Sunday, August 22, 2010
G.W. Matson: MARGARET THATCHER'S WRONG TURN
G.W. Matson: 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'..."
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.
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.
Friday, August 13, 2010
AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM
Some politicians, and their cheerleaders in the media, like to toss around the concept of "American exceptionalism", and how much it means to them, as part of the endless game of patriotic one-upping. They attempted to embarrass Barack Obama when he said that he believes America is exceptional, in the same way people in other countries feel their country is exceptional. Apparently there was little political hay to be made, because the controversy was quickly dropped, but the question of our country's being somehow special beyond mere national pride, as some universal truth, is worth exploring. After all, it has been brought up, and it will be brought up again.
Is it the country itself--our half of the North American continent? If so, how is the arbitrarily defined area known as the U.S.A. better than the other half of the continent and the rest of the world? Are our mountains higher? Our prairies more golden? Our oceans whiter with foam? Is the United States exceptional because of the people who reside within the borders? True, the United States is home to descendants of practically everywhere else, but many other countries are similarly populated, and more will be as the world grows more homogeneous all the time.
And science has proven that there is but one race: human.
America may be one of the first, but it is certainly not the only multi-cultural society. And yes, within our borders more people from differing cultures attempt to get along peacefully with each other than is evident in many other societies. But we still have human failings. And it seems to be that most Americans who most stridently insist on America's unique status tend also to define "true Americans" in restrictive terms. Yes, individuals are valued, and given many opportunities, but this happens in some other nations as well, and one look at our country's current situation is enough to remind us that not everyone gets the same opportunities.
Our founding principles, while not exceptional, are unusual. America was the first nation founded on core principles of the Enlightenment: equality of all, and the universal endowment of inalienable rights. As such, America has continued to survive with those principles more or less intact, despite some very rough episodes in our history. Since our founding most nations, new and old, have followed our example, but most have been nowhere near as fortunate as the United States in adhering to our ideals. A few countries, such as Britain, have come to the Enlightenment gradually. Others, like France, Germany, Italy and Japan, took to the Enlightenment after a series of severe shocks. In our hemisphere, only Canada and Costa Rica have, like the U.S., remained steadily democratic for any length of time.
So our country is the first to break with the traditional method of nation founding: clans, following strong and successful leaders, convinced of their superiority over the rest of the human race, went from there in search of conquest and plunder, eventually forming what we call nations. The United States, unlike the others, has its origins in the conviction that all humans are equal. We have conquered and plundered, however, and our history is rife with internal imperfections in putting equality into actual practice, and we are not arrived yet. Still we have made slow and halting progress, but progress nonetheless, up to the present time. Even with our tenacious imperfections, we still remain generally committed to egalitarian goals.
Here, if anywhere, is America's exceptional standing among nations: a long standing commitment to securing for humanity equal rights including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But if our stated goals are the achievement of equal rights belonging to all people, then the concept that our country is exceptional is by its nature un-American.
Is it the country itself--our half of the North American continent? If so, how is the arbitrarily defined area known as the U.S.A. better than the other half of the continent and the rest of the world? Are our mountains higher? Our prairies more golden? Our oceans whiter with foam? Is the United States exceptional because of the people who reside within the borders? True, the United States is home to descendants of practically everywhere else, but many other countries are similarly populated, and more will be as the world grows more homogeneous all the time.
And science has proven that there is but one race: human.
America may be one of the first, but it is certainly not the only multi-cultural society. And yes, within our borders more people from differing cultures attempt to get along peacefully with each other than is evident in many other societies. But we still have human failings. And it seems to be that most Americans who most stridently insist on America's unique status tend also to define "true Americans" in restrictive terms. Yes, individuals are valued, and given many opportunities, but this happens in some other nations as well, and one look at our country's current situation is enough to remind us that not everyone gets the same opportunities.
Our founding principles, while not exceptional, are unusual. America was the first nation founded on core principles of the Enlightenment: equality of all, and the universal endowment of inalienable rights. As such, America has continued to survive with those principles more or less intact, despite some very rough episodes in our history. Since our founding most nations, new and old, have followed our example, but most have been nowhere near as fortunate as the United States in adhering to our ideals. A few countries, such as Britain, have come to the Enlightenment gradually. Others, like France, Germany, Italy and Japan, took to the Enlightenment after a series of severe shocks. In our hemisphere, only Canada and Costa Rica have, like the U.S., remained steadily democratic for any length of time.
So our country is the first to break with the traditional method of nation founding: clans, following strong and successful leaders, convinced of their superiority over the rest of the human race, went from there in search of conquest and plunder, eventually forming what we call nations. The United States, unlike the others, has its origins in the conviction that all humans are equal. We have conquered and plundered, however, and our history is rife with internal imperfections in putting equality into actual practice, and we are not arrived yet. Still we have made slow and halting progress, but progress nonetheless, up to the present time. Even with our tenacious imperfections, we still remain generally committed to egalitarian goals.
Here, if anywhere, is America's exceptional standing among nations: a long standing commitment to securing for humanity equal rights including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But if our stated goals are the achievement of equal rights belonging to all people, then the concept that our country is exceptional is by its nature un-American.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)