Margaret Thatcher RIP

It's been interesting to read the largely laudatory eulogies that have emerged in papers since the death of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Even in papers consider liberal like the Washington Post, though I have been questioning that tag for some time, her departure elicited nothing short of hagiography from the editors. Thatcher was an important figure in British history and did some positive things on the world stage, including assisting in putting the final nails in the coffin of the USSR, but what of her record in England? There serious questions emerge that put her right in line with the conservative revolutions of Reagan and Mulrooney. 

What did the Iron Lady leave in her wake? Well, England was in pretty bad shape in the 70s, like much of the rest of the Western world, with profits falling, inflation rising and unemployment peaking. The answer Thatcher offered to the problem was simple: attack the welfare state, send manufacturing jobs overseas and allow the "free market" to work its magic. And that it did, restoring England to the world stage in finance and other industries while ebbing the tide of economic and social decline. But not for everyone, of course. England has always been a stratified country like no other, but the period of Labour control after World War II led to a more equal society, at least economically. With Thatcher, the clock was turned backward on programs for the poor, educational equity, income distribution and all efforts to help the poor. It was sold much the same way as Reagan sold it to the Americans, though with less religion and cultural warfare. 

The economic revolution that occurred, which we now call neoliberalism, was sold as the only solution to the decline in England and throughout the Western world. As I've noted before it involved three main components: 1) Liberation of markets both domestic and foreign, 2) Attacks on "big government" -- including deregulation, cutting marginal taxes for corporations and individuals and cutting funding for most non-defense oriented programs and 3) Dismantling of the social safety net. The policies did lead to improved economic growth, higher corporate profits and more wealth creation. But they also fomented increased poverty, greater income inequality and a lowering of the quality of life for many in the lower, working and, over time, even middle class. Again, it was sold as the only and inevitable solution to the changing global economy. Yet not all countries followed the solution of Thatcher and Reagan. In fact, those countries that didn't are not suffering to the same extent as the U.S. and England, where unemployment, poverty and income inequality have skyrocketed in the years since the early 80s. German kept a larger proportion of its manufacturing sector and has avoided the economic crises of other countries in Europe and Asia. Finland, Sweden and Norway all maintained their Social Democracies, more or less, and have retained their dedication to social equity, income mobility and social welfare. Those countries thus have the strongest, most resilient economies and the best quality of life in the world.  

Thatcher did some important things regarding the Cold War and reigning in the excesses of the Welfare State, even providing affordable homes to many in England who would have otherwise never realized that dream. But her record on improving the quality of life of the average citizen is circumspect at best. We often argue that we should not speak ill of the dead, but it is important to provide a balanced view of the lives of all public figures and not only the good but bad they did in their lives. As George Santayana reminds us, so often uncredited, if we do not learn from the past, we are bound to repeat it.