Tuesday Reads: Margaret Thatcher’s “Dark Legacy,” Death of a Feminist Revolutionary, and Mitch McConnell’s Ugly Plans


Good Morning!!

The death of Margaret Thatcher is still dominating the news this morning.  It seems she was one of those public figures that inspired varied but passionate reactions–you either loved her or hated her.

Andrew Sullivan loved her it seems.

I was a teenage Thatcherite, an uber-politics nerd who loved her for her utter lack of apology for who she was. I sensed in her, as others did, a final rebuke to the collectivist, egalitarian oppression of the individual produced by socialism and the stultifying privileges and caste identities of the class system. And part of that identity – the part no one ever truly gave her credit for – was her gender. She came from a small grocer’s shop in a northern town and went on to educate herself in chemistry at Oxford, and then law. To put it mildly, those were not traditional decisions for a young woman with few means in the 1950s. She married a smart businessman, reared two children and forged a political career from scratch in the most male-dominated institution imaginable: the Tory party.

She relished this individualist feminism and wielded it – coining a new and very transitive verb, handbagging, to describe her evisceration of ill-prepared ministers or clueless interviewers. Perhaps in Toynbee’s defense, Thatcher was not a feminist in the left-liberal sense: she never truly reflected on her pioneering role as a female leader; she never appointed a single other woman to her cabinet over eleven years; she was contemptuous toward identity politics; and the only tears she ever deployed (unlike Hillary Clinton) were as she departed from office, ousted by an internal coup, undefeated in any election she had ever run in as party leader.

Her policies “inspired” the revolutionary reactions that created a “cultural transformation.”

Thatcher’s economic liberalization came to culturally transform Britain. Women were empowered by new opportunities; immigrants, especially from South Asia, became engineers of growth; millions owned homes for the first time; the media broke free from union chains and fractured and multiplied in subversive and dynamic ways. Her very draconian posture provoked a punk radicalism in the popular culture that changed a generation. The seeds of today’s multicultural, global London – epitomized by that Olympic ceremony – were sown by Thatcher’s will-power.

And that was why she ultimately failed, as every politician always ultimately does. She wanted to return Britain to the tradition of her thrifty, traditional father; instead she turned it into a country for the likes of her son, a wayward, money-making opportunist. The ripple effect of new money, a new middle class, a new individualism meant that Blair’s re-branded Britain – cool Britannia, with its rave subculture, its fashionistas, its new cuisine, its gay explosion, its street-art, its pop music – was in fact something Blair inherited from Thatcher.

Of course Sullivan no longer lives in Great Britain, and he has the means to avoid the worst effects of the elite’s austerity policies regardless of where he lives. Others aren’t so fortunate.

The Guardian reports: Margaret Thatcher’s death greeted with street parties in Brixton and Glasgow; Crowds shout ‘Maggie Maggie Maggie, dead dead dead’ during impromptu events.

Several hundred people gathered in south London on Monday evening to celebrate Margaret Thatcher‘s death with cans of beer, pints of milk and an impromptu street disco playing the soundtrack to her years in power.

Young and old descended on Brixton, a suburb which weathered two outbreaks of rioting during the Thatcher years. Many expressed jubilation that the leader they loved to hate was no more; others spoke of frustration that her legacy lived on.

To cheers of “Maggie Maggie Maggie, dead dead dead,” posters of Thatcher were held aloft as reggae basslines pounded.

Clive Barger, a 62-year-old adult education tutor, said he had turned out to mark the passing of “one of the vilest abominations of social and economic history”.

He said: “It is a moment to remember. She embodied everything that was so elitist in terms of repressing people who had nothing. She presided over a class war.”

Builder Phil Lewis, 47, a veteran of the 1990 poll tax riots, said he had turned out to recall the political struggles the Thatcher years had embroiled him in. “She ripped the arsehole out of this country and we are still suffering the consequences.”

Just as Ronald Reagan did to the U.S.–and we’re still suffering the consequences.

Here’s a video from Brixton.

Hugo Young, Thatcher biographer, writes in The Guardian: Margaret Thatcher left a dark legacy that has still not disappeared. For Young, a positive was Thatcher’s indifference to her popularity with the public.

