The canonization of Margaret Thatcher began with nanoseconds of news reports that the former British prime minister and conservative icon had died at the age of 87. On MSNBC, my pal Chuck Todd remarked, “We lionize her over here.” There was insta-commentary about how she saved Britain from economic despair and the rest of the world from the Soviets (with some help from a guy named Ronald Reagan). Excess ruled…. Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the Democrat running for Congress in South Carolina (and sister of Stephen Colbert) issued this statement: “When I talk to younger women about their careers, I point to Margaret Thatcher as a role model; she’s a tough consensus builder who cared about everybody and put her country’s fiscal house in order.”…. Thatcher was no consensus builder; she was divisive. She set out to crush unions, privatize, undercut the social safety net (where she could), and push free-market policies that led to the deregulatory nightmares of the future…. She joined with Reagan in support of torturers and human rights abusers around the globe, as long as these folks were opposed to the Soviets. She called Nelson Mandela a “terrorist” and would not join the worldwide crusade against the racist apartheid regime of South Africa.
I was really quite amused by the rush to lionize Margaret Thatcher after her death had become known. How quickly those who really should know better- those in the media, many of whom covered her- abandoned any semblance of historical reality. Suddenly, Lady Thatcher was a “consensus builder”, “compassionate,” a “savior” who rescued Great Britain for certain catastrophe.
Yeah, I know; what a load of crap, eh?
Now that Thatcher has been consigned to history, she’s remembered for being many things she never was. She was never a consensus builder. Her compassionate public moments were few and far between. She supported any regime that opposed the USSR, no matter how backwards, brutal, and/or repressive that regime may have been. She supported Chile’s brutal dictator, Augusto Pinochet. She shifted Britain’s tax burden from the wealthy to the poor. She worked to dismantle Great Britain’s social safety net. She waged a pointless, wasteful war in the Falkland Islands. Her fiscal policies can only fairly be described as regressive. I could go on, but I think you get my point. Lady Thatcher was a great leader in the same way Machiavelli was all about going along to get along.
I have to agree with David Corn’s assessment of Thatcher’s legacy: “Thatcher was a historic figure. But that does not mean she was a great leader.” The same could be said about Ronald Reagan, with whom she will forever be linked. They were both historical figures; deeply flawed historical figures who lacked compassion, and supported torturers, thugs, and human right abusers while engaging in class warfare directed at the poor and middle class. That’s a legacy worthy of celebrating? Really?
Margaret Thatcher should certainly be remembered- as a pragmatic Machiavellian. Should it be too much to ask that we at least exercise a degree of honesty in our collective assessment of her record? History, if it’s written accurately, will not be kind to her…and it shouldn’t be. Lady Thatcher was a thug, a tyrant, and a demagogue in her own right, not a great leader worthy of being lionized. I hope that generations to come will be taught the truth about her.
