R.I.P. Maggie

[GannonFan]

Here's a fairly honest eulogy from Ian McEwan:

"Maggie! Maggie! Maggie! Out! Out! Out!" That chanted demand of the left has been fully and finally met. At countless demonstrations throughout the 80s, it expressed a curious ambivalence – a first name intimacy as well as a furious rejection of all she stood for. "Maggie Thatcher" – two fierce trochees set against the gentler iambic pulse of Britain's postwar welfare state. For those of us who were dismayed by her brisk distaste for that cosy state-dominated world, it was never enough to dislike her. We liked disliking her. She forced us to decide what was truly important.

In retrospect, in much dissenting commentary there was often a taint of unexamined sexism. Feminists disowned her by insisting that though she was a woman, she was not a sister. But what bound all opposition to Margaret Thatcher's programme was a suspicion that the grocer's daughter was intent on monetising human value, that she had no heart and, famously, cared little for the impulses that bind individuals into a society.

But if today's Guardian readers time-travelled to the late 70s they might be irritated to discover that tomorrow's TV listings were a state secret not shared with daily newspapers. A special licence was granted exclusively to the Radio Times. (No wonder it sold 7m copies a week). It was illegal to put an extension lead on your phone. You would need to wait six weeks for an engineer. There was only one state-approved answering machine available. Your local electricity "board" could be a very unfriendly place. Thatcher swept away those state monopolies in the new coinage of "privatisation" and transformed daily life in a way we now take for granted.

We have paid for that transformation with a world that is harder-edged, more competitive, and certainly more intently aware of the lure of cash. We might now be taking stock, post credit crunch, of our losses and gains since the 1986 deregulation of the City, but it is doubtful that we will ever undo her legacy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... ian-mcewan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good find Kalm, and a good eulogy. Kinda paints Thatcher the way she should be - she did what she had to in order to break, to use the author's words, "cozy state-dominated world" that was almost more Orwellian than even he would propose, and the real question isn't whether she should've moved Britain away from that existence but instead did she go too far. That's a fair question today in Britain as well as here.

[kalm]

Good find Kalm, and a good eulogy. Kinda paints Thatcher the way she should be - she did what she had to in order to break, to use the author's words, "cozy state-dominated world" that was almost more Orwellian than even he would propose, and the real question isn't whether she should've moved Britain away from that existence but instead did she go too far. That's a fair question today in Britain as well as here.

Thanks, and great points yourself.

Here's another interesting eulogy from Russell Brand:

It always struck me as peculiar, too, when the Spice Girls briefly championed Thatcher as an early example of girl power. I don't see that. She is an anomaly; a product of the freak-onomy of her time. Barack Obama, interestingly, said in his statement that she had "broken the glass ceiling for other women". Only in the sense that all the women beneath her were blinded by falling shards. She is an icon of individualism, not of feminism.

I have few recollections of Thatcher after the slowly chauffeured, weepy Downing Street cortege. I'd become a delinquent, living on heroin and benefit fraud.

There were sporadic resurrections. She would appear in public to drape a hankie over a model BA plane tailfin because she disliked the unpatriotic logo with which they'd replaced the union flag (maybe don't privatise BA then), or to shuffle about some country pile arm in arm with a doddery Pinochet and tell us all what a fine fellow he was. It always irks when rightwing folk demonstrate in a familial or exclusive setting the values that they deny in a broader social context. They're happy to share big windfall bonuses with their cronies, they'll stick up for deposed dictator chums when they're down on their luck, they'll find opportunities in business for people they care about. I hope I'm not being reductive but it seems Thatcher's time in power was solely spent diminishing the resources of those who had least for the advancement of those who had most. I know from my own indulgence in selfish behaviour that it's much easier to get what you want if you remove from consideration the effect your actions will have on others.

Is that what made her so formidable, her ability to ignore the suffering of others? Given the nature of her legacy "survival of the fittest" – a phrase that Darwin himself only used twice in On the Origin of Species, compared to hundreds of references to altruism, love and cooperation, it isn't surprising that there are parties tonight in Liverpool, Glasgow and Brixton – from where are they to have learned compassion and forgiveness?

The blunt, pathetic reality today is that a little old lady has died, who in the winter of her life had to water roses alone under police supervision. If you behave like there's no such thing as society, in the end there isn't. Her death must be sad for the handful of people she was nice to and the rich people who got richer under her stewardship. It isn't sad for anyone else. There are pangs of nostalgia, yes, because for me she's all tied up with Hi-De-Hi and Speak and Spell and Blockbusters and "follow the bear". What is more troubling is my inability to ascertain where my own selfishness ends and her neo-liberal inculcation begins. All of us that grew up under Thatcher were taught that it is good to be selfish, that other people's pain is not your problem, that pain is in fact a weakness and suffering is deserved and shameful. Perhaps there is resentment because the clemency and respect that are being mawkishly displayed now by some and haughtily demanded of the rest of us at the impending, solemn ceremonial funeral, are values that her government and policies sought to annihilate.

