Many of the great 18th century political/economic philosophers thought socialism was the ineluctable result of a capitalist system that ran its course.  They harbored a Utopian view that as a society evolved and became more wealthy, it would naturally become more altruistic—ultimately manifesting itself in the form of socialism.  European thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham, Jon Stuart Mill, and Jean Jacques Rousseau espoused reforms that leaned toward the egalitarian.  They nobly believed in "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."

While the United States embarked on its grand experiment—capitalism—influenced by the thinking and writing of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and others; Europe gradually drifted more and more toward collectivism, the political philosophy that prioritizes group over individual goals.

Interestingly, in recent years, Europe and the United States appear to be reversing course.  While Europe has made a decide turn away from collectivism/socialism, recognizing, to some extent, that the welfare states they created were in danger of imploding; the United States appears to be edging toward collectivism.

Even though history is illustrative of the stifling impact of such a system, its appeal is nonetheless quite hypnotic.  What right-thinking person is not for the greater good?  Who isn't for improving the lot of the less fortunate?  Most believe that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  It all sounds terrific on paper.  Lamentably, it hasn't fared as well in practice.  Capitalism, for all its shortcomings, still appears to be our best bet for social justice, while still respecting individual freedoms and personal liberty.  To paraphrase Churchill's quote about democracy, capitalism is the worst system with the exception of all others that have been tried.

In the face of the current economic crisis, will the United States step over the fine line that separates independence and dependence?  Will we become a nanny state where government is master, rather than servant, or will we find a way to reinvigorate our independent, innovative spirit?

The United Kingdom found itself in such a circumstance in the mid/late 1970's.  Actually, it had long prior stepped over the line?  The question was, would it slide further into economic ruin and international irrelevance, or would it find a way to pick itself up and reverse decades of decay?

Enter Margaret Thatcher.

I just read a marvelous biography of Thatcher by Claire Berlinski (www.berlinski.com), titled, "There is No Alternative."  Those of you who know me understand that I read historical biographies almost exclusively.  If you are daunted by the tedium of most such works, understand that this book is cut from a different cloth.  It is anything but the typically formulaic, chronological presentation of a historical figure's life.  Instead, it is focused sharply on why Margaret Thatcher matters.  I found it much more compelling than the two other books I've read on Thatcher.

The central theme is Thatcher's repugnance for socialism and how, largely through the force of her will and actions, she was able to reverse the fortunes of a country (and ultimately a continent) that looked to be irretrievably mired in a malaise of socialistic policy.  The country had gone from world superpower to European second tier state in a few short decades. 

According to Berlinski's account, Thatcher believed that socialism is not simply misguided, but associated with "wickedness and decay."  It "impoverished and polluted British society."  She just didn't think that socialism was an inefficient system, she was convinced that it was "corrupt, immoral, disgusting..."  Thatcher argued that free markets "forced individuals to take responsibility for the outcomes of their actions."  She thought that "a moral being is one who exercises his own judgment in choice, on matters great and small..."

The free market, as said by Berlinski, "is a simple concept, and the empirical evidence that it provides goods and services more efficiently than a command economy is about as strong as we can hope to have in the social sciences.  Command economies everywhere have resulted in waste, shortages, poverty, and immiseration.  That is why the great command economies of the twentieth century collapsed and the free market is still here."  Eloquently stated.

One must wonder if Thatcher was familiar with the Objectivist works of Ayn Rand?  She certainly seemed to subscribe to the theory that the only social system which fully recognizes individual rights is capitalism.

Hopefully, President Obama will be able to walk the aforementioned fine line.  If not, pray that there is a Thatcher in our future.

Leadership does matter...not that that's news to anybody who paid attention the past eight years.