Statecraft - Margaret Thatcher (and Individualism)
[ Follow-Ups ]
[ Post Followup ]
[ Canadian Coalition for Democracies Public Message Forum ]
Posted by Onward James on 18:03:24 2008/11/18
"Statecraft and statesmanship are, according to the dictionary definition, interchangeable. But the former has more practical ring to it, emphasizing activity rather than rhetoric, strategy not just diplomacy. All too often, statesmanship turns out simply to be political action of which we politicians approve -- frequently our own."
Margaret Thatcher had grit in politics like Ronald Reagan, and one of my favourite: Winston Spencer Churchill. (When I find quality Churchill cigars I smoke them as I read or write. They're a long burn.) Former British Prime Minister Thatcher had an iron hand beneath the velvet glove. Her speeches were like that, strong and eloquently coherent.
A few weeks ago I saw a terrific made for TV movie -- Margaret Thatcher: The Long Walk to Finchley -- about why and how she entered politics and how she finally won a seat in parliament. A classy tigress. So, once more I went through her book "Statecraft", published by HarperCollins in 2002, to remind me of what conservatism and individualism are and why we must be aware what socialism can lead to: big government; more taxes; weaker military; the demise of individuality and entrepreneurial spirit.
When Thatcher, Reagan and Mulroney were leaders the times were okay at least for me and many others, the majority, for a while.
"For my part, I favour an approach to statecraft that embraces principles, as long as it is not stifled by them; and I prefer such principles to be accompanied by steel along with good intentions I accordingly suggest three axioms which the statesman would do well to bear in mind today.
First, the extension of democracy through every country and continent remains a legitimate and indeed fundamental aspect of sound foreign policy. There are many practical reasons for this: democratic states do not generally make war on each other; democracy generally promotes good government; democracy generally accepts prosperity.
Second, a sound and stable international order can only be founded upon respect for nations and for nation states.
Third, whatever stratagems of international diplomacy are deployed to keep peace, the ultimate test of statesmanship is what to do in face of war. Deterring wars, and being in a position to win wars that are forced upon one, are two sides of the same coin: both require continuous investment in defence and a constant and unbending resolution to resist aggression."
Prime Minister Thatcher stood up to Argentina and made sure the Falkland Islands retained their sovereignty. She had more brass balls than most male leaders.
" having a conservative rather than liberal view of foreign and security policy, I agree with Winston Churchill, who once remarked of his alliance with the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany: 'If Hitler invaded Hell I would at least try to make a favourable reference to the Devil.'"
In a way, I suppose, this is what President George W. Bush did with the Saudis and their Wahhabi clerics that donated money to the families of martyrs; Pakistanis and the factions that harboured bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban; Palestinian Yasser Arafat, a known terrorist who won a Nobel Prize and pocketed much support money from whomever -- often the Saudis.
"Rogue states, religious extremism and international terrorism -- since 11 September 2001 these three scourges have to become inextricably linked in the public imagination. Each in its own right threatens civil peace and international stability. But when each feeds off the other, the sum of evil is even greater than that of the individual parts. The death toll in New York and Washington allows no doubt of this."
[The symbiotic connection between terrorist organizations and sponsor states has long been internationally recognized and condemned. As Prime Minister, I was one of the heads of government at the 1986 Tokyo G7 summit who pressed most strongly for the declaration: '[we] strongly reaffirm our condemnation of international terrorism in all forms, of its accomplices and of those, including governments, who sponsor or support it. Terrorism has no justification.]
Indeed, most prudent people, self-made sages like me, would desire that President-Elect Barack Obama and his key cabinet members, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense understand the above and appreciate it. Think. Act wisely.
As far as wisdom is concerned President Bush had to remove Saddam Hussein, a Weapon of Mass Destruction who harboured and funded terrorists like Iran, Syria, possibly Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan would've been an outright victory if the Europeans sent more soldiers. Or, the civilized countries played by the Islamist-Jihadi rules of kill anybody anytime. Obama stated he would hunt down bin Laden, who, I think, is dead and al Qaeda are but a communications group now headed by al Zawahiri.
And I hope that Obama is reined in with his tax plan, excessive regulations such as running business like the automobile manufacturers -- state control.
"Left of-centre governments, like that in Britain and those in most of Europe, grasp much of all this in general terms. But their understanding is rather like that of performing dogs in a circus. They have been trained by the experts to beg while wearing a hat and howling accompaniment to the band. Yet what these intimated actions signify is quite beyond their comprehension. It is simply that these are the conditions on which they are fed "
" Their basic error is to believe that it is the state that creates wealth which is then distributed (or redistributed) to individuals."
Who happen to lack entrepreneurial spirit, because too often they are the undeserving masses that use the systems and hand it down to others. Schools teach them to study, get school-loans and go for jobs, but seldom explain who creates them and supplies the money for education. Entrepreneurship is not a course.
"Individualism has come in for an enormous amount of criticism over the years. It still does. It is widely assumed to be synonymous with selfishness -- an argument which I have already examined and I hope successfully dismissed. But the main reason why so many people in power have always disliked individualism is because it is individualists who are ever keenest to prevent abuse of authority. A large part of the explanation of why the English have been so successful in making liberty work is, I am convinced, that the nation has bred and nurtured more than its share of these rugged, angular individualists. We all know who they are. They are the people referred as 'one of a kind', or 'a character', or, sometimes and less favourably 'a difficult customer', or even on occasion 'a damned nuisance'. They are not to be consigned to social categories, nor planned into programmes, nor fitted into schemes. They drive socialists wild. We need such individualists in every walk of life. We need them just as oysters need grit. No grit, no pearl."
A pearl of wisdom. Bravo Margaret Thatcher a tried and true individual. Bravo!
And even socialists are led by individualists who end up with power and the better life than the masses. Think Castro, Chavez, Putin and the list goes on. They also self-actualized but
Continue the awareness...
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
[ Follow Ups ]
[ Post Followup ]
[ Canadian Coalition for Democracies Public Message Forum ]