When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Sources

The Meaning Of Margaret Thatcher, A View From France

Hers was a revolution of ideas and economics that still can be seen in the struggle to shape the future of the West.

The Meaning Of Margaret Thatcher, A View From France

-Editorial-

PARIS - She left her mark. Some look back with nostalgia, others with contempt, but few will deny that the 1980s were undoubtedly the “Maggie years."

British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990 – three mandates – Margaret Thatcher left a major mark on her times. The “Iron Lady” was the first woman to be elected as leader of a major Western country. Not only did she give the UK back its confidence then, after years of stall and self-doubt, but we are all perhaps still living with Thatcher’s legacy today.

First, in regard to the economy. She arrived in power a few months before U.S. President Ronald Reagan (1980-1988), who became her ideological ally. Together, they reinvented economic liberalism. They shared a common enemy: the welfare state – established by the British Labor Party after World War II, and the Democrats in Washington in the 1960s.

Their argument is well-known: the Welfare State kills private initiative and hinders the production of wealth, it promotes an egalitarian society that discourages effort and merit while encouraging the poor to live on subsidies. It smothers that essential force, the founding energy that is the market. Thatcher and Reagan “deified” the free market, which – according to them – could do no wrong, because – oh miracle! – it can regulate itself.

Looking back at the UK of the late 1970s, this notion was not totally without merit. At the time, the country was living off aid from the International Monetary Fund, and its all-powerful unions paralyzed a huge public sector that was the result of massive post-war nationalizations.

“Thatcherism” – privatizing, fighting union monopolies, deregulating – gave momentum to the UK economy. But at the same time, entire vital public services were being dismantled, including education and health.

Add to this globalization and free-trade agreements – Thatcher and Reagan were not the only reasons why the economy is where it is today, but they were its intellectual spearheads.

Pure talent

The political left did its bit too to compensate the Thatcher-Reagan years. They couldn’t bring back the welfare state, so they created a “Third Way,” notably Tony Blair in London and Bill Clinton in Washington.

In truth, the Third Way is just another more civilized form of neo-liberalism. On top of that came, at the beginning of the 21st century, the monumental market crash – that was a result of that blind trust in the free market – proof that it does not in fact always regulate itself. That social-democrat left could not benefit from this fact is a continuing victory for Margaret Thatcher.

That’s not the only victory. Europe, unfortunately, still largely resembles the conception that Thatcher had of it: first and foremost a free-trade zone, and not at all a unified institution on the world scene. It is an association of sovereign countries, and not a united community, as its founding texts had hoped.

It is impossible to make a mark on one's times without great political talent. Charisma, charm, staying true to one’s principles, being courageous in one’s choices, being a true leader: Margaret Thatcher was all of that, undeniably.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Geopolitics

Utter Pessimism, What Israelis And Palestinians Share In Common

Right now, according to a joint survey of Israelis and Palestinians, hopes for a peaceful solution of coexistence simply don't exist. The recent spate of violence is confirmation of the deepest kind of pessimism on both sides for any solution other than domination of the other.

An old Palestinian protester waves Palestinian flag while he confronts the Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the village of Beit Dajan near the West Bank city of Nablus.

A Palestinian protester confronts Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the West Bank village of Beit Dajan on Jan. 6.

Pierre Haski

-Analysis-

PARIS — Just before the latest outbreak of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, a survey of public opinion among the two peoples provided a key to understanding the current situation unfolding before our eyes.

It was a joint study, entitled "Palestinian-Israeli Pulse", carried out by two research centers, one Israeli, the other Palestinian, which for years have been regularly asking the same questions to both sides.

The result is disastrous: not only is the support for the two-state solution — Israel and Palestine side by side — at its lowest point in two decades, but there is now a significant share of opinion on both sides that favors a "non-democratic" solution, i.e., a single state controlled by either the Israelis or Palestinians.

This captures the absolute sense of pessimism commonly felt regarding the chances of the two-state option ever being realized, which currently appears to be our grim reality today. But the results are also an expression of the growing acceptance on both sides that it is inconceivable for either state to live without dominating the other — and therefore impossible to live in peace.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest