Time Will Run Back (47 page)

“What are you going to do,” asked Adams, “about public resentment against big individual profits?”

“I can only blame your own speeches and your own policies for helping to stir up that resentment,” retorted Peter. “You have to make up your mind. Which are you more eager to do: prevent ‘profiteering’—or win the war?”

“We must beat Bolshekov, of course—”

“Then let us make that aim No. One, and subordinate everything else to it. Let profits be whatever they have to be to get the greatest possible war production. Maybe we can get at the thing that bothers you by some form of war profits tax; but that’s another story. The point is that if we are more eager to stop so-called profiteering than we are to win the war, we may lose the war and everything with it.”

“So your verdict, in brief,” Adam summed up, despondently, “is that I have done a wretched job?”

Peter suddenly felt ashamed of himself.

“I’m sorry. I apologize. No: my verdict is that in the field of economic policy you have made some very serious mistakes, which have held up the progress of the war. But on the side of
military
strategy, which I have studied with an equal readiness to be critical, your record has been magnificent. You are a genius as an organizer and an executive. Had I been in charge of military strategy, and the actual day-to-day conduct of the war, I should probably have made an unholy botch of it.... And so, if this is agreeable to you, I am going to appoint you Secretary of Defense with complete powers—except that I shall assume charge of internal political and economic policy.”

Adams was more than satisfied with this verdict, and Peter bent himself to rectifying all the mistakes he thought Adams had made. His changes caused so deep a resentment by those who were hurt by them, and by shortsighted persons who imagined they were hurt by them, that Peter thanked his lucky stars he had not yet introduced a real democracy, for he was certain that on this wave of indignation, which he hoped was only temporary, he would have been swept right out of power.

Democracy won’t always make the right decisions, he thought; its merit will lie in the law of averages.

His biggest difficulty, and his biggest shock, came when he tried to stop the inflation that Adams had begun. He made up his mind beforehand that any effort to
de
flate back to the prewar level would be disastrous. What he did not foresee were the derangements and convulsions that followed even when he tried to halt the inflation where it was. Interest rates soared; stock and bond prices collapsed; confidence fell; firms closed; unemployment set in; commodity prices dropped. Peter only dimly understood why this was so. He decided that a lot of misdirected investment and misdirected production had taken place during the inflationary boom, and that this could not correct itself without bringing disturbance and disruption. But he had neither the time nor the surplus mental energy to think the whole chain of causation through link by link and study every aspect in detail.

He felt forced, in the end, to resume a moderate inflation and postpone the final showdown and readjustment until after the war. The great conclusion that he drew was that an inflation must ultimately force a crisis, readjustment and depression; that this showdown had to come, and that the longer it was postponed the worse it would ultimately be. It was one more reason, in addition to what he had originally supposed, why the government must never start, encourage or tolerate a money or credit inflation in the first place.

But Peter’s unpopularity in trying to rectify Adams’ economic mistakes was covered by the immense popularity of Adams’ military victories. These now began to go steadily forward. And Peter himself proved to be justified, after the first months of crisis, by the immense forward leap in war production. The tanks and planes and ships and munitions began to pour out at an unbelievable rate.

It was the incomparable superiority of Freeworld’s production, Adams said in a great speech, that must decide the outcome in its favor.

The whole of the British provinces were soon occupied and turned into an immense network of airfields and a military concentration point. A bridgehead on the Continent was secured, and the troops of Freeworld moved ahead at an everincreasing rate. For once it was seen, in spite of Bolshekov’s propaganda, that the troops of Freeworld were bringing not terror but a liberation from terror, millions of Wonworld troops gave themselves up as prisoners, and whole populations went over.

Peter’s troops reached the suburbs of Moscow. At last came the final break.

Just when he seemed on the verge of capture, Bolshekov shot himself.

What was left of authority in Wonworld surrendered.

The war was over.

