It is now up to us, all the people of the US and UK, to collectively decide whether to continue down the path forged by these two giants.
I wish I weren't so worried as to what the final decision will be.
Posted on 06/12/2004 5:34:12 PM PDT by MadIvan
AND then there was one... The striking, poignant image of a black-clad Margaret Thatcher bowed over the coffin of Ronald Reagan was an iconic snapshot of history. The partnership that demolished Communism had finally been dissolved by death. In the present era of candy-floss soundbite politics, predicated upon nothing more than the acquisition of office by manipulation of the public mood - rootless and purposeless - that wordless farewell was a moment of greatness revisited.
Lady Thatcher is now the sole survivor of a very personal alliance that remoulded the world. It is all too easy to overlook that prodigious reality, because the perception of Margaret Thatcher in Britain is distorted by party rancour, by the lingering shrieks of the dinosaurs she extinguished and by the axiom that a prophet is seldom honoured on the native heath. Yet the world view and the verdict of history place her on a very high plinth indeed - one reserved for those first-rank statesmen who have made a unique contribution to human destiny.
The history of the 20th century is bracketed - like bookends - by Lenin and Stalin at the start, Reagan and Thatcher at the end. "We will bury you!" blustered Khrushchev. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan determined to reverse that process and to do so as bloodlessly as possible. One document, apparently trivial in character, survives to mark the birth of this formidable partnership.
On April 30, 1975, the day the Communists entered the capital of South Vietnam, bringing to naught the United States’ massive sacrifice of blood and treasure - the date that was the high-water mark of the criminal enterprise launched by Lenin in 1917 - Ronald Reagan wrote a brief letter to Margaret Thatcher. In substance, it was little more than a social thank you note; in essence, it was the launch of a crusade.
"I’ve chosen a dark day to write a belated thank you for being so generous with your time on the occasion of our recent visit," wrote the future president. "The news has just arrived of Saigon’s surrender and somehow the shadows seem to have lengthened."
That sombre opening did not reflect a defeatist attitude: he went on to invite Mrs Thatcher to America, where the alliance was forged that accomplished the destruction of the most gigantic tyranny to have defiled the history of mankind. Four years later, she was prime minister, and, shortly after, he became president of America. The outcome will preoccupy historians for centuries.
Margaret Thatcher’s domestic achievements included the ending of trade union dictatorship, the re-booting of the economy, victory in the Falklands, the reassertion of personal freedom and, above all, the restoration of national confidence and identity. Her successes will be less disputed by historians than her philosophy. Is she, in fact, a Tory? The rigidly academic answer, much rehearsed by young fogeys in watch-chains, is in the negative. According to the high priests of Tory tradition, Thatcherism is economic liberalism of the 19th-century Manchester school, reheated by Sir Keith Joseph and served with a dash of such exotic herbs as Hayek, Friedman and Pirie.
That thesis fails to explain other aspects of Margaret Thatcher’s character and beliefs that are as Tory as the primrose. Her instinctive patriotism and devotion to the national interest, the flag and the armed services; her respect for the monarchy, the House of Lords and all the other elements of tradition with which this intensely innovative prime minister never tinkered (unlike the Blair régime) - these characteristics indicate a more classically Tory mindset than is usually credited to her.
The historic Tory Party has always been a composite body. It is like a country house, with wings and accretions of differing styles and periods clustered around the original 17th-century core. Thatcherism is not part of that ancient kernel; but it is a functional extension that does not clash with the original architecture. Tory pragmatism requires certain adjustments to society in response to events: the advance of corporatism, the debilitation of the economy, the elimination of personal choice were poisons in the body politic to which Thatcherism provided the antidote.
At the heart of the largely wilful misinterpretation of Mrs Thatcher’s agenda is the famous quotation "there is no such thing as society". Taken out of context - as it invariably is - that sounds like libertarianism degenerating into anarchy. It is one of those historical canards, like Marie Antoinette’s "Let them eat cake".
Margaret Thatcher made this remark during an interview with Woman’s Own magazine on October 3, 1987. With her female audience in mind, she was making the familiar point that individuals and families must not surrender their rights and responsibilities to the state: "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 … 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."
In other words, self-help, tempered with compassion and charity, assistance for those who need it, but no free-loading passengers. Only the most doctrinaire statist would object. Of course, there are plenty of those in Scotland, the Jurassic Park for dinosaurs, courtesy of devolution. Ritual denunciation of the poll tax ignores the fact that it was introduced, at the urgent demand of Scottish taxpayers, to redress a situation whereby 1.9 million ratepayers supported local authorities with an electorate of 3.9 million.
In the teeth of last-ditch resistance by the Scottish Left, Margaret Thatcher increased home ownership in Scotland from one-third of the population to one half. Now local authorities are planning to abolish tenants’ right to buy, as the dark waters of state control again close over the heads of Scots, in the Potemkin village created by devolution.
The sniping of pygmies at a leader of world stature can make no impact on history’s verdict. The solitary woman in black standing before Ronald Reagan’s catafalque is the liberator of hundreds of millions and one of the greatest idealists of the 20th century. In her own words: "Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul."
A woman of rare charm with a steel spine.
It was wonderful of her to be there, she was indispensable.
(Unlike hitlery's portrait someone had posted on here the other day.)
It is now up to us, all the people of the US and UK, to collectively decide whether to continue down the path forged by these two giants.
I wish I weren't so worried as to what the final decision will be.
A fitting epitaph for the UN. But don't count on them dissolving it. The UN is the prototype for the planned world government. The "King of the World" (Antichrist) will rule through the UN.
It has been too long-- I have missed seeing you around.
As great as Reagan was, Maggie was his equal. We need not argue over superiors in this contest-- they needed and complimented each other.
In many ways she faced a harder battle than he did, over a nation that was not quite as powerful as America, a nation closer to the frontlines, a nation having a terrorist problem we would not face to the same degree for years, with a public that was by inclination further to the left than our own over here.
Her eulogy was beyond perfect.
Strangely, I expected nothing less of her.
Am I missing something? Aren't GW Bush and Tony Blair doing the same thing?
God was with her as well. The very second she bade Reagan farewell and turned to walk away was the very second the sun finally slipped behind the mountain top to the west.
I think they are, on the international level. But it is not quite the same for a few reasons. Neither Bush nor Blair have domestic policy down correctly the way Thatcher and Blair did-- although Bush is closer. Neither Bush nor Blair have their rhetorical skills down-- although Blair is much closer.
She has more character in her little finger than most politicians have in their entire bodies.
"Ronald Reagan wrote a brief letter to Margaret Thatcher. "
Would anyone here know if that letter is online somewhere?
See http://www.rightsided.org for the note and more.
Hear Hear!
You nailed it with that post.
Here is the text of that letter:
Dear Mrs Thatcher: April 30
I've chosen a dark day to write a belated thank you for being so generous with your time on the occasion of your recent visit. The news has just arrived of Saigan's surrendor and somehow the shadow seems to have lengthened.
You were very kind and I am grateful. I hope you'll find it possible to accept your Calif. speaking invitations. If you can, Mrs. Reagan and I would like very much to return your hospitality. In the meantime, please know you have an enthusiastic supporter out here in the "colonies."
Again thanks and best regards.
Ronald Reagan
"colonies". Reagan humor once more.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.