Who Was Worse, Reagan or Thatcher?

Seems to me like Thatcher did more damage to her own country than Reagan... America was/is more right-wing than Britain, so Reagan's policies weren't as different from those of preceding governments as Thatcher's.

Though of course, when it comes to their effect on other countries, Reagan was worse.

I think it is difficult to answer properly coming from the UK. My instinctive (and thus emotional) answer is definitely Thatcher, and I'm not sure if it is possible to get through that. She certainly fucked up Britain more than Reagan did, which has a clear impact on my own existence and thus seems five million times worse.

Seems to me like Thatcher did more damage to her own country than Reagan...

OTuoMas

Still, it made me cringe when that statue of Reagan was unveiled in London... and you can't even attack it with a cricket bat because you'd probably get shot

Therein lies exactly the crux of the matter, and why I can't decide. And why I'm most interested in hearing from ppl in countries outside the UK or US as to which they think had the worst effect, globally. (x-posts to Tuomas.)

I'm British and therefore have that kneejerk hatred of Thatcher, but I did spend the 80s in the US, so I also have the kneejerk anti-Reagan twitch. I think perhaps Thatcher's effects on her own country were greater by comparison with previous 20th Century governments, but I think that Reagan's worldwide effects were perhaps more profound, though oddly, he seems to have come off better due to how much *worse* American government became during the 21st Century. (Though Cameron is certainly doing his best on that score.)

There should be an option for a tie.

Was Reagan as 'in charge' as Thatcher though, I wonder? He was generally portrayed in the UK as dimwit movie actor, I don't remember anyone having very much respect for him - left OR right - which is why William Hague trotting out that right wing propaganda garbage about him 'winning the Cold War' at said unveiling was a bit surprising

... tho it's true that Hague is a different generation to those Tory ministers who were laughing up their sleeves at Reagan in the 80s

Canadian, bored by both of them--and by our own version at the time, Mulroney. I followed the '84 presidential election, otherwise paid hardly any attention at all. My antipathy to both isn't strong enough to cast a vote.

America was/is more right-wing than Britain

the finnish view

I almost think it's worse if Reagan wasn't as directly involved as Thatcher. He could say "here's the direction I want the country to go" and let his Meeses and Regans and Haigs and Weinbergers do the thuggery.

haughey write-in, with clemenza in terms of attitude to this pair. Also too young to really have understood the politics at the time.

Not sure why anyone outwith the UK would care about Thatcher at all

I think what edges it towards Reagan for me is the AIDS thing. That many of Thatcher's policies created misery and poverty, but not the huge in-the-millions numbers of actual *deaths* that were the legacy of Reagan-era AIDS policies.

But I don't have any actual evidence on the worldwide effects of that beyond vague rememberings of Reagan actively defunding foreign aid programs that included *any* contraception, even if used to combat the AIDS pandemic. The scale of the loss of life, if that understanding is true, seems to me so incomprehensible.

Western Hemisphere, but with British gf who's family has been deeply, deeply affected in a disastrous way by Thatcher. Losing jobs, being pushed from already quite tough living conditions into sheer poverty. Causing a lot of grief and illness. And one can still see Thatcher's devastating effect on the UK today.

I know all I need to know about Reagan and the consequences of his reign, but really can't see beyond Thatcher in this one. Even without all of the above.

Only recently found out Reagan was funding the Khmer Rouge/Pol Pot in exile after the Vietnamese kicked them out of Cambodia, which I mean wtf

Thatcher might've loved ol' Pinochet etc but doesn't really compare

And yes, I do think that the whole hands-off, abnegation, give the reigns over to aides and corporate interests rather than through active control is somehow worse, in Reagan's case. That Thatcher, no matter how cold-blooded and calculating, at least had *some* political philosophy and thought behind what she was doing, no matter how evil and wrong-headed, which Reagan seemed to signify almost an *absence* of morality, ethics, political thought, just handing things off to whoever shouted the loudest or bought the most votes.

Was going to mention Pinochet, I would add South Africa + the Hunger Strikes (that's a can of worms though) to Thatcher's list of crimes (xp)

What's more evil Kate, being evil *with* a political philosophy behind it (Thatcher) or being evil *without* a political philosophy behind it (Reagan)? I tend to believe the former is more evil, because it seems more conscious...

that was one question i had- have either of them been caught personally enriching themselves using their influence, or were both solely ideologically driven?

