Who Was Worse, Reagan or Thatcher?

In the case of Obama, is it just that he hasn't really done much to change Reagan's legacy or has he actually implemented policies that further extend Reaganite principles?

Clinton was worse (so far).

Eh? Why did this not get a bump but the parody thread did? I suppose it's still got a couple of days to run. Just wanted to know if there were any late contributions.

nominal opponents of Reaganism and Thatcherism like Blair

They don't come much more nominal than Blair!

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

39 votes in total for Thatcher
25 votes in total for Reagan

I am pleased with these results.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/C10382-15A.jpg

Nice to see the usual nuanced considered analysis from Britishes politics fans.

I actually ended up forgetting to vote in mine own poll. (Would have voted Reagan)

But man. Really?

Reagan was probably worse overall but I dunno, Thatcher still feels like a scar or a faultline down the middle of this country in a way that Reagan maybe doesn't? Maybe that's partly because the US have had an even worse President since.

also i suppose because right wing dickery is default mode for US politics. i've started to read David Kynaston's Austerity Britain and altho i will probably quibble with his choice of date i think his argument that the Thatcher government signalled the killing of a v. British post-war utopia holds a ton of weight

so ignore me chuntering last night really, tho the point remains that because of circumstances Reagan was capable of a greater objective volume of evil

Also, a bit weird given how far slanted ILX has become within the past few years, more British voted than American? So I guess that this is an issue that still ~matters~ to British people when many Americans of the same age can't really remember Reagan? But like Matt says, Thatcher is still an open wound for the British.

also i suppose because right wing dickery is default mode for US politics

that wasn't really the case before reagan. he legitimized and popularized a political stance that was definitely in the minority before 1980.

Reagan was capable of a greater objective volume of evil

Really this comes down to the size and world influence of the country he was in charge of, though, doesn't it? If that's your main focus, the poll is pointless and the question may as well have been 'which is bigger: USA or UK?'

I don't think it's so much that as "who is capable of doing the larger amount of damage to the world around them?" in which case, maybe it's Empire Hangover but I do think that smaller countries "with influence" can punch above their population weight. Especially in terms of doing harm. I don't know if this is more or less the case now that everything is so globalised that one small country on the other side of the globe can set off a series of transactions which collapse a seemingly unrelated country's economy. But size and effect are not necessarily correlated, either in population or landmass.

Well, Reagan had more support/votes across the US electorate than Thatcher did across the UK electorate...

also i suppose because right wing dickery is default mode for US politics. i've started to read David Kynaston's Austerity Britain and altho i will probably quibble with his choice of date i think his argument that the Thatcher government signalled the killing of a v. British post-war utopia holds a ton of weight

― graveshitwave (Noodle Vague), Friday, July 29, 2011 11:26 AM (56 minutes ago) Bookmark

This interests me very much, would you recommend this book?

yeah i've only dipped so far but he uses contemporary sources brilliantly and from what i've read of his analysis it's mature and coherent

Thanks man. See I thought, from a review I read somewhere, that the book stays really close to the '45-'51 period. Which is necessary and great in itself, but I'd be even more interested if he also casts a light forward from that time on to Thatcher era Britain, connecting the dots. Which your comment seemed to suggest.

no that book is 45-51, and his second one covers 1951-57. the projected series will go thru to 1979 i think

but yeah he is always looking forward to 79 i think

Thanks, I'm going to pick it up!

I got a bit bogged down with that book TBH. Some excellent Pooterish stuff from the civil servant's diary that Kynaston dug up from the Mass Observation archives, though.

Bogged down how? Or why?

any Mass Observation stuff u can find is worth the read/watch

xp It's a doorstopper, and I think I just got a bit daunted and gave up. Perhaps down to my preference for macro-history rather than micro- and this is very much in the latter mould. Don't let me put you off though...

No that's very useful to know, Neil, thanks

would have voted Thatcher. i'm irish btw

also i suppose because right wing dickery is default mode for US politics

that wasn't really the case before reagan. he legitimized and popularized a political stance that was definitely in the minority before 1980.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, July 29, 2011 2:46 AM

Forget it J.D., it's Thatchertown.

to us europeans with our socialist utopias and taxpayer-funded national free money service, US politics is always gonna look a bit right-leaning

Some good Reagan hate from iatee and others on this thread: U.S. Presidents - Cold War and New Millennium Edition - I stand by my comments there.

This seems like the one to bump for Americans.

Oh, and ...

AIDS denial

... I voted Reagan.

Reagan will get bodies of water named after him.

there's already many puddles of piss named after thatcher