Even the Iron Lady Proved Too Soft--And What That Means for Us
Yesterday, Claire posted a link to a review of her Thatcher book by Theodore Dalrymple that I'd never seen. Dalrymple is, in part, critical of the book, because he's critical of Mrs. Thatcher. (Claire loves a good argument so much that she'll promote it even if it's being made at her expense. Honestly, our Claire is completely irresistible.) Thatcher represented Britain's greatest modern-day reformer, Dalrymple grants, but even she failed to go nearly far enough.
Unfortunately, [Mrs. Thatcher] did not so much restore a market economy as promote a consumer society, which is not quite the same thing. It was a society in which most of the really difficult aspects of existence in the modern world - education, health care, social security and many others - remained in the hands of the state. This meant that consumer choice was largely limited to matters of pocket money: whether to ruin Ibiza by your behaviour on holiday, or Crete. The resultant combination of consumer choice and deep irresponsibility was not an attractive one, to say the least. A large part of the population became selfish, egotistical, childish, petulant, demanding and whimsical.
As it happens, Dalrymple is echoing an argument Rob Long often makes: In Obama's America, the government takes care of all the important stuff. All a citizen has to decide is what kind of jeans he wants to wear.
Take a look once again at Dalrymple's list of matters that "remained in the hands of the state": education, health care, social security. Claire would have a better grasp of this than I, but as I recall Mrs. Thatcher made at least some progress with regard to education, introducing useful, if limited reforms at the grammar school level, and with regard to social security, where (again, if I recall correctly) she adjusted benefit levels. Dalrymple would say her reforms prove much too modest, but at least she attempted them. She saw a political opening. She considered reform at least minimally feasible.
That leaves health care. Even Mrs. Thatcher--even the Iron Lady--even she, one of perhaps the half dozen most indomitable figures of the twentieth century--never so much as intimated or hinted that she wished to reform the National Health Service.
If even Mrs. Thatcher considered even a partial privatization of the National Health Service to have proven politically impossible, then, I think, we have to grant that it really was politically impossible. Health care, in other words, is truly singular. Once it has been socialized--once a population begins to take it as a matter of course that the government will see to its physical well-being--then health care can never again be returned to the private sector.
ObamaCare delenda est.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Re: Even the Iron Lady Proved Too Soft--And What That Means for Us
You left out one additional failure. Thatcher did nothing to promote law and order. The basic function of the state is to protect person and property and to enforce contracts. As is evident from the riots going on this week, the law-enforcement agencies in Britain are not doing their job. The Thatcher years were among the years in which a certain relaxation of discipline took place -- in the schools, on the streets, and everywhere. I remember taking a late-evening train from London to Cambridge in 1999 and finding myself, my wife, and a handful of decent folk having to share space with young men and women who were drunk and disorderly. What we are seeing this week is the ultimate outgrowth of what was already visible then.
Jun '10
Re: Even the Iron Lady Proved Too Soft--And What That Means for Us
Mrs. Thatcher pruned back the administrative state only to see it come back stronger. This is why we need to cut it back root and branch, back to the essential functions as enumerated in the Constitution. If we gain back both branches of Congress and the White House, we'll have exactly one chance, just one, to do so. Root and branch!
Re: Even the Iron Lady Proved Too Soft--And What That Means for Us
"Root and branch!" I like that. I like that a lot. EJ Hill, is there a poster in the offing?
Mar '11
Re: Even the Iron Lady Proved Too Soft--And What That Means for Us
Yes, I'd agree. Mrs Thatcher herself referred to the ratchet effect - the ever-bigger state - so I don't think she would be surprised by what has happened to the UK.
She didn't do much for education reform, that I recall (though I was in the US when she was in power) - I am a product of the Grammar school system that was demolished shortly after I got through it (my whole life has been a journey through institutions that collapsed after me - I am pretty sure it is not me). Mrs Thatcher didn't succeed in restoring the Grammar school system.
