every smith
  • MS: Max Smith's blog
  • History to the Defeated
  • every smith: independent creative consultants
  • Words: Max - a brief bio
  • Sites to see

Leamington Letters #45: Fanatics have their dreams

11/4/2013

18 Comments

 
Picture
As St Thomas Aquinas said, “Beware of a man of a single book”. And as Disraeli said of  a political opponent: “He only had one idea and it was wrong”.

No, I have no intention or desire to add to the millions of words already written about the life and death of Margaret Thatcher; suffice to say, I was totally opposed to her as Prime Minister and her passing makes no difference. I won’t mourn her but neither will I be opening the champagne.

What interests me now is the way in which this aggressively philistine politician came to define an era and impose a political ideology on a country which claimed to eschew the very thought of ideologically-based politics. The 
‘-ism’ named after her owes nothing to her, of course. It comes from the Chicago School of monetarist economists and was filtered through a series of easily understandable sound-bites for her by the likes of Keith Joseph and Alfred Sherman. It was clear at the time that this was a classic case of “a little learning”: she got the gist, but not the science; she got the style but not the substance.

This was the essence of the ideology which is called Thatcherism: a simple and simplistic idea wrapped up in a great deal of (often military) rhetoric.

But this was not the  sole reason for its success. The real appeal for those who voted in 1979 was its negativity. Monetarism was against the Keynsian consensus. It was opposed to a welfare state, opposed to a voice for working people, opposed to the concept of society itself.

Such positions would have been impossible had the Joseph/Sherman/Thatcher triumvirate read novels, or visited the theatre, or listened to music. But they didn’t. The remorseless syllogistic logic of monetarism had no mitigating influence, no empathy or sympathy for the victims of their policies, for those outside the circle.

Hence the proposal for a “managed run-down” of Merseyside. Hence the refusal to accept that the fans were not responsible for the tragic events at Hillsborough: they brought it upon themselves. Hence the cuts in arts funding, the milk-snatching, the bloody parade of appalling triumphalism which came after the Falklands and hundreds of other examples.

I doubt whether any of those involved in the 80s had read Keats. If they had, they might have paused at the opening of the Fall of Hyperion:

Fanatics have their dreams, wherewith they weave
A paradise for a sect.

These fanatics destroyed a country, tried to destroy a class, but succeeded in creating a temporary paradise for their sect. “Is he one of us?” is a tacit admission of the existence of a sect; “Not for turning” is a proud boast that the single-minded pursuit of their kind of paradise was the plan.

I doubt, too, whether any of them had read  much Bertrand Russell, to whom I have returned briefly after my foray into Wittgenstein’s Proposition 7. He was, he said, “fanatically opposed to fanaticism”.

That sounds, in a word which will be alien to the proponents of Thatcherism, reasonable.

Today’s listening: Vaughan William's London Symphony. A favourite of Jill, but not sufficiently well-established in my playlist. May reconsider.

18 Comments
Charlotte Ford
11/4/2013 07:08:29

Am pleased that you did write, thank-you ;the quotes from Keats and Bertrand Russell are perfect and your writing nails it . Hoping you now enjoy the Vaughan William's London Symphony, its a big favourite of Kens too. x

Reply
Max
11/4/2013 10:37:18

Charlotte, thanks. Saw your FB post re your friend. His loss I suspect. But demonstrates how divisive was that regime. The Vaughan Williams? Will listen again this evening.

Reply
Carl
11/4/2013 10:15:26

Back to your normal prolixity, but absolutely right. It's ignorance and greed. Unpure and simplistic.

Reply
Steve
12/4/2013 03:11:43

the rhetoric was more militaristic than military: the 'battle' against the unions, the 'enemy within', 'fight and fight to win'. Scary. Reflects the attitude of mind which you point to. No tears in my household.

Reply
Max
16/4/2013 03:31:01

The correction is right. Militaristic, triumphalist, banal.

Reply
Don
12/4/2013 04:02:04

I think it's probably true that Thatcher responded to her academic mentors and their stuff with a kind of gut reaction, and I doubt that she had any real understanding of monetarism beyond the housekeeping analogy of which she was so fond. Reagan was the other of course. You've mentioned that awful experiment in Pinochet Chile before: that was Friedman in tooth and claw. The miners' strike was different only in degree. I think Osborne wants to go the same way, and if we are not careful, he may get his way.

Reply
Max
16/4/2013 03:34:42

I agree that the current lot are returning to those policies, not that Blair et al ever really changed course. I am concerned that this present Gadarene rush to praise her will create a climate in which Osborne, who was losing the argument, will take on a new conviction.

Reply
Margie
12/4/2013 04:45:12

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The politics of it all is revolting; the ignorance behind it is intolerable...But people buy into this, don't they?

Reply
Max
16/4/2013 03:36:40

Margie, great to hear from you. They do buy into it, yes. A poll this morning says that the Tories would walk an election with her as leader. (But not, thankfully, with Cameron.) See you this summer ...

Reply
Rick Hough
12/4/2013 22:54:18

A great and clarifying read, as usual. Thanks for that.

"A properly squeezed fanatic will yield-up the worthless vinegar of fundamentalism." - J Rashly

Reply
Max
16/4/2013 03:38:54

Cheers Rick. Your line is particularly appropriate after yesterday afternoon's appalling events. Our love and thoughts are with all Bostonians. x

Reply
CJ
13/4/2013 02:16:53

Have duly considered an alternative to Vaughan Williams. But it now appears that the appropriate listening is 'Ding Dong, the witch is dead'. But just 5 seconds of it, ok? No completism by order.

Reply
myers
16/4/2013 02:40:25

I detested the woman, the collapse of communities, her stance on the RSA and support for Pinoche etc but I still bought my council house!

Reply
myers
16/4/2013 02:44:41

Seeing your reply today Rick - my thoughts are with our beloved Boston - Go safe Go Sox!

Reply
Max
16/4/2013 03:40:57

Absolutely.

Reply
kevin
22/4/2013 05:53:18

Fantastic...just managed to comment in the form of the two ronnies sketch - answering the question that was posed two questions before.

So if you go to that remain silent guff, you will see I have accidentally very cleverly intermingled two blogs by Max into one!

Please send blue peter badge or crackerjack pencil to 2502 Jin Lin Din Ti, Shanghai.

Reply
Sean
1/5/2013 07:30:26

A far more considered and erudite response than I could muster. I will refrain from comment for fear of offence. There are no words strong enough.

Reply
Max
2/5/2013 01:07:02

Sean! Such reticence. How long have you been trying to avoid giving offence? Xxx

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

     Max Smith

    European writer, radical, restaurateur and Red Sox fan. 70-something husband, father, step-father. and grandfather. Resident in Warwick, England.

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

    RSS Feed

    Categories

    All
    Art
    Baseball
    Books
    Film
    Food + Drink
    French Letters
    Leamington Letters
    Media
    Music
    People
    Personal
    Politics
    Sport