The most useful of idiots
With his mixture of vaulting intellectual ambition and
howling mediocrity of mind, Lenin is the MaGonagal of
philosophers. (Connoisseurs of intellectual incompetence
should browse through Lenin's 'Materialism and
Empririo-Criticism' for an especial treat). Nonetheless,
like Hitler, the man possessed a certain low animal cunning
and a complete absence of moral sense, which qualities
permitted him to make a few acute psychological and
sociological observations. Amongst these is the concept of
the useful idiot.
For Lenin this was the role to be played primarily by
simpleminded bourgeois dupes who unwittingly aided the
movement towards the proletarian revolution, a revolution
utterly antipathetic to the ideals and aspiration of the
simpleminded bourgeois dupes. But the concept is of general
political utility. The useful idiot is any person who acts
in a way which unwittingly promotes political interests
which are opposed to his own political ideals.
The best of all useful idiots are those in positions of the
greatest political advantage, both because they have power
and because such people are frequently deluded by their egos
into believing that they are utterly beyond manipulation or
mistaken in their policies. In particular, they are incapable
of understanding the probable consequences of their actions.
It was this combination of circumstances and mentality which
made Margaret Thatcher so potent a useful idiot in the
liberal internationalist cause.
As I wrote that last sentence, I saw rising up before me the
opposing hordes of her admirers and haters, singularly
united in a ghastly embrace of disbelief. Was she not the
Iron Lady, the Hammer of the Left, the destroyer of union
power, the slayer of the socialist dragon? Did she not speak
of turning back the tide of immigrants? Was she not the rock
from which the European Leviathan rebounded? Did she not
ensure that Britain was respected in the world as she had not
been since Suez? Was she not a mover and shaker in the
nationalist cause?
In her own rhetorical world Mrs T was all of these things,
a veritable Gloriana who enchanted some and banally persuaded
many more, but in practical achievement she was none of
them. This discrepancy between fact and fancy made her an
extraordinarily potent tool for the soldiers of the
ascendent ideology of the post-war period, the sordid bigotry
that is liberal internationalism.
The hard truth is that she allowed the primary British
political corruptions of the post war period - immigration,
multiculturalism, "progressive" education, the social work
circus, internationalism, the attachment to Europe - to not
merely continue but grow vastly in scope during her period in
power.
A harsh judgement? Well, at the end of her premiership what
did Britain have to show for her vaunted patriotism, her wish
to maintain Britain's independence, her desire to drive back
the state, her promise to end mass immigration? Precious
little is the answer.
Her enthusiastic promotion of the Single European Act, which
she ruthlessly drove through Parliament, allowed the
Eurofederalists to greatly advance their cause under the
guise of acting to produce a single market; her "triumph" in
reducing our subsidy to Europe left us paying several billion
a year to our European competitors whilst France paid next to
nothing; our fishermen were sold down the river; farmers
placed in the absurd position of not being allowed to produce
even enough milk for British requirements; actual (as opposed
to official) immigration increased; that monument to liberal
bigotry, the Race Relations Act was untouched, the
educational vandals were not only allowed to sabotage every
serious attempt to overturn the progressive disaster, but
were granted a great triumph in the ending of 'O' levels, a
liberal bigot success amplified by the contemptible bleating
of successive education secretaries that "rising examination
success means rising standards"; foreign aid continued to be
paid as an unforced Dangled; major and strategically
important industries either ceased to be serious competitors
or ended in foreign hands; the armed forces were cut
suicidally; the cost of the Welfare State and local
government rose massively whilst the service provided both
declined and Ulster was sold down the river with the Anglo
Irish Agreement. Most generally damaging, she promoted
internationalism through her fanatic pursuit of free trade.
At all points Britain was weakened as a nation. Such were
the fruits of more than a decade of Thatcherism.
Even those things which are most emblematic of her -
privatisation, the sale of council houses and the
subjection of the unions - have had effects which are
contrary to those intended. Privatisation merely accelerated
the loss of control which free trade engendered. We may as
customers celebrate the liberation of British Telecom and BA,
but is it such a wonderful thing to have no major car
producer or shipbuilder? The trouble with the privatisation
of major industries, which may be greatly reduced, go out
of business or be taken over by foreign buyers, is that it
ignores strategic and social welfare questions. Ditto free
trade generally. Both assume that the world, or at least the
parts which contain our major trading partners , will remain
peaceful, stable and well disposed towards Britain for ever,
an absurd assumption.
