R.I.P. Margaret Thatcher

[Karl Henning]

Well, back on thread duty, parliament will have seven hours today to discuss Thatcher's life and legacy. A pity they could not apply that time to legislation.

Also makes me think of the brilliant neologism coined for the comparable event here on this side of the pond: Reaganalia.

[Florestan]

You write as though they don't want power, but the public thrust it on to them. Obviously not so. They are by and large starving for power then normally very reluctant to put it aside.

In over 40 years I have only had two votes that contributed towards someone being elected. All the rest of the time I have lived in safe seats where I would not have voted for the party with the stranglehold. So I feel that I have been disenfranchised most of my life. I throw my vote away by casting it and have no effective say in the completion of the government that is elected.

[Marc]

http://themusicsalon.blogspot.nl/2013/04/margaret-thatchers-favorite-composer.html

http://www.gramophone.co.uk/forum/general-discussion/margaret-thatcher-loved-bartok

[ibanezmonster]

.As someone who strongly and actively dislikes most Romanian politicians, from left to right, I certainly understand your feelings, Mike. But Todd is right in pointing out that in democracy politicians don't vote themselves in power: they get themselves elected by the people. If a person we dislike, or one whose policies we find to be detrimental to the society, is elected (sometimes not once, but even twice and thrice --- plenty of cases here in Romania too) then the blame (if blame is the right word) is not on him/her, but on that part of the people that trusted them. Each and every British citizen who voted Conservatives in the 3 elections they won under Thatcher's rule is equally responsible for what she did, good or bad.

I don't know about there, but here it seems more and more like democracy is becoming a facade, with all of the campaign contributions, super PACs, etc.

So many people didn't like Romney, but voted for him anyways, because there wasn't a better choice (I'm just one of them). The real people who control this country are the ones with money, because they can donate to their preferred candidate, and then that candidate can use the money for campaign ads, etc. The American people can't vote for people they've never heard of or never made the ballot.

And of course, there are the banks who donate to both parties to ensure they are forever protected so they can continue ripping off America and damaging the country in general for their own monetary gain.

There was one candidate that caught my attention, but he never made it to the ballot. He made it to NPR, but that was about it. I don't think Fox News or CNN was very interested in featuring him. Probably not enough corporate or financial institution sponsors/connections.

[ibanezmonster]

http://themusicsalon.blogspot.nl/2013/04/margaret-thatchers-favorite-composer.html

http://www.gramophone.co.uk/forum/general-discussion/margaret-thatcher-loved-bartok

Nice. 

[Florestan]

I don't know about there, but here it seems more and more like democracy is becoming a facade, with all of the campaign contributions, super PACs, etc.

Here too. Facade is not the right word, though --- downright farce is more appropriate. What we really have is a particracy --- the three main parties rule the game and despite proclaiming different ideologies (one social-democratic, one liberal and one conservative) they all subscribe to one and the same: getting in power at all costs and staying there as long as possible. And that is not all: I won't even begin to discuss the shameful privileges a Romanian MP enjoys as compared to an ordinary citizen: the very thought of it makes me puke.

Going to the voting booths in Romania does nothing else than legitimating and perpetuating the farce. I have since long ceased to vote and I don't think I'll ever do it again. Actually, I'm opposed to the very concept of democracy (except on local, small scale territorial units) and political parties (no exception whatsoever), not only because it has become empty, but on principle: to put it bluntly, I loathe democracy and political parties just as much as I loathe tyranny --- but that is another issue; if you (or anyone else) want to discuss it feel free to PM me.

So many people didn't like Romney, but voted for him anyways, because there wasn't a better choice (I'm just one of them).

Oh yes, that's the principle I've applied to all my votes but one (and that single one which I voted enthusiastically eventually turned out to be the greatest disappointment of them all...). But then I realized that this is wrong: voting the least bad people or party gives those people or parties no real incentive to stand for, and make, any real difference, because they know they'll always be the least bad choice no matter what they do and therefore they'll always have enough votes to make it into the Parliament and enjoy their privileges accordingly. They masquerade as anti-establishment outsiders but they are none of it: they are part and parcel of the farce and facade.

The real people who control this country are the ones with money, because they can donate to their preferred candidate, and then that candidate can use the money for campaign ads, etc.

The American people can't vote for people they've never heard of or never made the ballot.

And of course, there are the banks who donate to both parties to ensure they are forever protected so they can continue ripping off America and damaging the country in general for their own monetary gain.

Same here but there we go again to the very essence of democracy: it can't be fixed, it is conceptually broken. Just as Communism could not have been fixed by replacing Brezhnev with Gorbachev, so democracy cannot be fixed by replacing Bush jr. with Obama, or Thatcher with Blair, or etc etc etc. The problem is not who drives the car -- the problem is the car itself was badly designed and as a result was even worsel damaged during operation.

[ibanezmonster]

Here too. Facade is not the right word, though --- downright farce is more appropriate. What we really have is a particracy --- the three main parties rule the game and despite proclaiming different ideologies (one social-democratic, one liberal and one conservative) they all subscribe to one and the same: getting in power at all costs and staying there as long as possible. And that is not all: I won't even begin to discuss the shameful privileges a Romanian MP enjoys as compared to an ordinary citizen: the very thought of it makes me puke.

