Necessary Awful People?

Margaret Thatcher just died.  There has therefore been a series of examinations of her record/legacy.  I was there in England for all but her last two years as Prime Minister but that was from ages 9-18, hardly the most politically astute portion of my life.  However, I'm going to give my impression.

Just to watch and hear Maggie Thatcher gave me an immediate and strong impression that she was a deeply awful person.  Strident, entirely certain, aggressive, uncaring, condescending.  A more shrill Dick Cheney.  Should we judge someone on such criteria?  Tone and body language are things we automatically use to make decisions about people, and humans are really good at it.  If I had never known who she was, or what she did, I would have viscerally disliked her immediately.

The little I know of Thatcher's policies consisted largely of crushing the powerful trade unions and privatizing huge swathes of British industry and services.  She cut taxes and reduced services.  There is a reason why she and Reagan were such good buddies, they believed in the same theory that private capitalism outperforms government activity everywhere (except the military) and money trickles down.  The results were a windfall for the wealthy and suffering for the poor, there are still whole cities in Northern England destroyed by her policies; no jobs, no prospects, hopelessness.

On the other hand, Britain when she came to power was an absolute shambles.  Industry was being outperformed by other countries.  To a very large extent it was the same problem that nearly brought down the US automobile companies, poor products produced by a company that had to negotiate with a powerful union that demanded compensation for its members at a rate that was not sustainable in the long run. To a very large extent Britain was a socialist country, and socialist industries lose to capitalist companies in the competition of international trade. There is a reason that punk rock came into being at this time, the pervasive feeling was of inevitable decline.

I think the best summary of Thatcher's rule is that adjusted Gross Domestic Product rose by 30%, and measures of inequality rose by the same amount. The UK became a wealthier, more competitive economy but almost all of those benefits went to people who were already well off.

When thinking of the success or failure of an enterprise I don't like to compare it with what should have been done alone.  I like to compare it with what is the most likely alternative.  The alternative to Thatcher was the Labour Party, at the time a political party run by unions.  The Labour party would not have broken the unions, not have privatized government services, not have reduced taxes.  I think the results would probably have been a continuation of the slow decline of the UK economy and a much more equitable distribution of less money.  Less for most against more for only some.  When it comes down to it, I think Margaret Thatcher was better for Britain in the long term than the alternative at the time.

How I think things should have gone: reorganization and privatization of large industries slowly, carefully, and in collaboration with the unions; investments in education, technology, and deprived areas, all paid for by maintaining income tax rates at their high levels and debt to produce growth; Thatcher was awful, but this is true for almost all governments at all times.

Thatcher was an awful, borderline evil person with contempt for the poor and appreciation for the rich.  She caused division in the country and enormous hardship for millions.  She also broke apart an economy that wasn't competitive and replaced it with one that kinda was.  She removed socialism as a viable political force in the UK, and socialism doesn't work (in highly industrialized, wealthy nations.)

I hated Thatcher and felt a little frisson of joy upon hearing that she was dead.  On the other hand I think she might have been a necessary, awful person.