I can't articulate with the skill of either of "the Marks" – Steel or Thomas – why Thatcher and Thatcherism were so bad for Britain but I do recall that even to a child her demeanour and every discernible action seemed to be to the detriment of our national spirit and identity. Her refusal to stand against apartheid, her civil war against the unions, her aggression towards our neighbours in Ireland and a taxation system that was devised in the dark ages, the bombing of a retreating ship – it's just not British.

I do not yet know what effect Margaret Thatcher has had on me as an individual or on the character of our country as we continue to evolve. As a child she unnerved me but we are not children now and we are free to choose our own ethical codes and leaders that reflect them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... t-thatcher" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's sometimes difficult to toe the line between ass-kicking and competitive rugged individualism and compassion.

[Pwns]

Interesting how the Brits see themselves as being so culturally superior to the United States, yet I don't think you will see huge crowds cavorting in the streets, throwing things at police, and acting like savages when any former US president dies. I bet those idiots think they'd be better off today if the Brits had just joined the Soviet Union back in the 80s.

[kalm]

Interesting how the Brits see themselves as being so culturally superior to the United States, yet I don't think you will see huge crowds cavorting in the streets, throwing things at police, and acting like savages when any former US president dies. I bet those idiots think they'd be better off today if the Brits had just joined the Soviet Union back in the 80s.

The upper class see themselves as superior. The commoners are just like our rednecks but lean left, don't own guns, are superior at rioting, have better taste in music, and are more politically informed. Thus Reagan's death wasn't celebrated.

[UNI88]

Interesting how the Brits see themselves as being so culturally superior to the United States, yet I don't think you will see huge crowds cavorting in the streets, throwing things at police, and acting like savages when any former US president dies. I bet those idiots think they'd be better off today if the Brits had just joined the Soviet Union back in the 80s.

The upper class see themselves as superior. The commoners are just like our rednecks but lean left, don't own guns, are superior at rioting, have better taste in music, and are more politically informed. Thus Reagan's death wasn't celebrated.

So you're saying that the soccer hooligans became political protesters and that we'll have the same kind of riots/celebrations when Obama kicks the bucket in 30 years?

[HI54UNI]

I like how these articles all cite the "attack on the retreating ship" during the Falklands war. Even the Argentine captain of the ship admits it wasn't retreating.

[Bronco]

Probably giving Reagan a hand job already.

I like that while progressives are worm food


Conservatives get to have sex for eternity

[Bronco]

I know many hate and now celebrate her death for helping to take down the great workers utopia...the Soviet Union

Here's Ms Blythe who has organized many protests of Mrs Thatcher and celebrates her passing like many on this site

Woman behind street parties to 'celebrate' death of Margaret Thatcher
UK Telegraph ^ | April 10th, 2013 | Telegraph reporters

Romany Blythe, 45, created a group on Facebook called The Witch is Dead followed by more than 5,000 people, calling for “demonstrations of disapproval” across the country. A number of places on the list were locations of riots and demonstrations that took place across the country on Monday, including Bristol city centre and George Square in Glasgow.

Blythe is a drama teacher with a workshop company that visits secondary schools. She specialises in “facilitating workshops for young, excluded and potentially criminalised individuals and uses drama techniques she has developed to explore resolution of conflict and oppression,” according to the company's website.

Writing on her own Facebook page she wrote on Monday: “So the old bag has copped it finally!! Party in the square tomorrow then!” She then claimed she had invited more than 5,300 people to a 'flash party' to mark Baroness Thatcher's passing, with the message: "Anyone else like to join us?"

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...

[CID1990]

I like how these articles all cite the "attack on the retreating ship" during the Falklands war. Even the Argentine captain of the ship admits it wasn't retreating.

The Argentinians weren't smart enough to retreat.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[Pwns]

..

You think that women ever lived under Soviet rule in the Eastern bloc? Or any of the dunderheads celebrating in the streets? I doubt it.

[JohnStOnge]

-
Always fun to watch her slap down socialists

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv5t6rC6yvg[/youtube]

I was interested in seeing if anybody posted that. I particularly liked the parts about how leftists would be rather see with the poor being poorer than see the gap between poor and rich grow. I think that's very true. I think that, right now, the majority of "progressives" in the United States would be happier if the poor had less wealth and less income than they do now as long as the wealth and income of the rich would have declined by even more in a proportional sense so that the gap would be smaller.

