The Once And Future Queen Of Conservatism
From the desk of Richard Rahn on Tue, 2010-09-14 21:51
On Friday evening, a tall, bespectacled 30-ish Englishman, Matthew Elliott, escorted Lady Margaret Thatcher into a reception at London's 800-year-old Guild Hall. Despite the fact that England is going through its worst economic crisis since Mrs. Thatcher became prime minister more than three decades ago, she was of good cheer as she conversed with those of us who had come to pay our respects. Perhaps a reason for her upbeat manner was that the ideas she (and Ronald Reagan in the United States) championed are once again gaining currency.
Six years ago, Andrew Allum, Florence Heath and Mr. Elliott founded the Taxpayers' Alliance (TPA) with the goal of reducing taxes and the size of government in Britain. Through the use of new media, including the production of several devastatingly hilarious videos of the tax-and-spend excesses of the British government, and the publication of a number of very sound and persuasive papers about governmental abuse, the TPA already has made a major impact on the political scene, including a role in the recent defeat of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. One of the TPA's papers documents how taxpayer monies have been siphoned off to support labor and other organizations for the purpose of lobbying for higher taxes and bigger government. In other words, the poor taxpayer is being forced to pay for his or her own fleecing.
Some of this misuse of taxpayer funds to support higher taxes and spending occurs in the United States, but the statist and union thugs who control the political establishment in Britain appeared to have turned it into a higher art form - at least until Mr. Elliott and his colleagues came along. Last week, under Mr. Elliott's leadership, the TPA sponsored a conference whose participants included leaders of think tanks in Austria, Bulgaria, France, Georgia, Lithuania, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States and other countries. The event culminated in a glorious and uplifting Friday-evening banquet at the Guild Hall. The distinguished economist Arthur Laffer - the most famous father of supply-side economics, who was an adviser to both President Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher during their years in power - gave the keynote address with the same zest and humor as in decades past.
The good news is that those who believe in limited government and free markets are energized in both the United States and Europe. The bad news is that even the reform governments, such as the new British government, so far have not been sufficiently bold to do what needs to be done.
While liberty, free markets and entrepreneurship were being celebrated in Britain, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius warned the insurance industry that the administration would not tolerate blaming premium increases on the new health care law. Specifically, she wrote: "There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases." At the same time, other U.S. government agencies were admitting that the health care bill would increase, rather than decrease, medical costs - as critics had been saying all along. Mrs. Sebelius has shown that she is either ignorant of the Constitution - which guarantees freedom of speech - or does not think the basic law of the land is important. During the health care debate, she and her colleagues in the administration consistently prevaricated about what the bill would and would not do and what it would cost.
Mrs. Sebelius probably will not be sacked because the leader of the administration seems to be perfectly comfortable with describing a fantasyland that has no resemblance to the world most people inhabit. He tells us his economic program is "working" despite the fact that more people have been losing, rather than gaining, jobs in recent months and that economic growth has been declining, despite administration forecasts to the contrary. The president keeps demanding that those who create most of the jobs - people making more than $200,000 a year - be taxed more heavily, which, as most people understand, reduces their ability and incentive to create jobs.
Matthew Elliott in Britain, like the leaders of limited-government organizations in other countries, once again reminds us that the truth-teller without formal power or office can, despite limited resources, curb those in government who have little regard for facts and freedom. Oh, by the way, Mrs. Sebelius, many of us have zero tolerance for the misinformation and unjustified tax increases that ooze from your administration - and we intend to continue to say so.
Consolidation of neoliberal power
Submitted by 4Symbols on Tue, 2010-09-21 02:44.
The Falkland's were a political cul-de-sac it would have been impossible for any shade of government not to take military action and remain in power the act of aggression was far too serious.
As for the rot left by nuLabour a large part of those policies were an acceleration of Thatcher's neoliberalism, indeed we are now back to the eighties multi-cult mantra that buisness will be unable to compete without mass third world immigration into the UK.
Thatcher's and nuLabour's socialist quangos are about to become Camerons big society. Maybe my eyes deceived me and I did not witness a 6th of May coup but there sure was a orchestrated consolidation of power on that day in the UK.
In hoc signo vinces
RE: Thatcher
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2010-09-16 14:54.
If Thatcher was a full social liberal, the Falklands would probably now be the Malvinas. In fact, in the areas of defense and foreign policy, is Tony Blair not a neoconservative as well?
What is troubling is that Britons elected a minority Conservative government to clean out the rot left by Labour. At first glance, they seemed to be copying the Canadians, who had earlier ended the Liberals' long rein. However, whereas Canada now has a conservative government, albeit a minority one under much scrutiny and forced to compromise with center-left and left-center rivals, what does the UK have?
The Conservative-Liberal Democrat government is hardly conservative. If the cuts to the defense budget are enacted, the UK will be unable to defend the Falklands, or even the British Isles without resorting to the nuclear option. The British Army will end up with the capability to deploy 5-10% of its manpower overseas, as is the case with Germany.
Anyone who says that politics is about bureaucracies and parties, not individual personalities needs to compare Canada's Harper with Britain's Cameron. I might discuss GWB, but then again, this is not a comparison of IQ...
Thatcher was a neoliberal not a conservative.
Submitted by 4Symbols on Thu, 2010-09-16 09:14.
Thatcher was a neoliberal not a conservative take a close look at her domestic policies, what do Conservatives not understand about neoliberalism, why can they not recognise the neoliberalism of Thatcherism in the present conservative UK government?
In hoc signo vinces
@4Symbols
Submitted by KO on Fri, 2010-09-17 22:40.
You make an important distinction between neoliberals and conservatives. They are natural allies on some major issues, primarily on reversing the liberal-socialist trend of injecting political authority into every human relationship. Neoliberals are dangerous allies, though, because they have no appreciation of, or language for, what makes those relationships valuable in the first place. They only have the liberal language of autonomous rational beings. As a result, they give in to left liberals on everything but the right to possess wealth, because they share the left-liberals' rationalistic anthropology. They have only contingent, economic arguments against mass immigration, for example, because the continued existence of a concrete people with its existing culture, heritage, and genetic endowment means nothing to them. It is only an obstacle to rationalistic individual autonomy.
I think the Kapitan was pointing out that Thatcher was not only a neoliberal, since she was also a patriot.