Going to the voting booths in Romania does nothing else than legitimating and perpetuating the farce. I have since long ceased to vote and I don't think I'll ever do it again. Actually, I'm opposed to the very concept of democracy (except on local, small scale territorial units) and political parties (no exception whatsoever), not only because it has become empty, but on principle: to put it bluntly, I loathe democracy and political parties just as much as I loathe tyranny --- but that is another issue; if you (or anyone else) want to discuss it feel free to PM me.

Oh yes, that's the principle I've applied to all my votes but one (and that single one which I voted enthusiastically eventually turned out to be the greatest disappointment of them all...). But then I realized that this is wrong: voting the least bad people or party gives those people or parties no real incentive to stand for, and make, any real difference, because they know they'll always be the least bad choice no matter what they do and therefore they'll always have enough votes to make it into the Parliament and enjoy their privileges accordingly. They masquerade as anti-establishment outsiders but they are none of it: they are part and parcel of the farce and facade.

Same here but there we go again to the very essence of democracy: it can't be fixed, it is conceptually broken. Just as Communism could not have been fixed by replacing Brezhnev with Gorbachev, so democracy cannot be fixed by replacing Bush jr. with Obama, or Thatcher with Blair, or etc etc etc. The problem is not who drives the car -- the problem is the car itself was badly designed and as a result was even worsel damaged during operation.

I should have stuck with my original intention of not voting.  I think most people felt like they were voting for the "lesser of two evils" in the last US election. I heard that phrase quite a bit.

"Particracy" is a new term for me. I hear more and more than America is turning into an oligarchy, and it seems more apparent the more I read about stuff.

There may be a way to "fix" democracy, but it might be extreme.

[knight66]

I vote if I possibly can. Possibly devalued, it was nevertheless a right hard fought for.

THE funeral parade will go right in front of my office windows, but I won't be in London.


Mike

[Karl Henning]

I should have stuck with my original intention of not voting.  I think most people felt like they were voting for the "lesser of two evils" in the last US election. I heard that phrase quite a bit.

I've heard that in practically every US presidential election, starting with Geo. H.W. Bush VS. Michael Dukakis.

[DavidRoss]

I think most people felt like they were voting for the "lesser of two evils" in the last US election.

But the majority still chose the greater of two evils.

Again.

And if you think things are bad now then just hold on tight because what's coming will make this seem like the good old days.

Oh, well -- that's what we deserve for allowing the moronic narcissists in Hollywood to do our thinking for us.

[Coopmv]

The last venerable icon of Conservatism (in Europe aka Classical Liberalism), the Rt Hon., the Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS has died aged 87.

Lovers of personal liberty worldwide, especially Eastern Europe (and especially Romania), will always remember and honor her as one of their own. May God have mercy on her soul!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-political-phenomenon-dies

It takes someone who used to live under communism to truly appreciate the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.  These two individuals and Pope John Paul II were largely responsible for the collapse of communism that set millions of people free ...

[DavidRoss]

It takes someone who used to live under communism to truly appreciate the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.  These two individuals and Pope John Paul II were largely responsible for the collapse of communism that set millions of people free ...

Nah. "Communism" -- by which you seem to mean the Soviet Union and its empire -- collapsed due to the catastrophic failure of its idiotic economic policies and the impossibility of keeping hundreds of millions enslaved in a massive police state built on lies when modern communications made the truth all too easy to see.  The fiasco in Afghanistan undoubtedly hastened its demise, but whether the Reagan arms race hastened the end of the Soviet abomination or prolonged it is a question that cannot be answered definitively.

Reagan's foreign policy was unconscionable, illegal, and disastrous; his domestic policies relatively inconsequential except for three brilliant high court appointments -- O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy -- without whom our nation would be in even deeper doo-doo than it is today.  Perhaps the best thing that can be said of him is that he had a clear (if inconsistent) moral compass that made him the least harmful President since Eisenhower and a towering success in comparison to all the halfwits occupying the office since.

Thatcher took the reins as Great Britain was imploding in a rapid decline into economic catastrophe due to the failures of the welfare state and helped rescue it from impending doom, but only for a short while, for as soon as prosperity began to return, the ignorant, spoiled, selfish masses resumed murdering and eating the goose that lays golden eggs.

[Karl Henning]

That would be a great name for a band: The Towering Nitwits

[Daverz]

three brilliant high court appointments -- O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy -- without whom our nation would be in even deeper doo-doo than it is today.

Thanks for the first chuckle of the day.

[Florestan]

There may be a way to "fix" democracy, but it might be extreme.

Which one?

[DavidRoss]

Thanks for the first chuckle of the day.

I wouldn't expect Lester Maddux to acknowledge the greatness of Martin Luther King, either.

[Parsifal]

Which one?

Educate the population?

[Florestan]

Educate the population?

Ah yes, the old canard of the Enlightenment. The problem is it was tried and failed miserably.

[Karl Henning]

Educate the population?

Oh, that were extreme ; )

Ah yes, the old canard of the Enlightenment. The problem is it was tried and failed miserably.

Such a fine line between an education system, and a channel for conditioning . . . .

[Florestan]

Such a fine line between an education system, and a channel for conditioning . . . .

Yes, but a genuine education system is ipso facto undemocratic, because it strives for excellence in knowledge, independence in thought and moral compass in action --- a far cry from the egalitarian and leveling ideal of the democratic dogma.