That's an interesting point of view, and while I agree with you on many of the things you've so eloquently posted on these boards (btw, I'm not a Briton) I couldn't disagree with you more about Margaret Thatcher. This is not the place to go into it, so I'll just say it seems you have accepted the prerogatives of Thatcher's enemies -- which is, I think, terribly misleading and terribly sad. In short, I'll just note that I don't agree she "conned" anyone. She is an exponent of individual liberty and that's good for everybody everywhere. That liberty can be used for many, many things -- self-aggrandizement, greed (whatever that may mean to whomever), philanthropy, advocacy, even the time to read, etc. It is the engine of prosperity and a fact of life to be understood in any analysis of human nature. It can be used for good or ill in the behaviors of individuals acting in their own and their family's/neighbors' best interests or, alternatively (the socialist view), by an elite few acting in THEIR own self-interest but -- in the "name of" everybody else. Profits, which you seem to disdain as Karl Marx did, isn't, as he called it, "surplus value". It is, rather, the reward for risk-taking; the development of things people are freely interested in having; efficiency and, therefore, lowering the costs of acquiring them for more people; and, thus, a general growth in prosperity (more and cheaper goods and services to make a better, longer life for our posterity). Look at the economies of Europe today vs. the United States (until the - let's call it - "anti-Thatcherite" tinkering of the American federal government met with its predictable conclusion at the end of G.W. Bush's second term.)
"Greed" is a highly subjective term and incorrectly applied to a general devotion to, or the exercise of, individual freedom (used for good or ill) as provided by Thatcher, or George Washington, or me, or anyone else who's willing to advocate it and to sacrifice for it. Without that freedom, I'm afraid the example of Thomas More would be doomed to ignominy, and the only example to whom we will be kindly directed is Orwell's "big brother" -- in the person of the director, whom ever he may be.
reply
share
TudorLady
15 years ago
I'm assuming you're an American? (Forgive me if I assume incorrectly) in which case I'm not really surprised you disagree. I'm really not that eloquent but I live here and I know the harm she did.
Jim Callaghan said of her "the further one is from the UK, the more she is admired".
My memories of the Thatcher years are of destruction.
The destruction of British industry, of public services, of public housing, of the concept of society. Destruction of compassion and concern. Destruction of decency in public life.
I think she meant well, empowering those who were willing to help themselves, but the lack of a social conscience will forever be levelled at her door.
Thomas More would have ben appalled by her. He was a man of conscience and social conscience. I'm not particularly well-educated and wasn't too sure of some of the phrases you used but I assure you I'm not of the Communist persuasion.
The King's good servant but God's first
reply
share
cwente2
15 years ago
Thank you for your response. Certainly, I don't take you for a communist. Much to intelligent and, if I may say so, spiritual for that.
I can only say further, I certainly do admire Mrs. Thatcher. And I'm sure such comments as those of Jim Callaghan are not uncommon coming from any number of her political opponents. It's a rough and tumble business and not without, shall we say, some distortion and a great deal of hyperbole. So . . . Great Britain is better off today than it was when Thatcher left office? Not my impression I must say. As to your observations about British industry, are you saying that Euro-socialism has helped it to thrive better than would have Thatcher's free-market preferrences? If so, it's quite unprecedented. And, the destruction of public services/public housing has nothing to do with a decreasing GDP and the accompanying reduction in profits which could have been used for research, expansion, greater tax revenues, and general investment in new ventures in an increasingly socialist environment? And . . . with all respect (and I mean that), how can a temporary bureaucrat, even one so exalted as a Prime Minister, cause an entire population with hundreds of years of history behind it to abandon its "social conscience"? Only the dictatorship of a single party so intrenched in a system of its own making and against the status quo of "the civil society" should be so feared, I think. Naturally, such dictatorship would be Left wing and, thus, NOT devoted to Thatcher's "individual liberty" from which the social conscience, to be truely meaningful, must ultimately spring. After all, the acquisition and perpetuation of power in an elite, along with indiscriminate "change", is the method and policy of the Left. I mean -- they know what is best for everyone.
I truly doubt Mrs. Thatcher has, or COULD have, single-handedly "destroyed"
"compassion", "concern", or "decency" in public life in England unless, of course, it be not in the vessels of the British heart in the first place. God forbid that I could have been so thoroughly deceived for so many years. But, as you surmise, I am an American.
reply
share
TudorLady
15 years ago
Well we must agree to differ. Margaret Thatcher and the memories I have of this country (still trying to recover from her disastrous policies) during her term in office almost succeed in making me forget that I am a Christian. Here in Scotland she is loathed. Never was the North-South divide so wide as when she reigned.
By the way, I vote SNP :)
The King's good servant but God's first
reply
share
cwente2
15 years ago
Fair enough, TudorLady. Pardon me though if I continue in my fantasy that she'd been an American and still occupied the White House.
Best and God bless!
reply
share
TudorLady
15 years ago
Well you did have her best buddy Ronald Reagan. Still I won't go there. We all do what we do for reasons that probably seem right to us at the time. I look back at my life and can't believe some of the decisions I made. It's wrong of me to judge Mrs Thatcher, it's not my place.
God bless you and her.
The King's good servant but God's first
reply
share
cwente2
15 years ago
Yeah -- loved Reagan too! But it's not wrong of you to judge Mrs. Thatcher. We have to make judgements as best we can every day, especially as concerns public policy and politicians. I've read many of your posts and am convinced the decisions you make, political and otherwise, are well thought out and genuine. We can disagree and we can change our minds. Frankly, I wish more people were as unafraid to make judgements (less apathy perhaps) as thoughtfully as you do -- and were as willing to listen politely to the other side. Thanks.
reply
share