Is Thatcherism dead?

Gideon Rachman is the emblematic "good liberal" of my generation. He viewed the world from his office at the Economist since the late 80's and saw the unfolding of the idea of individual freedom---a sort of British, whig ideal of the Victorian era--- and reported its good progress. Since moving to the FT a couple of years ago, that view has been harder to sustain. In December '08, he became a europhilic advocate of world governmen. During the latest Gaza war, he reported the thrill of the return of history in our lives. And today, he almost writes that Thatcherism is dead.  Almost, because he feels that if the Alternative cannot supply an alternative "ism", the last hegemony holds its place.  Although I don't think that is true --- beliefs can be generally seen to have failed before a new model emerges --- he is right that the difference between 1979 and 2009 is that Thatcher used the economic crisis of the winter of discontent to launch a coherent assault on all that was wrong with the late bi-partisan Keynesianism of 1966-1976. But Gideon choses the wrong date for comparison, I think. 2009 is like 1974, not 1979. The failure of modernising Keynesianism was clear then, in its response to the oil shocks. But the inertia of old system  extended its life for another five years. During that time, the ideas of Chicagoism was turned into the politics of Thatcherism.  Expect the same sort of timetable today. Our political systems, entirely captured by the finance industry (read this De Long post, please), will have a final go at making money manager capitalism work. It will fail just as the reflation of '74-5 failed. The game-changing election to prepare for is 2015.