Good Plan, Republicans. But It Didn't Work In Britain.

National Journal ^ | Dec. 17, 2004 | Jonathan Rauch

[paudio]

In 1976, soon after Thatcher attained the Conservative leadership, the party published a manifesto titled "The Right Approach." It called for giving the people "more power as citizens, as owners, and as consumers," by "lowering taxes when we can, by encouraging homeownership, by taking the first steps toward making this country a nation of worker-owners, by giving parents a greater say in the better education of their children." That should sound familiar. When it came to power in 1979, the Thatcher government made good on its word by selling off 1.7 million public-housing units, privatizing public industries, and creating tax and insurance incentives to encourage people to switch to "portable personal pensions."

The economy responded. Entrepreneurial energy began to pulse through Britain's sclerotic veins. Meanwhile, the Labor Party was reeling. It detested the Thatcher agenda but lacked new ideas and the will to break with its left-wing union base; it staggered from one weak leader to the next. The Labor Party appeared to be in terminal decline.

What the Tories then discovered is what ruling parties all too easily forget: There is no position more treacherous than having a parliamentary majority without a popular majority. With undivided power goes undivided credit, but also undivided blame. Worse, the possession of a parliamentary majority may embolden the party's extremists and lull the party away from the center, thus blocking, rather than advancing, progress toward a popular majority.

[paudio]

It might not work completely in the 1970s UK, it doesn't mean it won't work in the 2000s US. He'd better write about socialism that didn't work in many places still many try to pursue.

[swilhelm73]

Well, it seems to me the Tories since Thatcher have run their party into the ground by taking Rauch's advice.

They either refuse to take a stand on the important issues (getting the h*ll out of the EU) or use them for short term political gain (the WoT).

[BROKKANIC]

Why is it liberals think their train of thought as being "majority"?

Were these people sitting at home smoking pot this past November? Apparently so... The majority spoke this past election cycle, and they missed the train!

[walden]

There is one huge, glaring flaw in this guy's analysis: he assumes that the purpose of acquiring political power is to consolidate and keep political power. Wrong. Political power is to be used to enact one's preferred policies. That's it, that's all. If Republicans move to the center, then the country either stays where it is or shifts a bit to the left. But if they stay to the right, and enact conservative policies, the country as a whole shifts to the right. That may make it harder for Republicans to get elected, but it's better for the country as a whole, since whatever Democrat beats them is further to the right than he otherwise would have been.

Anyway, Rauch's error here is typical of Democrats and of professional politicos. Bush and his folks know better-- you get elected in order to DO something.

[exnavy]

Sounds like the author is suggesting the situation is hopeless for conservatives, misery loves company.

[blanknoone]

But It Didn't Work In Britain.

How does he define 'working'? A little free market capitalism in Britain worked a whole lot better than his preferred socialism. See Soviet Union. See France.

[fporretto]

Rauch is basically a good guy, and his thinking isn't bad, but he forgets the huge tactical error Lady Thatcher made that fractured her support: the "poll tax." This gambit was an attempt to nullify Labour's use of differential taxation for redistributive purposes, and it backfired on her and her Government.

It was a mistake, and ought to have been seen beforehand as such. One does not combat excessive State power by giving the State more power. But for whatever reasons, Thatcher proceeded with it, and was shortly removed from the premiership.

Sound strategy is important, but poor tactics can get you killed in the near term no matter how good your strategy is.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit Eternity Road:
http://www.eternityroad.info

[ash-housewares]

I've been wondering if Rauch isn't totally overrated as a political analyst. Though he makes the occasional fleeting, worthy point he's essentially David Broder with Libertarian street-cred

[G.Mason]

" ... Political power is to be used to enact one's preferred policies. That's it, that's all. If Republicans move to the center, then the country either stays where it is or shifts a bit to the left. But if they stay to the right, and enact conservative policies, the country as a whole shifts to the right. That may make it harder for Republicans to get elected, but it's better for the country as a whole, since whatever Democrat beats them is further to the right than he otherwise would have been ..."