[JohnStOnge]

If you behave like there's no such thing as society, in the end there isn't. Her death must be sad for the handful of people she was nice to and the rich people who got richer under her stewardship. It isn't sad for anyone else. There are pangs of nostalgia, yes, because for me she's all tied up with Hi-De-Hi and Speak and Spell and Blockbusters and "follow the bear". What is more troubling is my inability to ascertain where my own selfishness ends and her neo-liberal inculcation begins. All of us that grew up under Thatcher were taught that it is good to be selfish, that other people's pain is not your problem, that pain is in fact a weakness and suffering is deserved and shameful. Perhaps there is resentment because the clemency and respect that are being mawkishly displayed now by some and haughtily demanded of the rest of us at the impending, solemn ceremonial funeral, are values that her government and policies sought to annihilate.

What a load of crap. Thatcher didn't behave as though there was no such thing as society. She didn't ascribe to the idea that other peoples' pain is not your problem. So on and so forth. Rejecting socialism is not saying that nobody should care about anybody else.

Twits like the guy who wrote that editorial or whatever is is are in that group that thinks "compassion" is when you support having government make SOMEBODY ELSE take care of people. The fact that someone takes personal responsibility for compassion and charity instead of demanding that government make SOMEBODY ELSE engage in it does not make them cruel or uncaring.

[JohnStOnge]

I found the following quote from Margaret Thatcher in the article at http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/feature ... r-sundays/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

So many people in politics today judge others by how much of other people’s money they can spend. You have some of my opponents getting up and saying:

"I’m all for spending more money on this that or the other".

And I say "Yes. How much of your own money are you prepared to spend on your personal charities?" Virtue is not to be judged by compulsory legislation. A collective conscience is only the sum of individual consciences.

Another point nailed succinctly and magnificently by Madam Maggie.

[tribe_pride]

Away from politics, she was Chancellor of W&M from 1993-2000. She succeeded Chief Justice Burger and preceeded Kissinger, Justice O'Connor, and the current Chancellor Robert Gates.

[CitadelGrad]

Here's a fairly honest eulogy from Ian McEwan:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... ian-mcewan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good find Kalm, and a good eulogy. Kinda paints Thatcher the way she should be - she did what she had to in order to break, to use the author's words, "cozy state-dominated world" that was almost more Orwellian than even he would propose, and the real question isn't whether she should've moved Britain away from that existence but instead did she go too far. That's a fair question today in Britain as well as here.

Um, you do understand that Orwell wasn't a proponent of statism, don't you?

[kalm]

Good find Kalm, and a good eulogy. Kinda paints Thatcher the way she should be - she did what she had to in order to break, to use the author's words, "cozy state-dominated world" that was almost more Orwellian than even he would propose, and the real question isn't whether she should've moved Britain away from that existence but instead did she go too far. That's a fair question today in Britain as well as here.

Um, you do understand that Orwell wasn't a proponent of statism, don't you?

He was also a democratic socialist who's views of Thatcher and entrenched power might have been less than flattering.

[GannonFan]

Good find Kalm, and a good eulogy. Kinda paints Thatcher the way she should be - she did what she had to in order to break, to use the author's words, "cozy state-dominated world" that was almost more Orwellian than even he would propose, and the real question isn't whether she should've moved Britain away from that existence but instead did she go too far. That's a fair question today in Britain as well as here.

Um, you do understand that Orwell wasn't a proponent of statism, don't you?

Uh, yeah, I get that. Not saying that Orwell would've advocated the society Thatcher moved to dissassemble. On the contrary, what she disassembled was very much the kind of system Orwell vast as the villain in his works.

[kalm]

If you behave like there's no such thing as society, in the end there isn't. Her death must be sad for the handful of people she was nice to and the rich people who got richer under her stewardship. It isn't sad for anyone else. There are pangs of nostalgia, yes, because for me she's all tied up with Hi-De-Hi and Speak and Spell and Blockbusters and "follow the bear". What is more troubling is my inability to ascertain where my own selfishness ends and her neo-liberal inculcation begins. All of us that grew up under Thatcher were taught that it is good to be selfish, that other people's pain is not your problem, that pain is in fact a weakness and suffering is deserved and shameful. Perhaps there is resentment because the clemency and respect that are being mawkishly displayed now by some and haughtily demanded of the rest of us at the impending, solemn ceremonial funeral, are values that her government and policies sought to annihilate.

What a load of crap. Thatcher didn't behave as though there was no such thing as society. She didn't ascribe to the idea that other peoples' pain is not your problem. So on and so forth. Rejecting socialism is not saying that nobody should care about anybody else.

Twits like the guy who wrote that editorial or whatever is is are in that group that thinks "compassion" is when you support having government make SOMEBODY ELSE take care of people. The fact that someone takes personal responsibility for compassion and charity instead of demanding that government make SOMEBODY ELSE engage in it does not make them cruel or uncaring.

Relax...he was pulling Thatcher's own words out of context to make a greater point:

"They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation"

It's the age old debate of whether you want a "me society" or a "we society". Reagan and Thatcher promoted a top down "me society". I think both notions have merit and the U.S. is pretty good example of that middle path.