I think by far her greatest virtue, in retrospect, is how little she cared if people liked her. She wanted to win, but did not put much faith in the quick smile. She needed followers, as long as they went in her frequently unpopular directions. This is a political style, an aesthetic even, that has disappeared from view. The machinery of modern political management – polls, consulting, focus groups – is deployed mainly to discover what will make a party and politician better liked, or worse, disliked. Though the Thatcher years could also be called the Saatchi years, reaching a new level of presentational sophistication in the annals of British politics, they weren’t about getting the leader liked. Respected, viewed with awe, a conviction politician, but if liking came into it, that was an accident.

But this attitude “didn’t come without a price” and “Thatcher left a dark legacy…”

What happened at the hands of this woman’s indifference to sentiment and good sense in the early 1980s brought unnecessary calamity to the lives of several million people who lost their jobs. It led to riots that nobody needed. More insidiously, it fathered a mood of tolerated harshness. Materialistic individualism was blessed as a virtue, the driver of national success. Everything was justified as long as it made money – and this, too, is still with us.

Thatcherism failed to destroy the welfare state. The lady was too shrewd to try that, and barely succeeded in reducing the share of the national income taken by the public sector. But the sense of community evaporated. There turned out to be no such thing as society, at least in the sense we used to understand it. Whether pushing each other off the road, barging past social rivals, beating up rival soccer fans, or idolising wealth as the only measure of virtue, Brits became more unpleasant to be with. This regrettable transformation was blessed by a leader who probably did not know it was happening because she didn’t care if it happened or not. But it did, and the consequences seem impossible to reverse….

[I]t’s now easier to see the scale of the setback she inflicted on Britain’s idea of its own future. Nations need to know the big picture of where they belong and, coinciding with the Thatcher appearance at the top, clarity had apparently broken through the clouds of historic ambivalence.

At least the British media isn’t trying to canonize Thatcher as the corporate media in the U.S. did to Reagan.

A Less Remarked Upon Death: Shulamith Firestone

At The New Yorker, Susan Faludi pays tribute to a feminist icon of the 1970s, “Death of a Revolutionary: Shulamith Firestone helped to create a new society. But she couldn’t live in it.”

When Shulamith Firestone’s body was found late last August, in her studio apartment on the fifth floor of a tenement walkup on East Tenth Street, she had been dead for some days. She was sixty-seven, and she had battled schizophrenia for decades, surviving on public assistance. There was no food in the apartment, and one theory is that Firestone starved, though no autopsy was conducted, by preference of her Orthodox Jewish family. Such a solitary demise would have been unimaginable to anyone who knew Firestone in the late nineteen-sixties, when she was at the epicenter of the radical-feminist movement, surrounded by some of the same women who, a month after her death, gathered in St. Mark’s Church In-the-Bowery, to pay their respects.
The memorial service verged on radical-feminist revival. Women distributed flyers on consciousness-raising, and displayed copies of texts published by the Redstockings, a New York group that Firestone co-founded. The WBAI radio host Fran Luck called for the Tenth Street studio to be named the Shulamith Firestone Memorial Apartment, and rented “in perpetuity” to “an older and meaningful feminist.” Kathie Sarachild, who had pioneered consciousness-raising and coined the slogan “Sisterhood Is Powerful,” in 1968, proposed convening a Shulamith Firestone Women’s Liberation Memorial Conference on What Is to Be Done. After several calls from the dais to “seize the moment” and “keep it going,” a dozen women decamped to an organizing meeting at Sarachild’s apartment.

I well remember reading Firestone’s book, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. It was mind-blowing stuff in those days.

In the late nineteen-sixties, Firestone and a small cadre of her “sisters” were at the radical edge of a movement that profoundly changed American society. At the time, women held almost no major elected positions, nearly every prestigious profession was a male preserve, homemaking was women’s highest calling, abortion was virtually illegal, and rape was a stigma to be borne in silence. Feminism had been in the doldrums ever since the first wave of the American women’s movement won the vote, in 1920, and lost the struggle for greater emancipation. Feminist energy was first co-opted by Jazz Age consumerism, then buried in decades of economic depression and war, until the dissatisfactions of postwar women, famously described by Betty Friedan in “The Feminine Mystique” (1963), gave rise to a “second wave” of feminism. The radical feminists emerged alongside a more moderate women’s movement, forged by such groups as the National Organization for Women, founded in 1966 by Friedan, Aileen Hernandez, and others, and championed by such publications as Ms., founded in 1972 by Gloria Steinem and Letty Cottin Pogrebin. That movement sought, as now’s statement of purpose put it, “to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society,” largely by means of equal pay and equal representation. The radical feminists, by contrast, wanted to reconceive public life and private life entirely.

