Margaret Thatcher, 1925-2013

You’re probably already aware that Lady Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of Great Britain, passed away today at the age of 87.

I think most American conservatives would be surprised to learn how hated this woman remains in her own country. On the basis of my own sampling of English culture, Mrs. Thatcher is commonly portrayed as a human ogress who closed factories, destroyed jobs, and snatched bread from the mouths of the hungry out of sheer hatred for the poor and their noble Socialist protectors.

This, for me, is the lesson of her life – if you do right in our time, do not expect any thanks. If you get away with a mere public shaming, you’ll be lucky. These things call for the endurance of the saints.

Death, it seems, is all around. On Saturday I attended my boss’s funeral. It was, I think, the largest I ever attended. He was a man much loved by many, many people.

Sometimes I think God is taking the best of us out of the world now, so they won’t have to see the evil that is to come.

0 thoughts on “Margaret Thatcher, 1925-2013”

  1. I grew up with a father who was a small businessman running a family company with around a dozen employees. Even though he paid wages higher than the unions did, the unions harassed and vandalized the small family firm because it was not a union shop. My father wouldn’t talk much about politics with me while I was growing up, but he once told me (when I was around 11/12) that he could not support either major party because one party would support union power, while the other supported corporate power, and the two parties would only give lip service to the family firms and the family farms. He felt betrayed by both parties. Thatcher’s was a grocer’s daughter who was not part of the trade union culture or the social and political power class of British society. She was treated and regarded as a female political trophy piece by both the Tory and Labor parties. Her life and convictions embarrassed both groups/parties who are still in self-denial over their revealed hypocrisy.

  2. I lived in England for a time while Thatcher was PM. I thought she was an amazing lady who stared down the labor unions (especially the miners) who so monopolized the country at the time. She fought through the Falklands War with grit and determination. Yet, it amazed me, attending an evangelical CofE church in Oxford, how much professing Christians disagreed with her and disapproved of her policies. And now, others of the so-tolerant Left in the UK are spitting on her grave. It’s enough to make you weep.

  3. I’m sorry to hear about your boss.

    But Margaret Thatcher: didn’t she say Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, and oppose sanctions against apartheid South Africa?

  4. Yes, she, Reagan and their parties all considered Mandela and his African National Congress as terrorists because they engaged in guerrilla attacks and other legitimately terrorists actions. They were also wary of communist influence in the ANC, so they didn’t want the current South African government overthrown by Soviet communists. Once that appeared to pass by, they soften their stance on Mandela and organization.

    Here are comments in 2006 by Peter Hitchens:

    Was the ANC a terrorist organisation, pure and simple? It is a complicated question. Acts of inexcusable terror were carried out against innocent people in the name of, and by the ANC and its ‘military wing’, ‘Spear of the Nation.’ During the bombing campaign of the 1980s many civilians, black as well as white, were killed. Wimpy Bars were a favourite target. But while I don’t think it true that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’, I do think there are circumstances where the resort to violence can be justified. An obvious example of this is the French Resistance against the National Socialist German occupation, and similar groups elsewhere under Hitler’s rule. There was absolutely no lawful means of protest or reform.

    Terrorism, in my view, is the deliberate choice of violent methods when some other legitimate redress is available. All roads to constitutional change in South Africa had been closed by the early 1960s. On the other hand, it was not a wholly closed society. It had a partly free press, and a small but courageous parliamentary opposition. The courts, when given the chance to uphold the law, often did so. The ANC consciously chose not to follow the successful example of the Indian Congress, of non-violent civil disobedience. Who knows if this would have been more effective? The violent and bloody response of the Apartheid regime to protests, starting at Sharpeville in 1960, made such a policy risky but not impossible.

    Terrorism also usually involves the deliberate murder or intimidation of non-violent political figures who are seen as rivals by the terrorist leaders. Some terrible things were done – such as the ‘necklace’ lynchings of alleged traitors in the townships, publicly endorsed by some leading ANC figures, especially by Winnie Mandela in 1985. But many ANC supporters did not resort to such tactics, and Nelson Mandela himself had been in prison for some years by the time these actions were under way. The ANC of his era did nothing more violent than blowing up electricity pylons.

    So, politics is complicated. I still don’t think Mr. Obama’s opposition of the Egyptian president was smart at all. Egypt is in chaos today, I believe, because the Muslim Brotherhood believes this is their hour to take the country. Did Thatcher and Reagan talk to the Apartheid government to urge them to change their race-based laws? I don’t know. Maybe they couldn’t. Americans are criticized for stepping up to change other countries and for keeping their hands off. We can’t win.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.