In practice, it is perfectly possible to be coherent without having a theory. The sculptor fashioning his statue out of marble has a coherent aim, and realizes this aim in an object which manifests and embodies that coherence, but he need not be, and generally is not, guided by any theory. So, too, a politician working to fashion concrete results out of concrete circumstances may have, and manifest in his achievements, a coherent aim without ever being guided by theory.I tend to get hostile when I am told that "conservatism is the absence of ideology," but this quote helps me refute that fallacy with near-British calm.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Bookbag: The Anatomy of Thatcherism by Shirley Robin Letwin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If I may disagree in a useful way, I submit that you may be drawing a distinction between an explicit, conscious theoretical framework and an implicit, subconscious thing, call it "style".
For example, the Stockdale Leadership Model posits that a leader is a moralist, jurist, philosopher, steward and teacher.
The "Duh" model posits that a leader is anyone with followers.
Are these too brief to count as theories?
I don't care why she did it. A Pacific Ocean of North Sea Oil couldn't drown the fact she ruined this country.
Incidentally, my essay for this week is:
"'A radical who believed herself to be conservative because of a misreading of British political history' Discuss this view of Margaret Thatcher."
At the moment my answer runs: "Bang on, although there was a brief flirtation with Hayek circa 1945." but that's 2488 words too short.
@James:
Thatcher ruined Britain?
The argument is concise, at least. Yet if she was in power, a Dutch MP would have probably gained admission to the country.
Post a Comment