I couldn't agree more.

" ... you get elected in order to DO something ... "

[sphinx]

There is one huge, glaring flaw in this guy's analysis: he assumes that the purpose of acquiring political power is to consolidate and keep political power.

He's assuming there is not a popular majority for the ownership society agenda and that its "radicalism" will turn off the sensible center. That is, in fact, what the dems continue to hope, but I think they're wrong.

Bush's "ownership society" is simply the newest, focus-grouped slogan for a cluster of initiatives that have been germinating on the right for the last 30-40 years. They are now reaching maturity. There is nothing new or particularly radical about fully funding retirement benefits, school choice, or shifting health care to a consumer sovereigty model. IMO, these things already are the sensible center. The lefties are desperately defending a series of failing collectivist models, and they do so mainly by refusing to face up to the problems on the horizon and by lying about what the reformers actually propose. People are starting to catch on.

Robert Nozick used the very apt term eastberlins to describe arrangements which were defended by ruling elites as terrific but which, in fact, were detested by rank and file citizens. Social Security and many urban public school systems are already eastberlins. Open the door just a crack, and the public will stampede for the exits. Create private SS accounts and virtually everyone under 45 and brighter than a cabbage will be gone tomorrow. Voucher the schools and the same thing will happen just as fast as new private schools can be created. The 'rats know this. It is why they are so shrill, but a loud liar is still a liar.

[walden]

"Open the door just a crack, and the public will stampede for the exits. Create private SS accounts and virtually everyone under 45 and brighter than a cabbage will be gone tomorrow. Voucher the schools and the same thing will happen just as fast as new private schools can be created. The 'rats know this. It is why they are so shrill, but a loud liar is still a liar."

Bingo! We have a winner!

[Nosterrex]

First of all, Americans aren't Brits. That is an important fact to bear in mind, and let's pray that we don't follow their example. Ever since WWI, the Brits have been on a downward spiral. They went from a Christian nation to one of complete moral decay. The classes are more divided today than they were a century ago. It is a nation without a center, which is the story of modern Europe.

I don't say this with any joy, for I made many friends while studying in England. It is almost impossible to find a single Brit with any optimism for the future. Americans are generally an optimistic people, but not so the Brits and Scots. It's all gloom and doom. It is similar to being a Democrat.

[raybbr]

Jonathan Rauch

He has been writing books and magazine articles on ideas, culture, and public policy since the early 1980s, and he has written on gay-related topics as an openly gay author since 1991, when, in an article for The New Republic, he criticized hate-crimes laws from a gay point of view.

[Brian Allen]

<< It might not work completely in the 1970s UK, it doesn't mean it won't work in the 2000s US. He'd better write about socialism that didn't work in many places still many try to pursue. >>

Including every once-great-british and every other euro-peon "conservative!"

Not one of whom would recognize Conservatism -- even while it bit him in the arse.

[nuke rocketeer]

The biggest difference between the US and the UK is that we are nowhere near as far down the socialist road as the Brits are. Self-reliance and individual initiative are bedrock principles of the American ethos that have not been corrupted as thoroughly as they have been in Europe. Those principles were very weak to start with in Europe, but were the very basis of the formation of the US.

[vbmoneyspender]

I don't understand what this guy is talking about. Thatcher's policies worked so well that she actually changed the opposition so that their governing philosophy is no longer one of oomplete socialism. In fact, that's what she always said was the measure of her success, which is that her political philosophy was so successful that it forced a change in how the Labor Party sought to govern Britain.

[vbmoneyspender]

oomplete = complete

[nonomous]

Don't forget the BBC's role in shaping public opinion. If you think the ABC, NBC and CBS are a problem in America, consider the BBC and it's ability to directly tax every Brit and turn the money into left wing propaganda. The blogsphere is undermining the BBC stranglehold on UK public opinion, but it is a slow process.

[TheDon]

The author has forgotten one fact, Britian, and Europe, is not America.