Please, sir, may we have some more?

Some more Ronald Reagan, maybe?

It would be nice to find SOMEBODY right now who could articulate Republican principles as clearly as Ronaldus Magnus.

His counterpart across the pond was pretty good at making the case, too.  Hillsdale College's president, Larry Arnn, spoke about Mrs. Thatcher earlier this year:

...I happened to live in England when Mrs. Thatcher’s party won the 1979 election and she became prime minister— the first woman to do so. It was better than watching sports on television. There was nothing like it. Every day she would do something big, and every day she would not apologize for it, even when reporters would press her. You just never saw anyone so direct or clear of speech...
 

... I’ve thought about this most of my adult life, and much of what I think about it is informed by having watched Mrs. Thatcher. We live in an age when a new kind of government has been invented, and it’s not so much that it has different aims, although it does have many different aims, but that it proceeds by a different method—through rules made by so-called experts, who gather the forces of government over themselves...

...And the weight and scale of the government run by this new method means that there’s some chance that the government is going to overwhelm the society. That is the very abnegation of liberal politics—liberal in the sense of a free people managing those who govern them because human beings are born equal, with equal rights.

The greatest defender and servant of this principle of liberal government that I have seen in my lifetime is Margaret Thatcher, and I pray that we will see the likes of her again, because the battle over this kind of government is upon us again...
Read the whole thing (scroll down to read Arnn's remarks, although Ted Cruz's commencement address is worth reading, too).
 
Here are some Thatcherisms that can be found in Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage by Nicholas Wapshott (available in the Finger Lakes Library System and the Chemung County Library District):
 
“If a Tory does not believe that private property is one of the main bulwarks of individual freedom, then he had better become a socialist and have done with it.”
 
“Indeed, one of the reasons for our electoral failure is that people believe too many Conservatives have become socialists already….”
 
“If every Labour Government is prepared to reverse every Tory measure, while Conservative Governments accept nearly all socialist measures as being the ‘will of the people,’ the end result is only too plain.  Any why should anyone support a party that seems to have the courage of no convictions?  We lost because we did not appear to stand firmly for anything distinctive and positive."
 
“Most of [the voters] want to do a fair day’s work in a job that gives them satisfaction --- and strongly resent what they regard as state subsidies to shirkers.”
 
“My kind of Tory party would make no secret of its belief in individual freedom and individual prosperity, in the maintenance of law and order, in the wide distribution of private property ….”
 
[I stand for] “compassion and concern for the individual and his freedom; opposition to excessive state power; the right of the enterprising; the hard-working and the thrifty to succeed and to reap the rewards of success and to pass some of them on to their children; encouragement of the infinite diversity of choice that is an essential freedom; the defense of widely distributed private property against the socialist state; the right of a man to work without oppression by either employer or trade union boss.”
 
If someone of the stature of a Reagan or a Thatcher arose and began articulating our principles clearly and without apology, would the fishwrap of record—or even the WSJ—bother to cover the story?
 
Stay tuned.
 
And perhaps, like Hilsdale's Larry Arnn, pray.
 
h/t's Henry & Tom