I tend to think the latter, because having and believing in a wrong-headed philosophy is combat-able in a way that kind of absence and vacuum and apathy really isn't. Doing something you *think* is right, albeit for all the wrong-headed reason, shows at least some kind of ethical compass, in a way that a-morality is much more terrifying, and much harder to fight. x-post

Both Thatcher and Reagan blocked sanctions against South Africa.

at what point did thatcher become thatcher? as education secretary in the heath govt. she proposed massive, massive expansion of education & spending on education -- which no one talks about, now, because it doesn't fit What We Know About Thatcher

that was one question i had- have either of them been caught personally enriching themselves using their influence

Thatcher would have gone without pay, in fact she'd have probably paid the Treasury out of her own pocket for the pleasure of grinding the miners into the dust

and i disagree that purely ideological 'evil' (troubling term, rly) is more reprehensible than personal-gain political cynicism

at what point did thatcher become thatcher? as education secretary in the heath govt. she proposed massive, massive expansion of education & spending on education -- which no one talks about, now, because it doesn't fit What We Know About Thatcher

When Heath blew it and lost to the miners I suppose

oh karen said that, better than i did too.

The perception of Reagan as a dimwit who allowed aides to manipulate him remains one of liberalism's more pernicious clichés.

We're still feeling the effects of Reaganism here: Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have been better Reagans than Reagan himself. Obama announced yesterday that he was ready to cut Social Security benefits for current and future seniors. This is Reaganism's true legacy – creating and sustaining a fear of government.

I tend to think the latter, because having and believing in a wrong-headed philosophy is combat-able in a way that kind of absence and vacuum and apathy really isn't. Doing something you *think* is right, albeit for all the wrong-headed reason, shows at least some kind of ethical compass, in a way that a-morality is much more terrifying, and much harder to fight. x-post

― Karen D. Tregaskin, Friday, 8 July 2011 14:34 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

You've got a point there. It's not as clear-cut, I think. A-morality is definitely way more terrifying because it can't be 'reasoned' with, can't be countered with a different philosophy because there isn't a philosophy to fight in the first place.

tom d. i feel like thatcher and the miners is a cartoon, now, too

key q.: in what way was the outcome of the miners' strike not inevitable

The funding of proxy wars in Central America and the selection of federal and SCOTUS judges more conservative than him are other noxious elements.

Reagan had one huge plus: in the biggest blow to the he-was-a-dimwit line of thinking, he ignored every one of his advisors and opened negotiations with Gorby. They went so well that by 1988 the likes of George Will and Newt Gingrich were hauling out Chamberlain allusions and denouncing him as a sellout.

tom d. i feel like thatcher and the miners is a cartoon, now, too

Hilarious cartoon that one is. But what do you mean by cartoon exactly?

The perception of Reagan as a dimwit who allowed aides to manipulate him remains one of liberalism's more pernicious clichés.

Might be a liberal cliche in the US, but I'd say that was the perception of Reagan in the 80s on both right and left in the UK, can't speak for anywhere else

... but that's British snobbishness towards the US for you

But we're not arguing for the perception, are we?

I feel like blaming Thatcher or Reagan for what took place in western Capitalism in the 80s is far too simplistic. They were figureheads for political forces whose time had come, and if not them there wd probably have been another figurehead ready to go. Difficult to think of anything positive that Thatcher attempted as PM, but I'm inclined to agree with Alfred that Reagan's arms reduction strategy was, on balance, a good thing. On the other hand I feel like Reagan was probably more pernicious for the world simply by dint of governing the more powerful nation. I will probably not vote, since there's no option to sit on the fence, but I would lean slightly towards Thatch being worse I guess.

anglo-irish agreement fwiw

I'll give her that one

Loath as I am to mention "historical forces," a reaction to liberalism had to come eventually, and economically Reagan wasn't as much a menace as Clinton and (as we're seeing now) Obama. The man raised taxes several times and oversaw the most concentrated revision of the tax code in decades (unfortunately the corporate loopholes were reopened under Clinton).

Clemenza, did Mulroney do anything on par with the policies listed in the OP? He privatized unprofitable Crown corporations and implemented free trade but afaik he never waged the kind of all-out war (almost literally in Thatcher's case) on organized labour that these two engaged in. Never had the sense that he went for supply-side in the same way either, unless I'm unaware of something. He raised taxes if anything, right? The GST might have been an improvement on the manufacturers' tax. I kind of feel like the real neoliberal shift came with the Liberals' 1995 budget, actually, but I'm no economist.

On social issues, Mulroney extended Trudeau's policies on bilingualism, multiculturalism, and immigration. On foreign policy, Clark actually took a stand against some of Reagan's Central American shenanigans. BM had some real accomplishments on ozone and acid rain too. Man, I never thought I'd be defending this guy... I just have trouble equating him with Reagan/Thatcher.

