A comparison between Thatcher and Hitler is completely ludicrous, though. Describing Thatcher as having such a historic decisive role is in the context of her being a modern democratic Western leader, not a genocidal dictator. As I say, she is going to be seen as the UK's greatest post-war Prime Minister. She generally already is. The UK's modern existence as a state is a result of her administration.
Three successive election victories trumps any talk about approval ratings- that's an amazing achievement and only possible with high public support (or as high as it gets for politicians, in any case).
Churchill was also re-elected after the war. Not that he was any good in that term, but the idea he lost support post-war is wrong also. He lost the 1945 election because he never got to grips with social reform, not lack of personal popularity.
Yeah, no. Getting re-elected does not a good leader make. It just means they knew how to pander to the right people.
Unless you want to argue that George W. Bush was a good president for having served two terms.
In most corners of the internet I go on, people are flat-out celebrating her death. Having done a bit more reading than just the basics I knew already...yeah, I don't blame them at all. Then again, my only reaction to Reagan's death was "good", because good riddance to horrible people.
Originally posted by Jedi Sheriff
That's like saying that Hitler played a decisive role in Jewish history. Playing a decisive role in history is not necessarily a good thing.
people just wish so hard for another Hitler sometimes...
I think it is a psychological thing where people develop a sense of personal meaningfulness simply by opposing something, and the worse you make that thing, the more meaningful it seems. It would explain why it is so prevalent in young and disenfranchised people, because those are the people who often find the least meaning in society and would seek it through other means...
man, if only I didn't get fired from being a brain scientist 😛
Originally posted by Peach
In most corners of the internet I go on, people are flat-out celebrating her death. Having done a bit more reading than just the basics I knew already...yeah, I don't blame them at all. Then again, my only reaction to Reagan's death was "good", because good riddance to horrible people.
celebrating anyone's death is a moral failure.
Gah, come on, read the debate. Bush wasn't good because hw won two terms, but that he won two terms proved that he was not universally unpopular. DJ was trying to use approval ratings to make out that Thatcher was generally disliked. Winning three elections in a row proves that this is not the case. The 'right people' in this case includes swathes of everyday people. Despite the extreme leftist fantasy that people like Thatcher only catered to the rich, it was the common popular vote that went her way- that's why Labour had to reform itself in wake of Thatcher, because they had lost that vote. Blair won in '97 because he got that vote back.
Those celebrating her death- or indeed, those who celebrate any death of someone outside the most heinous examples of inhumanity- are merely demonstrating their own immorality and pathetic nature. People like that are a far bigger problem for society than Thatcher ever was. I think George Galloway is the most horrific and terrifying example of a politician you can get, but I'm not going to celebrate when he dies. He was, ultimately, a man trying to do his best for his nation, just based on wonky beliefs.
Like I say- the extreme left simply cannot abide that Thatcher was successful and respected- and democratically so. Of course, the more intelligent and reasonable left concede that she was very good at what she did. The current Labour leader- the most left wing in more than two decades- has outright said that many of her fundamental policies were correct. At the same time, of course, there is a heck of a lot to condemn about Thatcher- David Cameron directly refuted her description of society, which was probably her most odious view. What she said about Mandela (more precisely, about the ANC) was stupid- just like what Churchill said about Gandhi. But you won;t find a single leader that doesn't have issues, and none of this wipes out her achievements. One of which, incidentally, was to help convince the South African government not to execute Mandela's associates upon their arrest, as one of Mandela's fellow detainees has pointed out. Likewise, Thatcher's rhetoric about Northern Ireland was unhelpful and she cocked up on the hunger strikes, but she also signed the first Anglo-Irish agreement, even at the cost of Unionist support.
Much of the condemnation of Thatcher I am seeing around th net is rooted in deep ignorance, often given by people too young to have any reasonable perspective on the situation. Reagan is a good example here, because only people too young to remember the Cold War can not feel any sadness on his death. His major role in ending it was one of the greatest achievements for humanity of all time. Compare the efforts of Mr Nice Guy- Jimmy Caret. His attempts to defuse the cold war were a disaster. And so for all of Reagan's madness and socially backwards ways, he did a great thing for everyone, and we do all of history and common human experience a disservice if we ignore this sort of thing because we dislike some of what he stood for (and of course, I would never have voted for him). The same applies, of course, to any that would glorify him and ignore his failures. This all applies to Thatcher as well, and people are apt to forget how utterly economically and politically crippled the UK had become in the 70s, all of which Thatcher helped reverse.
It doesn't matter what Thatcher was like as a person. As a leader, she was extremely good. That's why she won elections and that's why she is remembered as so powerful internationally.
I wasn't outright comparing her to Hitler in my last post, (although she did quote him when refering to the city of Liverpool.) but just pointing out that playing a decisive role in the lives of a group of people isn't by itself enough to be considered a good thing, there are a number of ways to influence the lives of people and not all of them good.
Fair enough, but at the same time my counterpoint- that she was decisive inside the framework of being a modern western democratic leader- is still the important point, as it means 'decisive' is being used in a complimentary sense. The opposite of weak. People are using it in the sense of being a good thing, and it is pointless to try and reduce the argument to semantics when you know what people mean.
Originally posted by Jedi Sheriff
I wasn't outright comparing her to Hitler in my last post
actually, that was exactly what you were doing. Your post was a literally drawing of comparison between her impact on Britain and Hitler's on Jews. You may not have meant to say there is a moral equivalence between Thatcher and Hitler, but people might not jump to that conclusion if you laid back on the hyperbole.
Thatcher's approval ratings were all over the place. But, come election time, she had to have at least decent approval ratings. Also public approval ratings do not elect the PM in the UK: the majority party elects the PM in the UK from the House of Commons and it is usually the majority Party Leader: has to be approved by the Monarch (lol).
About Thatcher: she was impotent as a political figure at the time of her death. Not sure why everyone's jimmies are rustled over her death. I do not remember this for Reagan...at least not to this extent.
It's worth noting that almost no-one votes based on local candidate, though, except in very specific circumstances. People generally vote on party lines as represented by the party leader- and no-one embodied their party more than Thatcher; she virtually WAS the party. Most people can't even name their local MP, but almost everyone knows who the leaders are. People were voting for her.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's worth noting that almost no-one votes based on local candidate, though, except in very specific circumstances. People generally vote on party lines as represented by the party leader- and no-one embodied their party more than Thatcher; she virtually WAS the party. Most people can't even name their local MP, but almost everyone knows who the leaders are. People were voting for her.
^^ that is true in Canada as well, which has a system similar to the UK. People vote, almost primarily, based on party affiliation or, failing that, the personality of the party leader. There are many people who can't even name the riding leader for their party, especially if they aren't the one in power.