Thatcher's Support for the Iraq War: Gone but Not Forgotten

Margaret Thatcher was an advocate for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Wasn't the first time she showed herself to be an champion of hysteria, but I think this particular bit of advocacy is what Americans should remember about Maggie. The fact that she had a lot of foolish company when she threw her weight behind this obviously preposterous endeavor does not mean it should be forgotten.

It has been amusing to hear Thatcher discussed as "an inspiration to women everywhere" by women whose heads detach from their necks at the very mention of W. Bush; her foreign policy soul mate. I thought a key part of the "WE NEED MORE WOMEN IN POWER" movement was that women would bring a different perspective to power. So why are women celebrating a woman who was interchangeable with Reagan and Bush? If women in power are going to be as craven and incompetent as men, how exactly is electing them a step forward?

Conveniently ignoring Thatcher's resemblance to Reagan and Bush simply because she was a woman in power is a classic example of the mania for diversity showing itself to be a beauty pageant rather than a campaign for increased substance. I hope I live long enough to see the first female leader on trial before the world for putting her citizens in deathcamps. I love a good spectacle, and I relish the thought of seeing a cryogenically frozen Gloria Allred thawed out to defend Hitlerette.

The global power paradigm continues to get more diverse, and yet F.A. Hayek continues to be proven correct: only the worst members of society succeed in politics.

The less intelligent of two evils

One of the major tactical blunders conservatives have made is focusing on individual politicians rather than on ideas. This seems to have started with Clinton (maybe because by then the Cold War was over and that had defined much of their platform?). When Clinton took office, the primary criticisms we heard from conservatives related to his personal life; his eating habits, his marital pitfalls, etc. Very, very little discussion of his actual policies. The conservatism "opposition" to Clinton was more like a roast than a movement.

That's the problem. When you make the opposition all about individual politicians, what happens when that politician leaves? The foundation of your movement is suddenly gone. It is like the difference between spending and investing. While conservatives have been spending political capital focusing on the short term quirks of individual politicians, Democrats have been investing in the long term by making their opposition mostly about ideas that transcend individual politicians (climate change, "affordable healthcare,").

Yes, when Bush II was in office, there was plenty of focus on his accent, his speech pattern, his wild youth. But there was also constant discussion of his tax policies, social policies, and towards the end, his warmongering. Contrast that with the conservative obsession with Obama's birth certificate and alleged allegiance to Islam. Even the bashing of Obamacare largely came down to the idea-free slogan: "Obama's a socialist!"

The conservative focus on individual politicians isn't isolated to individual Democrats. They make their own campaigns about individual Republicans. Every campaign speech from a conservative mentions "Reagan Republicanism." No discussion of anything Reagan did; just a constant repetition of his name. Again, this is totally ineffective. An 18-year-old potential Republican voter doesn't care about Reagan. He could be made to care about a Reagan-related conservative idea...if one were actually presented to him.

In order to win a War of Ideas, you have to have some actual ideas. The closest thing Republicans have had to an idea is the War on Terror. And as voters have tired of it, all Republicans have done is double down (especially in '08).

Once more: climate change is a spreadable idea. Obsessing about Al Gore's personal carbon footprint isn't.