Given my Email Doodlings to the NRCC, I thought that this quote from The American Spectator from her book Downing Street Years was timely (emphasis mine):
There was, of course, a more profound and general divide between us. For all his virtues, Jim Prior was an example of a political type that had dominated and, in my view, damaged the post-war Tory Party. I call such figures the “false squire.” They have all the outward show of a John Bull — ruddy face, white hair, bluff manner — but inwardly they are political calculators who see the task of Conservatives as one of retreating gracefully before the Left’s inevitable advance. Retreat as a tactic is sometimes necessary; retreat as a settled policy eats at the soul. In order to justify the series of defeats that his philosophy entails, the false squire has to persuade rank-and-file Conservatives and indeed himself that advance is impossible. His whole political life would, after all, be a gigantic mistake if a policy of positive Tory reform turned out to be both practical and popular. Hence the passionate and obstinate resistance mounted by the “wets” to the (Thatcher) fiscal, economic and trade union reforms of the early 1980’s. These reforms had either to fail or be stopped. For if they succeeded, a whole generation of Tory leaders had despaired unnecessarily. …..I had to stake out a more determined approach.
– Dame Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister
I believe that for all of the bluster from the Republicans in DC right now, many of the Leadership may well have been called false squires with a twist – oh, we’ll do X, but when the vital time comes to make a stand a la The 300, the “300” turn into Monty Python “Run Away!”‘ knaves.
I urge you to go and read the entire article; it is longish but well worth your time.
