Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
NewsOpinionOp-Eds

Thatcher made history by standing firm

Margaret ThatcherElectionsBritainRonald ReaganConservative Party (UK)Culture

In 1975, when asked to explain why Margaret Thatcher was poised to take over the Tory Party, the irascible British satirist Malcolm Muggeridge replied that it was all due to television — and the fact that the telegenic Mrs. Thatcher had a "certain imbecile charm."

That was one of the nicer things said about an "imbecile" who earned a degree in chemistry from Oxford and became a lawyer while studying at home. (She sent her bar application from the maternity ward while recovering from delivering twins.)

One lesson here is that being underestimated is a great gift in politics. Ronald Reagan was dubbed an "amiable dunce" before he was known as the "Teflon president," and Mrs. Thatcher had imbecile charm before she was dubbed — by the Soviets — the "Iron Lady."

When the news of Mrs. Thatcher's death broke Monday, I went back to the archives of National Review to look at what William F. Buckley (my former boss) had to say about her when she was a fresh face. Dismissing the skeptics, Buckley was impressed by her personal story, given that she hailed from a "party that has tended, when looking for a leader, to thumb through lists of unemployed Etonians." He concluded, "It is my guess she bears watching. Put me down as a fan."

Just over four years later, Buckley penned a column with the headline: "Margaret is My Darling." The day before the elections, he had wired her (for you kids, that means he sent her a telegram. It's like a paper text message. Google it): "I AND WHAT'S LEFT OF THE FREE WORLD ARE ROOTING FOR YOU, LOVE."

Buckley rightly identified the importance of Mrs. Thatcher's victory. "For over a generation we have been assaulted — castrated is probably closer to the right word — by the notion that socialism is the wave of the future." The arguments between the major parties in the West had almost invariably been disagreements over the pace of descent into one or another flavor of statism. It "has always been possible for the leftward party to say about the rightward party that its platform is roughly identical to the platform of the leftward party one or two elections back."

This was certainly true in the U.S., though Buckley may have overstated things when he wrote that, "Roosevelt would have considered the Republican Party platform of Richard Nixon as radical beyond the dreams of his brain-trusters."

What's indisputable, however, is that the Tories and the Republicans alike suffered from an excess of "me-tooism." From Thomas Dewey through Gerald Ford — minus Barry Goldwater's staggering (and staggeringly influential) defeat — Republicans put forward leaders who promised to do what liberals were doing, but in a more responsible way. The pattern was even worse in Britain, which had thrown out Winston Churchill, at least partly, for wanting to trim back the welfare state.

For decades, conservatism failed to offer an alternative. This was why economist Friedrich Hayek said he couldn't call himself a conservative. It has, he wrote, "invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing."

One reason for this tendency is that in democracies, politicians usually can't withstand the short-term backlash that comes with meaningful long-term free-market reforms. Mrs. Thatcher was expected to follow the pattern. When it became clear that she intended to actually practice what she'd been preaching, the press demanded she make a "U-turn." She didn't. She explained in a defining speech in 1980, "The lady's not for turning." She had promised voters, to borrow a phrase from Goldwater, "a choice, not an echo." She delivered on it, and Britain is immeasurably better for it.

It's worth remembering that Mrs. Thatcher did not destroy the British equivalent of what Americans call liberalism. She destroyed socialism, which was a thriving concern — at least intellectually — in Britain. When Labor decided to get serious about winning elections again, Tony Blair had to repudiate the party's century-long support for doctrinaire socialism and embrace the market. Soon, Bill Clinton followed suit, bending his party to Reagan's legacy. Suddenly, liberals were playing the "me-too" game.

That's one reason the left still hates her and Reagan so much. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan didn't just force change on their societies, they forced change on their enemies, proving that the wave of the future is not so inevitable after all.

Jonah Goldberg's column is distributed by Tribune Media Services. He is the author of "The Tyranny of Clichés," which will be released in paperback April 30. You can write by email at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO.

  • Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts
  • Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
    Related Content
    Margaret ThatcherElectionsBritainRonald ReaganConservative Party (UK)Culture
    • Thatcher and the Falklands
      Thatcher and the Falklands

      Regarding the recent article, "Argentine leader not on list for Thatcher funeral" (April 12), it seems logical that to me Great Britain did not invite Cristina Fernandez, the president of Argentina to Margaret Thatcher's funeral. The news item, however, labels this "a snub...

    • The reality behind the myth of Britain's 'Iron Lady'
      The reality behind the myth of Britain's 'Iron Lady'

      While the mainstream media in America love to wax poetic about former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the sainted "Iron Lady" of the Cold War, it might be wise to remember the real person behind the carefully polished myth ("Margaret Thatcher made history by standing...

    • Chemical weapons cover-up reignites old argument
      Chemical weapons cover-up reignites old argument

      The New York Times report that the George W. Bush administration discovered old chemical bombs and rockets in Iraq and withheld the knowledge "from troops it sent into harm's way" is an echo of the discussion over alleged new weapons of mass destruction that triggered its 2003...

    • The future of classical music
      The future of classical music

      As the new dean of Johns Hopkins' Peabody Institute, I have spent the past several months on a listening tour, talking with leaders among Baltimore's education and culture institutions, businesses, non-profits and government agencies. And for those of you who may have heard the...

    • Why aren't more African Americans supporting Israel?
      Why aren't more African Americans supporting Israel?

      I have recently had several spirited conversations with an old friend from high school over the Israel and Hamas conflict and the larger questions surrounding Israeli settlements, the Palestinian Intifadas and a dual state solution. My friend, a self-proclaimed Zionist and American Israel...

    • Is Panetta's hit on Obama a boon for Hillary?
      Is Panetta's hit on Obama a boon for Hillary?

      Panetta has paved the way for Hillary Clinton to become the candidate with a warrior's heart

    • Ebola is no Spanish Flu [Commentary]
      Ebola is no Spanish Flu [Commentary]

      The recent death of Thomas Eric Duncan, the 42-year-old who traveled to Dallas from disease-ravaged Liberia while infected with the Ebola virus, along with the confirmed infection of two of Duncan's nurses, has created widespread concern that an epidemic is imminent in the United States.

    • College: You get out what you put in [Commentary]
      College: You get out what you put in [Commentary]

      I've read the tweets, the blogs and the experts. Yes, yes, I understand that a college degree doesn't guarantee a post-college career. But don't tell this to my peers. Far too often I hear them talk about how they enrolled in college because they need a degree to get a job. While...

    Comments
    Loading