THERE were wild celebrations everywhere. For a few weeks the world was intoxicated with peace and liberty. Orators spoke as if humanity were about to enter the gates of paradise.

Peter shared at first in the general elation. But when he began to realize that everyone else was depending on
him
to justify these millennial hopes, the sense of responsibility fell back on him like a heavy weight.

Before victory it had been easy enough to talk eloquently of the better world to come. But when the problem was actually before one, when it came to the actual task of deciding on the means, spelling out the details, and above all of
doing.
... “If to do were as easy as to know what were good to do, chapels had been churches, and poor men’s cottages princes’ palaces.”... Where had he heard that?... Ah, yes, Edith Robinson had read it to him in that rediscovered bourgeois writer, Shakespeare. How wise! And how simply it called attention to the inescapable scarcity of means to achieve all our ends! If only all the noisy and self-complacent reformers who were now intoxicated by their own rhetoric could be got to take this sobering cathartic!...

The tremendous problems he faced now were dominantly political. The world was too fantastically big to be run by any single group from any single center. The only solution was to give self-rule to all the provinces—to England, France, Wales, Texas—and to use the central government only to maintain peaceful and free relations among them. But how could he prevent each of these provinces from falling into the hands of some petty tyrant or dictator? He must first of all put the choice of leaders and the form of government into the hands of the peoples of these provinces. The leaders must be freely chosen, and peaceably removable, by the people.

But how could he consistently ask for this when he himself had never been chosen by the people?

He must begin by making the central government of Freeworld a model of a popular representative government. He must begin by risking his own leadership.

He drafted a provisional constitution. It struck him as a happy idea to guard the freedom of future minorities against the possible tyranny of future majorities themselves by setting self-denying limits, in this constitution, to the power of the new government. He knew that a future majority, if sufficiently determined, could disregard these limits or interpret them away; but their action in doing so, he hoped, would be a clearer warning signal than otherwise that they were embarking on a dangerous path.

Next he decided that the people would have neither the time nor the special knowledge to decide technical problems of legislation for themselves, but only to choose a body of representatives to decide these problems for them.

Even this body, he decided, would be too awkward to initiate a detailed legislative program. It should only be asked to ratify or reject the program submitted to it. The real function of this popular assembly would not be to legislate but to choose and keep an executive. It would select its own leader, and ratify or reject the laws and policies he proposed. If it rejected them, then the rejected leader could either resign and let the popular assembly choose some other leader that it
would
follow, or he could force the legislative assembly to go back to the people for a new election, and go back himself, so that the people could decide between them.

This
de facto
government-policy-maker Peter decided to call the Majority Leader; and because his tenure might be temporary and insecure he decided to create a more permanent head of the government, called the President, also to be chosen by the representative assembly, who would be the titular head but who would perform honorary and ceremonial functions and act as a moderator among political factions.

Peter provided a procedure by which his provisional constitution could be amended by the assembly and a popular referendum.

He set a date for an election three months off, and indicated ways in which candidates might be nominated.

Telegrams poured in from local groups suggesting candidates to support Peter’s policies. No one dared to suggest any rival candidates.

There was only one way, Peter decided, to remedy this. He withdrew himself as a candidate for any office whatever, and asked Adams to assume the leadership of a Freedom Party.

Rival candidates began to appear. They represented, at first, all shades of doctrine, but leadership among the candidates who were not adherents of the Freedom Party began to gravitate toward a Chinese, Wang Ching-li, a man of remarkable presence and even more remarkable eloquence.

“I hesitate to predict it, chief,” Adams said, “but I’m afraid this fellow Wang, and not myself, will become the first Majority Leader.”

“But his ideas are so vague you can’t do anything with them,” complained Peter. “He has started to talk mysteriously about a ‘Third Way’ that is neither ‘capitalism’ nor socialism, but he never says what this Third Way is. I can’t believe people will vote for anything as cloudy as that.”

“It doesn’t matter,” said Adams. “It isn’t his ideas that are going to elect him.”

