MARGARET THATCHER'S WRONG TURN

"There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families."

Preceding is one of Margaret Thatcher's most famous quotes, and in her forthright statement can be found the most honest summary of the modern conservative theory of governance. For the eleven years Thatcher led Britain, contemporary with Ronald Reagan's leading the United States, the English-speaking powers headed in a different direction toward a more pure version of rugged individualism. Their philosophy holds that mankind is happiest and most prosperous when all are free to pursue their selfish interests with no restraints other than the selfish efforts of everyone else. A noble concept, but is Thatcher's statement true or practical?
The "no society" conviction was a break with conservatism of the twentieth century up to that time, when mainstream conservatives, accepting the social safety net programs already in place, sought to hold the line there. In reality, "no society" went beyond the goals of nineteenth-century conservatives, who basically held society to be a fine invention, provided the wealthy could lead it for their own primary benefit. The attempt to create a real world situation where individuals and families basically work against one another to advance their own ends, is actually quite radical. Thatcher's quote is in the form of a statement of fact--not a desire, nor a consummation devoutly to be wished. Presented as fact, it should be fairly simple to verify. This bold declaration represents the meat and bones of modern conservatism. If Thatcher's statement turns out to be false, conservatives need to know this, so they can proceed to do something else.
In the first place, the Falkland Islands War, which solidified Thatcher's standing as a world leader, could never have been fought had Thatcher adhered to her own beliefs. Only organized societies can fight wars. In fact it is highly unlikely that there is any human undertaking requiring more social organization than war. Resources must be found and converted to things to be blown up. Soldiers must be trained to follow orders based on a rigid chain-of-command. And populations need to be united on the endeavour for it to have any chance of success. There is no individualism involved. As for families: a nation at war is supposed to be one huge extended family, but that is probably not what Thatcher meant.
When the Argentine military dictatorship invaded the Falklands, the resident population--roughly two-thousand British shepherds, none of whom had expressed any desire to become Argentines--should have been on their own, for Thatcher's philosophy to have any weight. They could have fought the Argentine army, they could have tried to get used to their new rulers, or they could have moved back to Britain if they could afford it. But if there is truly "no society", the Falklanders were certainly not the responsibility of a non-existent British society, or its representative government.
The British people, however, with Thatcher leading the charge, felt and acted differently. Although few Britons actually knew any Falklanders, and the islands lie about as far from the home country as any place on earth, the British reacted as they would to an attack on their homeland, which in most ways it was. They behaved like citizens of a complex and organized society. And Thatcher led them enthusiastically, as an elected leader of such a society would be expected to do.
From a standpoint of human rights, Thatcher acted in the only way she could. But human rights are only protected within societies. In order to do the right thing she needed to ignore what to her was a basic truth. And a truth ignored is no truth.
The Falklands War is but one symptom of the irrationality of modern conservative philosophy. Only by a return to very primitive, early Paleolithic hunting and gathering would Thatcher's statement make any sense. Humanity is a social animal, and has thriven because of it. Sensible conservatives need to renounce their double-think practice of working within a society while preaching that it does not exist. And liberals, progressives, moderates--all people who know better--need to hold conservatives to reality, because carried to its logical conclusion, the contemporary conservatives' ideal is chaos.