Margaret Thatcher dies at 87

[Brittain33]

On this side of the pond, I'm sure we'll predictably have Republicans waxing poetic about some heartland conservative version of Thatcher that never existed in reality. I remember a conservative friend once talking about how he admired her for returning Britain to "Christian values" and not knowing what he was talking about.

I think we're going to have a lot of U.S. conservatives shocked by the mixed reaction in the U.K.

[Brittain33]

If you can't say something nice, as the old saying goes, don't say nowt.

What do you think the Lady would have said about that rule in her lifetime? Was that her style, you think?

I'm not going to engage in any of this (as an American, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other) but I'm disappointed by conservatives who valorize Thatcher's boldness and strength in the face of dissent by mewling about people speaking ill of her after her death. Where is the resolute courage? 

[Brittain33]

I don't think it's bold, strong or a sign of resolute courage to celebrate someone's death.

Baroness Thatcher would never have sunk to acknowledging, much less complaining about, the words of faceless enemies, whether or not they were objectionable.

It is not bold, strong, or a sign of resolute courage to whine that people are not being deferential and nice to your hero.

This is not a game. Thatcher was successful because she had no qualms about making enemies among a large share of the UK population, and crushing her opponents. You all valorize her because you admire what she did and how she did it. The full package means acknowledging that the people she warred with in life, and described as "the enemy within," do not owe her supporters false compassion, in particular not those who weren't even living in the UK at the time and have no ties to the country.

[Brittain33]

I've started a separate thread on the U.S. board in recognition that this isn't the appropriate place for American conservatives and liberals to debate her legacy in light of our own politics.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=171763.0

[Brittain33]

Vosem, I'm guessing you're not familiar with the London County Council or its successor.

[Brittain33]

I'm not; a quick Wikipedia glance informs me that it was disbanded in 1965. Please do tell me more.

Al spoke about this a little further up. When Thatcher became PM, the large urban areas had their own regional governments, such as the Greater London Council, that emerged as a rival power to the central government and provided a platform for Labour leaders. So Thatcher pushed through their dissolution, handing over power to much smaller local authorities that didn't pose a threat to Conservative authority at the center. It's hard to make strict comparisons to the U.S. because the U.K. doesn't have a federal system, but imagine if a Democratic President abolished the state of Georgia and had its powers handed down to DeKalb County, Fulton County, plus the various Republican counties, all of them small enough to avoid making trouble.

[Brittain33]

Republicans announced they were going to institute voter ID that excluded students, non-drivers, etc before an election to reduce Dem turnout, it still makes it undemocratic when they do if.

[Brittain33]

Is there a mine for superfluous outrage?

I really doubt anyone on this forum takes the Socialist Worker magazine...

[Brittain33]

I don't get why some people here are saying she was pro-apartheid.  Yes, she thought sanctions against South Africa would not have the desired effect or even be counter-productive, but that is not the same as being pro-apartheid.  I wonder if any the people demonizing her on that point are intellectually honest enough to be pro-sanctions on Cuba.  After all, if sanctioning repressive regimes is the only good thing to do, Cuba should be subject to heavy sanctions.

Calling Mandela a terrorist implies she wasn't completely on board with the anti-apartheid agenda and was only concerned about efficacy.

[Brittain33]

I don't get why some people here are saying she was pro-apartheid.  Yes, she thought sanctions against South Africa would not have the desired effect or even be counter-productive, but that is not the same as being pro-apartheid.  I wonder if any the people demonizing her on that point are intellectually honest enough to be pro-sanctions on Cuba.  After all, if sanctioning repressive regimes is the only good thing to do, Cuba should be subject to heavy sanctions.

Calling Mandela a terrorist implies she wasn't completely on board with the anti-apartheid agenda and was only concerned about efficacy.

It's simply because Mandela didn't renounce to armed struggle till the late 80s.

If you can find a record of Thatcher calling the mujahadeen (?) or Sandinistas "terrorists" because they were engaged in armed struggle in the 1980s, I will have door prizes for you.

Thatcher considered the fight against Communism a fight for freedom, but the fight against apartheid was judged very differently. History doesn't look kindly on the latter judgment, and at the time, it's not as if people didn't know how terrible apartheid was for the large majority of South Africa's people. I'm not saying this alone makes her a HP but it puts this particular part of her biography in perspective.