The UK was in truly dire straits in the late 70s, right? What was Labour's alternative strategy? Serious question: I've no love for what Thatcher did; I'm just curious what alternatives were being proposed.

Clinton v Blair would be an interesting poll to run bcuz I suspect my gut feeling (Blair worse) would probably be wrong if I examined Clinton beyond "we supported him coz he was pro-choice, that's all"

In an odd way I do think Canadians & Irish, though they will naturally resent their own leaders most, are better placed to answer the OP. Sleeping next to an evil giant gives you a better perspective than sleeping underneath one!

I'm still puzzling over the OP question!

"we supported him coz he was pro-choice, that's all"

I've kind of suspected this was the main reason many left-of-centre people supported Clinton, considering his policies on the death penalty, the Defence of Marriage Act, deregulation, ...

The UK was in truly dire straits in the late 70s, right? What was Labour's alternative strategy? Serious question: I've no love for what Thatcher did; I'm just curious what alternatives were being proposed.

Continued in dire straits (even worse possibly?) throughout Thatcher's first term then came the Falklands and she was saved and a lot of other people were doomed. Pretty sure the Falklands was the birth of the Thatcher we know and love.

Yeah, if you look at the unemployment figures and things like the dollar:pound exchange rate, the 70s looks lovely compared to 1980-86…

I was only equating Mulroney in the sense that he bored me just as much as the other two at the time. The '80s were my 20s: not married, no kids, and bouncing around from job to job (before I got into teaching), the decade was about seeing bands, getting drunk, and beginning to write about music. Mulroney, Reagan, and Thatcher barely existed for me.

I think Reagan's AIDs denial was awful too, but a) I wasn't much better, being fairly oblivious to AIDs till the middle of the decade (and especially till I read And the Band Played On, and b) Alfred has made the case that it was a generational thing, and Mondale or anybody else wouldn't have been any better. I don't agree with the second part of that, but I understand the generational argument.

Also North Sea oil revenue began to kick in, allowing the country to actually afford having millions on the dole... at last! (xxp)

Being a petrostate had its benefits!

Thatcher also had Clause 28 and Christopher Monckton calling for AIDS quarantine camps on her watch too…

im pretty sure we still have an nhs, state arts funding, a comparatively lavish benefits system, etc. she enacted important anti-union laws and pulled a bunch of other shit but she did not enact the systematic demolition of 'every scrap' of what labour achieved.

― would s*m*a*s*h 1994 (history mayne), Saturday, 9 July 2011 07:59 (Yesterday) Bookmark

So she didn't get to finish the job, but can you doubt her intentions?

Don't look at intentions. Study her eye shadow and hair.

If you're going to base your vote on eyeshadow, you have to imagine Reagan with the same eyeshadow, to be fair.

I voted Thatch, anyway, based more on visceral hatred than cool examination of facts, legacy, hair or eyeshadow, sorry Kate.

As an Australian, I feel kind of removed from both, but Regan = nuclear war to my 14 year old mind ("we begin bombing in 5 minutes lol!" and so on). I was aware of the dire straits the UK was in at the time with the miners strikes and riots and so on, but it wasnt as visceral an impact as the boogeyman of nuclear annihalation that felt like it was all Regan's fault.

so are you saying That Was Then, This is Now?

ill say this for thatch, 80s tv was much better in england than in the US

especially on that very special episode of "Family Ties" in which the Keating family visited.

everyone on about Reagan's legacy = otm. Seems like the damage Reagan done is somewhat quaint compared to the run of Clinton/W/Obama...

I mean I know a lot of Britishers hate Blair and Brown, but it didn't seem like they were so bad for so long that it made Thatcher seem not really all that bad?

As facile as this sounds, I'm a hundred times more willing to condemn erstwhile, nominal opponents of Reaganism and Thatcherism like Blair, Clinton, and Obama than Reagan and Thatcher themselves.

TS: john major vs george h. w. bush.

Bush is far worse! During his House faces in the late sixties he opposed the Civil Rights Act cuz that's what Texas demanded. He remained a Nixon lapdog until his position was, as they say, no longer tenable (Nixon himself on Bush: "He's not a leader; he's a man you appoint to things"). As CIA director he authorized the creation of Team B, a collection of US foreign policy satraps whose purpose was to ignore the CIA and use its own intelligence.

He also the dirtiest prez campaign of my lifetime in '88.

I have warmer memories about Bush pere than I did in '93, but this is a man who always -- always -- got history wrong.

*House races

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