What a brilliant tribute by Faludi. It’s well worth the read.

Mother Jones’s David Corn has gotten his hands on a tape of “a private meeting between the Senate GOP leader and campaign aides reveals how far they were willing to go to defeat” Ashley Judd.

On February 2, Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the US Senate, opened up his 2014 reelection campaign headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky, and in front of several dozen supporters vowed to “point out” the weaknesses of any opponent fielded by the Democrats. “They want to fight? We’re ready,” he declared. McConnell was serious: Later that day, he was huddling with aides in a private meeting to discuss how to attack his possible Democratic foes, including actor/activist Ashley Judd, who was then contemplating challenging the minority leader. During this strategy session—a recording of which was obtained by Mother Jones—McConnell and his aides considered assaulting Judd for her past struggles with depression and for her religious views….

For much of the Judd discussion, McConnell was silent as aides reviewed the initial oppo research they had collected on Judd and weighed all the ways they could pummel her. The recording was provided to Mother Jones last week by a source who requested anonymity. (The recording can be found here; a transcript is here.) McConnell’s Senate office and his campaign office did not respond to requests for comment.

The aide who led the meeting began his presentation with a touch of glee: “I refer to [Judd] as sort of the oppo research situation where there’s a haystack of needles, just because truly, there’s such a wealth of material.” He ran through the obvious: Judd was a prominent supporter of President Barack Obama, Obamacare, abortion rights, gay marriage, and climate change action. He pointed out that she is “anti-coal.”

But the McConnell gang explored going far beyond Judd’s politics and policy preferences. This included her mental health. The meeting leader noted:

She’s clearly, this sounds extreme, but she is emotionally unbalanced. I mean it’s been documented. Jesse can go in chapter and verse from her autobiography about, you know, she’s suffered some suicidal tendencies. She was hospitalized for 42 days when she had a mental breakdown in the ’90s.

So what? Mitch McConnell is a sick, closeted, hateful old freak who appears to lack any semblance of human feelings.

I’m running out of space, so I’ll add a few more links in the comments. I hope you’ll do the same. What are you reading and blogging about today?

33 Comments on “Tuesday Reads: Margaret Thatcher’s “Dark Legacy,” Death of a Feminist Revolutionary, and Mitch McConnell’s Ugly Plans”

  1. Pat Johnson says:

    Thatcher may not be getting all those “golden tributes” in Great Britain from those who had to live with her policies of “austerity” but here in the US she is being treated as a “heroine” due to her “friendship” with Ronnie Reagan. Ugh!

    A lesson to be learned from her years of service is that Britain is living under the same measures the Right wishes to impose on the US: the banks “win”, the rest of us “lose”.

    Margaret Thatcher is a prime example of “do it my way” or go to the back of the bus. She decimated the unions in that nation and the Right seems to be following that policy over here.

    She represented the “haves” in that society and ignored the “have nots”. Sound familiar?

    • bostonboomer says:

      Yup. The U.S. corporate media can be counted upon to praise austerity at every opportunity.

    • There was a quote from Absolutely Fabulous where Edina’s mother was doing a quiz out of a magazine about Margaret Thatcher:

      Now, it’s multiple choice questions.

      Are you ready?
      How many years was
      Margaret Thatcher Prime Minister?

      A 900 years.

      B 3,000 years.

      C 11 years?

      Oh, It’s a trick question.

  2. bostonboomer says:

    Down Is a Dangerous Direction: How the 40-Year “Long Recession” Led to the Great Recession, By Barbara Garson

  3. bostonboomer says:

    Oh brother. I just saw on twitter that the FBI is investigating Mother Jones over the McConnell tape.


    • RalphB says:

      From the Ashley Judd quotes in that article, I’ve got to read her book! She seems a really fascinating and wonderful person to me and I’m even sorrier she didn’t run against that miserable bastard.

  4. bostonboomer says:

    Dylan Matthews at Wonkblog: Why do people hate deficits?