Margaret Thatcher also engaged in behaviour which led to a
corruption of public life which undermined and continues to
undermine her intended ends. Politicians should always think
of what precedent they are setting when they act for bad
precedents will be invariably seized upon by later
governments. Margaret Thatcher consistently failed to
address this concern. Take her attitude to privatisation and
the unions. In the former case she displayed a contempt for
ownership: in the latter she engaged in authoritarian actions
which were simply inappropriate to a democracy. Such legally
and politically cavalier behaviour has undoubtedly
influenced Blair and New Labour, vide the contempt with which
parliament is now treated, constitutional change wrought and
incessant restrictions on liberty enacted.
There is a profound ethical question connected to
privatisation which was never properly answered by Tories:
what right does the state have to dispose by sale of assets
which are held in trust on behalf of the general public and
whose existence has been in large part guaranteed by
taxpayer's money? This is a question which should be as
readily asked by a conservative as by a socialist for it
touches upon a central point of democratic political
morality, the custodianship of public property. The same ends
- the diminution of the state and the freeing of the public
from seemingly perpetual losses - could have been achieved by
an equitable distribution of shares free of charge to the
general public. This would have had, from a Thatcherite
standpoint, the additional benefit of greatly increasing
share ownership. By selling that which the government did not
meaningfully own, she engaged in behaviour which if it had
been engaged in by any private individual or company would
have been described as fraud or theft.
The breaking of union power was overdone. As someone who is
old enough to remember the Wilson, Heath and Callaghan years,
I have no illusion of exactly how awful the unions were when
they had real power. But her means of breaking their abusive
ways, particularly during the miners' strike, were simply
inappropriate in a supposed democracy. Passing laws
restricting picketing and making unions liable for material
losses suffered when they broke the rules were one thing: the
using of the police in an unambiguously authoritarian manner
in circumstances of dubious legality such as the blanket
prevention of free movement of miners, quite another.
The Falklands War displays another side of her weakness in
matching actions to rhetoric. Admirable as the military
action was, the terrible truth is that the war need never
have been fought if the government had taken their
intelligence reports seriously and retained a naval presence
in the area. The lesson went unlearnt, for within a few years
of the recovery of the Falklands, her government massively
reduced defence expenditure.
But what of her clients, the Liberal Ascendency? Would they
not be dismayed by much of what she did? Well, by the time
Margaret Thatcher came to power liberals had really lost
whatever interest they had ever had in state ownership or the
genuine improvement of the worker's lot. What they really
cared about was promoting their internationalist vision and
doctrine of spurious natural rights. They had new clients;
the vast numbers of coloured immigrants and their children,
women, homosexuals, the disabled, In short, all those who
were dysfunctional, or could be made to feel dysfunctional,
in terms of British society. They had new areas of power and
distinction, social work, education, the civil service ,the
mass media to which they added, after securing the
ideological high ground, the ancient delights of politics.
Although the liberal left distrusted and hated Margaret
Thatcher (and did not understand at the time how effective
her commitment to free trade was in promoting
internationalism), they nonetheless had the belief throughout
her time in office that Britain's involvement in the EU and
the Liberal Ascendency's control of education, the media, the
civil service and bodies such as the Commission for Racial
Equality would thwart those of her plans which were most
dangerous and obnoxious to the liberal.
Margaret Thatcher greatly added to this wall of opposition
by her choice of ministers. Think of her major cabinet
appointments. She ensured that the Foreign Office remained in
the hands of men (Howe and Hurd) who were both ardent
Europhiles and willing tools of the FO culture, the
Chancellorship was entrusted to first Howe and then Lawson
who was also firmly committed to Europe. The Home Office sat
in the laps of the social liberals Whitelaw, Hurd and Baker,
Education was given to Baker and Clarke. Those appointments
alone ensured that little would be done to attack the things
which liberals held sacred, for they were men who broadly
shared the liberal values and who were opposed to
Thatcherite policies other than those on the economy, which
of course was the one Thatcherite policy guaranteed to
assist liberal internationalism. By the end, she was so weak
that she was unable to prevent the effective sacking of a
favourite cabinet minister, Nicholas Ridley, by the German
Chancellor.
The constant cry of Margaret Thatcher since she left office
is that she did not understand the consequences of her acts.
Of course she does not put it in that way, but that is what
it amounts to. She blames Brussels and the Foreign Office for
the unwelcome consequences of the Single European Act. She
readily admits that this minister or that in her government
proved unreliable or treacherous, but does not conclude that
her judgement in choosing them was at fault. She blames the
Foreign Office for the Falklands War. But nowhere does she
acknowledge her fault.
In her heart of hearts, does the longest serving and most
ideological prime minister in modern British history now
comprehend, however imperfectly, that she was a prime mover
in the Liberal Internationalist cause? I doubt it, because
self deception is at the heart of what makes a useful idiot.
return to top