This article is from The Wall Street Journal, as we all know a leading
financial newspaper worldwide, but politically an ultraconservative
one; Henry Olsen is a vice president at the American Enterprise
Institute (what a lovely and progressive ... fountain of light).
Published today 18-03-2010
By HENRY OLSEN
The Conservatives had everything going for them heading into the May 6
election: a serious economic crisis, a deeply unpopular prime
minister, and a young, vibrant Tory leader. Despite all this, the
Tories have entered into government with support from a mere 36% of
the electorate.
Since its founding by Benjamin Disraeli in 1832, the Tory Party has,
with one shining exception, rested on the notion of a Britain divided
by class. Upper classes could reconcile themselves to modernity,
Disraeli argued, by prudently responding to modern demands for voting
rights and social leveling. The upper classes thus served as a safety
valve for society, preserving Britain from the revolution and unrest
that was sweeping the Continent. Tory opponents were often cast as
radicals or socialists who were unfit to rule because their
temperaments inclined them to haste, and to more social and material
leveling than was prudent for society to permit.
When Anglicans were a majority of Britons, it was well said that the
Anglican Church was the Tory Party assembled in prayer. Throughout the
20th century, the Tories won overwhelming majorities among elites.
They lost the working classes and fought with Labour over the middle
class.
The economic and social changes wrought by Margaret Thatcher and Tony
Blair cast this system asunder. Mrs. Thatcher was a quintessential
outsider to the Tory tradition—a Methodist in an Anglican party, a
grocer's daughter in a party of men from good families, someone who
represented the most Jewish constituency in Britain. She saw the Tory
Party's mission quite differently than did the Tory grandees. She saw
that Britons were capable of self-government politically and socially,
and she worked to remove the power of the state to guide society. She
understood that Britons yearned not to be subjects in a kingdom, but
citizens in a nation.
The grandees never understood this and cast her aside as soon as
politically expedient. But they could not undo the socio-political
changes she had unleashed. The grandees thought they could regain
popular favor by increasing social spending, but they failed to
understand that while Britons wanted more social insurance than Mrs.
Thatcher preferred, they wanted the freedom from class that she
promised more. When they perceived that the Tory Party had returned to
its intellectual heritage, rejecting Mrs. Thatcher's vision of
citizenship, they started to move away from Conservatives.
Tony Blair saw this and channeled the new citizen-society toward New
Labour. If you were Mrs. Thatcher's children and relished the economic
and class-free self-determination she unleashed, Mr. Blair's vision of
a "Cool Britannia" where you could make money, marry whom you pleased
and live a modern life was very appealing. The young and well-off
voters abandoned the Tories in droves, joining either Blair's party or
the Liberal Democrats, who offered their own variation of the modern
Britain theme. They were joined by the less well-off people who had
flocked from Labour to Mrs. Thatcher, the "Essex men" who were
Britain's version of Reagan Democrats. The Tories were crushed,
dropping to 30% of the vote in 1997 and staying there for two more
elections.
David Cameron saw many of the signs of this movement, but
misinterpreted their cause. He saw that elite and upper-middle-class
voters had left the Tories and favored environmentalism, gay rights
and diversity. He also saw that while they wanted to be rich they were
also socially conscious. He crafted an entire electoral campaign
designed to take away the reasons these voters said they opposed the
Tories. In effect he said, "see we're cool, too. Come home to your
natural home, the prudent party."
His approach confused the notes for the theme. These issues were
merely indicators of what these voters truly wanted: a society of
citizens, not subjects. Tory votes increased little this year in
constituencies dominated by upper-middle-class voters. The
Conservative Party victory ironically was fueled by large swings in
constituencies dominated by the working and lower-middle-class voters
in the north and center of England.
It's early in Mr. Cameron's prime ministership, but if his maiden
speech at Buckingham Palace last week is any indication, he still
doesn't get it. He spoke again of building a "more responsible
society." His focus was on the individual's relation to society, on
what society owes Britons and what Britons owe society. He said, "my
government always looks after the elderly, the frail, the poorest in
our country." There was nothing about individual self-determination,
nothing about how ordinary Britons can make do themselves.
Mr. Cameron is offering voters seeking economic growth and individual
self-determination a vision of society prudently and compassionately
managed for everyone's benefit. This is 19th-century Disraeli
conservatism with a modern face. What's cool about that? The
introduction of a fixed parliamentary term will give Mr. Cameron time
to test his strategy. But it likely won't solve the
Conservatives'problems. And if it doesn't we'll be sadly looking at
Tory Blue, bereft of of life, gone to meet its maker, singing with the
choir invisible. This will be an ex-party.
Mr. Olsen is a vice president at the American Enterprise Institute.
Αναρτήσεις
