the current system is failing very rapidly, which could be very bad, but could also open up some interesting new opportunities. I think the trick is how to get people to actually do stuff again in the real world, rather than live in abstractions. I expect that will happen automatically due to the enshittification of the internet.
Skip – the economic tide is going out faster than anybody thought possible. It’s going to create some fascinating politics in the years ahead, especially as the elites assume control of the internet means anything.
The thin veneer of PC covering the values vacuum of modernity has been lifted, trampled, incinerated and winnowed windward by Trump’s second term and Israeli genocide in Gaza. Now we’re open about how anything goes and nothing matters.
The thing is, suffering does matter. But genuine values are what stop suffering. Not military, economic or political structures. Those are the outgrowth of values. They create or heal suffering based on whether our values are real.
The freerun of cheap oil made it seem like values don’t matter so we let them die while we were at the party getting high. Like rootless trees feeding on life support dropping suddenly dead when the power fails.
When we do things for real with our own hands (like most rural people here in Sri Lanka do) things move slow enough to see there is a real connection between our ethics, wisdom and spirituality and our long term prospects for meaning, resilience and happiness.
Even then it is easy to miss the connection. That’s what good monks, nuns, priests and priestesses are supposed to do. Point and keep on pointing, tirelessly.
Values are the opposite of identity politics. Genocide is the natural consequence of identity politics. Values have us asking, “What, when done leads to suffering, regardless of by whom?” and “What, when done leads to suffering’s end, regardless of by whom?”
Killing, stealing, lying, divisiveness and fornication lead to suffering, regardless of by whom. Harmlessness, contentment, truth, forgiveness and modesty lead to suffering’s end, regardless of by whom. The question for those who consider themselves in agreement with these basic principles of decency is will they stand by them in bad times or will they too be considered expendible before the cries of an empty belly and the bite of winters without gas.
Jinasiri – as Tolstoy said, every happy family is happy in the same way, but every miserable family is unique. Same with individuals. Almost by definition, in a world where everybody wants to be a special snowflake, everybody must be miserable. It’s the only way to be unique! Hence we get people wearing their illnesses and vices like a badge of honour.