One of the few good things about the current UK Government is a massive education reform program - towards schools managing themselves - led by the most impressive UK politician, Michael Gove. Here he is laying into a Socialist who is claiming that the riots are a result of Government spending cuts - a preview of what will happen in the US if we ever get a conservative government that tries to un-ratchet state control of our lives.
Edited on Aug 10, 2011 at 12:05pmMay '10
Re: Even the Iron Lady Proved Too Soft--And What That Means for Us
The great evil of the Reagan/Thatcher era--the near and present evil threatening the imminent overthrow of Western Civilization--was Soviet Communism and nuclear war.
Together with John Paul II and other heroes, they dispatched that evil. Which was achievement beyond all hope and predicting at the time.
Giant statism is the evil of our generation. May we be so fortunate as to find such leaders as they were to oppose it.
May '10
Re: Even the Iron Lady Proved Too Soft--And What That Means for Us
Thatcher was one woman, backed by a very few men. She and her "band of brothers" did remarkably well, considering what she was up against.
It seems the fate of the UK to be saved every 40 years by a single, strong-willed and clear-headed leader that it most emphatically does not deserve. Let's watch and see if its luck holds when 2020 rolls around.
Edited on Aug 10, 2011 at 12:58pmMar '11
Re: Even the Iron Lady Proved Too Soft--And What That Means for Us
katievs: The great evil of the Reagan/Thatcher era--the near and present evil threatening the imminent overthrow of Western Civilization--was Soviet Communism and nuclear war.
Together with John Paul II and other heroes, they dispatched that evil. Which was achievement beyond all hope and predicting at the time.
Giant statism is the evil of our generation. May we be so fortunate as to find such leaders as they were to oppose it. · Aug 10 at 12:42pm
I prefer to say that Reagan and Thatcher had three great evils... a stagnant economy, huge government in size and scope, and a Soviet enemy that wanted to quite literally conquer the world. There's only so much one can accomplish in a span of years, and so they prioritized. They fired the opening shots of the campaign to reverse the damage done to our countries by decades of liberal policies. It's up to us to continue and finish that work.
Sep '10
Re: Even the Iron Lady Proved Too Soft--And What That Means for Us
Has any country ever eliminated its government health care plan?
It seems like once the government expands the welfare state, all conservatives do is promise to run those programs more efficiently. Are there any serious (i.e. not Ron Paul) candidates out there willing to get rid of Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Education, or the Department of Energy?
"ObamaCare delenda est." indeed!
Dec '10
Re: Even the Iron Lady Proved Too Soft--And What That Means for Us
I've cued up the video David posted for later viewing, but will note that the main theme is the constant theme we hear and read.
If Thatcher managed to do a bit of good for the economy by encouraging a bit of consumerism, all she accomplished was exactly all that conservatives here ever manage; she helped the country pay for the impossible and insatiable demands of the statists that hand out free money, for life, to those that do not contribute.
It really won't matter if more conservative people manage to somehow tamp down the fires set by our own leftists, here, if all we manage is stabilization.
I suspect many Ricotini drinkers would shy away from radical efforts that rooted out the very origins of Nixon's EPA, or Carter's twin DOEs of Energy and Education.
Just too radical, no? Just the sort of thing that might make John McCain blabber about hobbits, no?
If so, that would mean that the best we could achieve would be to, once again, clean up the mess and help to pay our adveraries bar tabs.
Re: Even the Iron Lady Proved Too Soft--And What That Means for Us
katievs: The great evil of the Reagan/Thatcher era--the near and present evil threatening the imminent overthrow of Western Civilization--was Soviet Communism and nuclear war.
Together with John Paul II and other heroes, they dispatched that evil. Which was achievement beyond all hope and predicting at the time.
Giant statism is the evil of our generation. May we be so fortunate as to find such leaders as they were to oppose it. · Aug 10 at 12:42pm
That is just beautifully put. Even our greatest leaders, we need to remember, are only human. They can only do so much. Today's great evils are up to us.
Re: Even the Iron Lady Proved Too Soft--And What That Means for Us
That's such a sweet thing to say.
You're correct: She couldn't touch the NHS and she knew it.