“Then what is?”

“The Chinese vote.”

“You mean people are going to vote on mere racial grounds, after national boundaries have long been broken down, after centuries of indoctrination in our common humanity and the brotherhood of man?”

Adams shrugged his shoulders. “Maybe I’m cynical. But there are more Chinese than anybody else, and the whole Orient envies the Occident. We never did succeed in reducing Occidental poverty to the level of Oriental poverty, even under egalitarian communism.”

“That’s because Oriental impoverishment kept increasing, because the Orientals kept overpopulating—”

“Ah, and now, chief, is when the overpopulation is at last going to pay dividends. Power will now be decided by votes. The Orient has the votes; and it will use them to rule the Occident and share the wealth by taxing the West to subsidize the East—”

“Always the black view,” said Peter. “But I don’t believe it. People will be convinced by reason. I will take the stump for your party, Adams, and we will defeat Wang by argument.”

But Wang proved to be a very skillful as well as eloquent debater. He talked constantly against “monopoly.” He talked against “bigness.” He was against bigness everywhere and in everything, against congestion, overcrowding, and what he called “proletarianization.” He was against giant overgrown cities, giant overgrown buildings, giant overgrown factories. He was against the Cult of the Colossal. He wanted everybody to have a balanced,
human
life; he wanted everybody to have his own house and to work in his own garden.

He said he didn’t like factories that employed more than 100 people. He demanded equality of opportunity and education for the children of the poor with the children of the rich. He demanded a stiff inheritance tax.

Peter was kept busy answering him. What did Wang mean by monopoly? he asked. Was it always bad? Everybody had a monopoly of his own peculiar talent or genius. Wherever people or products were not completely alike in all respects, competition could not be perfect. But what did that matter? Wasn’t it enough if competition dominated economic life, so that every product or method of production that was inferior was constantly being, or on the verge of being, supplanted by something better?

And did Wang want competition in every field? Did he want half a dozen competing telephone companies in the same city? Half a dozen railroads paralleling each other over the same routes?

Did Wang want to
forbid
the existence of factories or companies employing more than 100 men? Did he know how much such a law might cost the public in preventing the enormous economies of large-scale production?

He himself had always been uncompromisingly opposed, Peter insisted, to
coercive
monopoly, to monopoly built up or sustained by any form of force, fraud or misrepresentation, duplicity or unfair practice, and he had already labored to define these coercive practices in the law. He had already illegalized every form of conspiracy or secret agreement to reduce output or fix prices. Did Wang want to go further than that? And with what measures? Let him be specific!

Peter agreed with Wang, he said, so far as his personal preference was concerned, in not liking big cities. But did Wang intend to force his personal preferences on everyone else? Would he
forbid
a city to grow beyond 50,000 inhabitants, say? Who would select who was and who was not to be permitted to live in a city that had reached its legal population limit?

The biggest debate was on the question of inheritance. Wouldn’t a denial of the right of inheritance, Peter asked, or even an abridgment of it, open up the door to a gradual denial or abridgment of all property rights? Private property, Peter contended, was not only one of the great pillars of individual freedom, but the main incentive to the accumulation of capital.

But when the great debate was finished, and the election results rolled in, they gave Wang’s Unity Party a thin majority.

The Uldanov-Adams Freedom Party ran second.

At the first meeting of the new Parliament next week Wang would be chosen as the first majority leader of the new democratic world. Adams would be named leader of the Opposition.

Peter was crushed. He was even more bewildered by the verdict than resentful of it. It was he, Peter, who by a voluntary abdication of power and even at the risk of his life had given the world freedom. It was he who had set up a system under which the individual was at last freed from terror of the State, at last made secure in the possession of some property of his own; and this system had produced wealth on a scale hitherto undreamed of. It was he, Peter, who had made this very election possible. And the people had used it to repudiate his principles—in effect, to repudiate
him!