    Why do we hate deficits? “Balancing the budget” sounds really nice, but what reason do we have to believe it’s actually valuable? There are a number of reasons to think it might be good for the debt load to be smaller rather than larger, but almost all of them are controversial among economists, and some more so than others. Here are the common reasons for balancing the budget you hear, and what the evidence says about each.

    Read more at the link.

    • RalphB says:

      Duh. Most people mistake the deficit for their own credit card bills. Is that too hard to understand? We’re propagandized to within an inch of our lives.

  5. bostonboomer says:

    Kim Jong Un starred in a school production of “Grease.”

    With photos.

  6. dakinikat says:


    ,Chait gets Jindal good:

    The Paul Ryan budget is instructive. The original version of it from 2010 included a sweeping, Jindal-style overhaul. It slashed taxes for the rich to such levels as to require, for the sake of avoiding an explosion of debt, middle- and lower-income Americans to pay around 50 percent more in taxes. When Republicans decided the next year to make Ryan’s budget the governing vision of their party, they scrapped the provisions to raise taxes on the non-rich and instead replaced the lost revenue with hand-waving nonsense.

    Jindal was attempting to enact a state-level version of the Ryan approach, but in a context that left him unable to use the Ryan-style obfuscations that are necessary to hide the fact that it’s a gigantic exercise in upward redistribution of wealth. He may urge Republicans to stop being the stupid party, but the biggest fool is Jindal himself.

    • bostonboomer says:

      They’re all coming down on him. Good!

      • dakinikat says:

        Finally! They were blown away by his degrees and his ethnicity and were ignoring the way he governed and hasn’t governed done here.

        Here’s Josh Marshall :

        If you didn’t already read this piece by Benjy Sarlin about Bobby Jindal’s political collapse, do so all means. But I wanted to flag a more general point about what happened. Jindal’s gambit was something like a Louisiana-based ‘Ryan Plan’ designed among other things to be the centerpiece of a possible 2016 campaign for President. And had he been able to get it passed it would have been quite a calling card in the GOP primaries, at least among the economic conservative wing of the party.

        But look at what the budget actually did. Broadly speaking it cut back a lot of services that people rely on and redistributed almost all the tax burden onto middle class and lower middle class families. So cut services relied on by the middle class (and below) and make them pay all the taxes. We’re surprised this didn’t catch fire?

        it’s really about the most obvious thing you can imagine and puts it sharp relief the big gap between what excites ideologues in the Republican party and what has a remote chance of flying with the public at large, even in a pretty conservative state like Louisiana.


    • dakinikat says:


      I just want to make one more quick observation about Benjy Sarlin’s piece (and Josh’s related thoughts) on Bobby Jindal’s downward spiral in Louisiana.

      One of the arguments we’ve been propounding since the election is that Republicans made a strategic error by not shaking up their economic policy tenets in the wake of Obama’s re-election. Yes, they’re casting about awkwardly for immigrant and minority voters on the choppy waters of social policy and communications “outreach.” But they closed their eyes to the possibility that their poor showing among Hispanics, and other Democratic-leaning demographics might have had anything to do with economic and fiscal policy.

  7. bostonboomer says:

    Live stream of No Cuts rally in DC.

  8. bostonboomer says:

    Chained CPI would create backdoor tax increase on people who earn between $20-$50K. (w/charts)

  9. HT says:

    My sister asked me about my reaction to the Thatcher death and deification. My response was – may she rot in hell. She was one of the “I’ve got mine, screw you” politicians. She and Ronnie bedtime for Bonzo set the stage for the banking and hedge fund disasters through their policies. He friends did very well – others not so much, but like Reagan she had the gift of the gab and convinced idiots to vote for her. BTW, our own Mulrooney was part of that pact, but he wasn’t quite as effective as those two vampires. I can understand the celebrations although I don’t think they are very effective or tasteful, but she brought about 30 years of very bad policy while she and hers got very, very rich. If anyone wonders why someone would go into politics, Margaret Thatcher is a poster child – riches beyond the ability to spend in a lifetime and the ability to blindside investigations into family for white collar crimes. Not that I’m accusing anyone of being involved in anything like that, but history will tell.

  10. There has been another mass assault at Lone Star college in Texas, Texas college stabbing: 14 injured, 2 in critical condition – CNN.com

    This is that same place where those two students had a shootout the first of the year.