|Stand Up for Wal-Mart||Iraq Election: Left World, Our World|
by Christopher Chantrill
December 11, 2005 at 11:05 am
ON TUESDAY December 6, David Cameron was elected leader of the British Conservative Party. Hes the fourth leader since 1997 when John Major was defeated by Tony Blair and his New Labour Party. Can he breathe life into the party, unlike his predecessors, William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith, and Michael Howard?
Perhaps he can, because it is beginning to look as though the Labour Party is going the way of all British Labour governments. Sooner or later they all run out of money, according to Tory stalwart Ken Clarke.
Back in 1997 it looked as though New Labour had learned from the mistakes of Third Way compadre, Bill Clinton. When Clinton came up to bat as president he promptly hit into a double play, enacting a big tax increase and pushing a huge government takeover of health care that prompted the American people to elect a Republican Congress in 1994. Tony Blair learned from Clintons mistake. He promised not to increase income tax rates and not to increase spendingat least, not for a while. So the British economic boom that had started in 1992 continued, and Blair established a reputation for economic competence that led to reelection in 2001 and 2005. But the British people, encouraged by the chattering classes, wanted the government to improve public services, and so Blair promised to invest in the creaking centralized welfare state of government education, government health care, and government transport systems and deliver the world class public services that Britain deserved.
Since 1997, Tony Blairs government has invested billions into health and education, ballooning British government spending from 38 percent of GDP to an expected 44 percent this year or next. The government has added some 800,000 workers to bolster education and health care, but the productivity of the government sector has gone down, dragging the rest of the economy with it. And now Labour is running out of money.
Back in the 1980s Margaret Thatcher got into a heap of trouble by saying there is no such thing as the state. What she actually said in her interview with Womens Own magazine in 1987 was:
[T]oo many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, its the governments job to cope with it... Theyre casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.
At the opposite end of the spectrum there are many people on the left (try this on one of them) that cannot grasp the difference between society and government. When they say that society should so something, they cannot imagine anything but a new government program. But the essence of the conservative vision since Edmund Burke is to insist that there is a middle ground between government and the individual, the Burkean little platoons and the mediating structures of Berger and Neuhaus in Empowering People. In this middle ground are the other ingredients that go into the social pie: families, churches, associations, charities, foundations, mutual-aid societies, and labor unions.
Now comes David Cameron, and he is saying, again and again, in speech after speech:
There is such a thing as society. Its just not the same thing as the state.
You can see what that is all about. It is a cunning third way, or at least it wants to be, between the no such thing as society of Thatcher and the mindless conflation of society and state that derails the left-wing vision into universal compulsion, the inability to imagine a world that is deeper, richer, more civilized than the modernist windswept plaza across which individual and government confront each other without shelter from the mediating institutions that break up the cruel winds of power.
Some commentators worry that David Cameron is young and untested, a pretty face with a single speech. But at 39, he has been in politics most of his adult life, doing research at Conservative Party headquarters and staffing for John Major and others in the last Conservative government. Above all, he is experienced in the skills and the techniques of presenting a political party through the modern media.
With Camerons election to Tory Party leader it is clear that Anglo-Saxon conservatism, while differing in presentation and style from one side of the Atlantic to the other, is united in a grand vision of society. Its central themes, east and west of the pond, are the separation of powers, the differentiation of society into Michael Novaks political, economic, and moral/cultural sectors, and a thriving civil society of families, churches, associations, and clubs.
There is a difference between society and state.
Buy his Road to the Middle Class.
When we began first to preach these things, the people appeared as awakened from the sleep of agesthey seemed to see for the first time that they were responsible beings, and that a refusal to use the means appointed was a damning sin.
Finke, Stark, The Churching of America, 1776-1990
In 1911... at least nine million of the 12 million covered by national insurance were already members of voluntary sick pay schemes. A similar proportion were also eligible for medical care.
Green, Reinventing Civil Society
We have met with families in which for weeks together, not an article of sustenance but potatoes had been used; yet for every child the hard-earned sum was provided to send them to school.
E. G. West, Education and the State
Law being too tenuous to rely upon in [Ulster and the Scottish borderlands], people developed patterns of settling differences by personal fighting and family feuds.
Thomas Sowell, Conquests and Cultures
The primary thing to keep in mind about German and Russian thought since
1800 is that it takes for granted that the Cartesian, Lockean or Humean scientific and
philosophical conception of man and nature... has been shown by indisputable evidence to be
F.S.C. Northrop, The Meeting of East and West
Inquiry does not start unless there is a problem... It is the problem and its
characteristics revealed by analysis which guides one first to the relevant facts and then,
once the relevant facts are known, to the relevant hypotheses.
F.S.C. Northrop, The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities
But I saw a man yesterday who knows a fellow who had it from a chappie
that said that Urquhart had been dipping himself a bit recklessly off the deep end.
Dorothy L. Sayers, Strong Poison
I mean three systems in one: a predominantly market economy; a polity respectful of the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and a system of cultural institutions moved by ideals of liberty and justice for all.
In short, three dynamic and converging systems functioning as one: a democratic polity, an economy based on markets and incentives, and a moral-cultural system which is plural and, in the largest sense, liberal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism
The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness...
But to make a man act [he must have]
the expectation that purposeful behavior has the power to remove
or at least to alleviate the felt uneasiness.
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
[In the] higher Christian churches... they saunter through the liturgy like Mohawks along a string of scaffolding who have long since forgotten their danger. If God were to blast such a service to bits, the congregation would be, I believe, genuinely shocked. But in the low churches you expect it every minute.
Annie Dillard, Holy the Firm
When we received Christ, Phil added, all of a sudden we now had a rule book to go by, and when we had problems the preacher was right there to give us the answers.
James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh
The recognition and integration of extralegal property rights [in the Homestead Act] was a key element in the United States becoming the most important market economy and producer of capital in the world.
Hernando de Soto, The Mystery of Capital