Category: Margaret Thatcher

In her 2004 eulogy honoring former US president Ronald Reagan, former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher distinguishes Reagan as not only a great president but a great American and man. By shedding light on Reagan’s ability to unite a previously divided nation, Thatcher describes Reagan’s leadership and character through figurative language to lighten the mood when discussing the difficult tasks that he faced without corrupting the country. Thatcher also establishes diction in her piece to illustrate how Reagan’s personality played a major role in defining him as a president.

Thatcher asserts “We have lost a great president, a great American, and a great man, and I have lost a dear friend.” She repeats the word “great” in order to emphasize the extent how which Reagan was truly a great president and emphasize his character. By repeating this word, she creates contrast and shifts from a professional tone to a personal tone that shows Thatcher’s personal relationship with the former president by calling him a “dear friend”. Margaret Thatcher also shows the reader a personal side of the eulogy when she calls him, “Ronnie”. By calling him this nickname, it allows the reader to see the close relationship that they had: it shows the depth of their conversations and how well she knew him. It also strengthens her credibility by calling him Ronnie, because it shows how accurate the information she expresses is and also allows the reader to trust her. She also establishes her authority over the rest of the audience by announcing her closeness with the president enough to be able to call him a friend. This also comes again when she says “As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan…” There Thatcher establishes her credibility as more than a bystander to Reagan’s work. This all adds to Thatcher’s credibility as someone who is honest and sincere about her recalling of the optimistic man that will be missed by all.

Using pathos, Thatcher pulls at the hearts of the audience of disheartened Americans and allies of Reagan to bring respect and sadness to the loss of such a great president. She uses powerful language to describe Reagan such as: “cheerful and invigorating presence,” and “freshness and optimism”. These descriptions contribute to the legacy Thatcher has painted in memory of Ronald Reagan.

In the next paragraph, Thatcher juxtaposes Reagan’s jokes after an assassination attempt, “were evidence that in the aftermath of terror and in the midst of hysteria, one great heart at least remained sane and jocular”. The contrast of “terror” and “hysteria” with “sane and jocular” contributes to the words that will sit with the audience and remember Reagan as the opposite of hysterical. This strengthens the audience’s fondness for Reagan and their grief through diction and juxtaposition. She also uses figurative language as she states “[He invited] enemies out of their fortress and [turned] them into friends.” This language specifies how he could draw his enemies in and engage them to resolve conflict which solved problems efficiently.

Thatcher also summarizes Reagan’s accomplishments and goals in order to remind the world of his effectiveness as president. She states Ronald Reagan “sought to mend America’s wounded spirit, to restore the strength of the free world, and to free the slaves of communism”.

Margaret Thatcher in her eulogy appeals to our emotions to show how successful Reagan was especially during the Cold War. America was in terror and unease but Reagan’s humor was able to keep the public together and unified. America is looking up to the President to provide firm leadership and the tone given alludes to people appreciating how the situation was handled as well as his principles and values. Reagan’s humor was able to comfort the American people which is just another way to show how successful he was at being a President. This means that Reagan was able to win the Cold War without actually going to war. He also made our enemies our friends. This shows how successful he was as a President because this is something that is really hard and challenging to do. He went through all those challenges for the American people and continued to uphold his values.

Prime Minster Thatcher uses her credibility as a prime minister to say this and say what he had achieved. The sensitive era at the time of the Cold War showed firm leadership to which the American people looked up. She also uses a metaphor to show how diligent and successful he was as a President. The metaphors also show how risky and difficult the challenge of the Cold War was especially being the President. Reagan persevered in pursuit of healing and unifying America from the burden of war. Reagan went through all of these challenges so he could restore America for the people. This gives a tone of passion and optimism to represent his dedication to being President. Thatcher also uses the Cold War to show what Reagan valued and how he helped the American citizens and to show how successful he really was. This shows that it was his job as President to stop the Soviet Union from expanding and from potentially going to war. He had to go through a lot of trouble to keep the American people safe and he did it all out of his love for the people. She illustrates the idea of the Soviet Union collapse which Reagan had achieved.

This conveys the idea of how Reagan had a selfless heart and love for the American people. The description in the quote shows how he knew what was going on around him and was knowledgeable about it to find a solution. The imagery also stresses his role as President, especially during this time and towards the end of the Cold War. The word choice use illustrates foreign and political struggles that the audience sympathizes with. She also repeats the idea of how successful Reagan was throughout the eulogy.

Eulogies are very sincere with emotions that help mourn the loss of that one person. Margaret Thatcher does a great job to combine her melancholy emotions with a vision of hope rhetorically. In Thatcher’s eulogy to not only United States President Ronald Reagan but to the whole United States, she uses parallelism and a great sense of tone to show pathos in her eulogy.

Parallelism is shown right away in the opening sentences when she addresses her audience that we lost a “great president”, “great American”, and “great man”. While she addresses the fact that Reagan was a great person not only to America but to the rest of the world leaders, it relays the information that this message is truly sincere especially when she calls him a “dear friend”. Thatcher saying that Reagan was a “great American” allows the audience to show how big of a figure he was in America. When she explains that we lost a great president she then proceeds to mean that he was a successful president during his time in office. The first paragraph grasps the audience’s attention with a sympathetic tone and that Thatcher’s message is sincere.

Thatcher appeals to Pathos during her whole eulogy by reminiscing all Reagan’s traits which made him so beloved. She makes sure the audience realizes how powerful he was, and how he would give reassurance to the anxious world. Or when Thatcher speaks about his recovery after the attempt on his life when she says “Ronnie himself certainly believed that he had been given back his life for a purpose”. Reagan carried his people with him with every endeavor during his presidency, Thatcher reassures this with her soft gloomy tone when she concludes when she is going to miss the large-hearted Ronald Reagan.

Margaret Thatcher repeatedly uses parallelism and the language appeal to pathos to the audience. These Rhetorical devices help console the audience. She simply tries to comfort the audience with her eulogy. Thatcher was able to connect her emotion with the crowd to commemorate all Ronald Reagan has done for the world.

Rhetoric Practice

While eloquently presenting her eulogy in 2004, Margaret Thatcher honors the life of Ronald Reagan. She speaks to both the American and English individuals, providing them with comfort as she uses words of respect. She emphasizes his respect and initiative by appealing to ethos, exploiting metaphors, and thoughtfully conveying parallelism.

Thatcher also applies ethos to concrete her reasoning of Reagan’s great character and the devastation of his passing. To begin her eulogy, Thatcher affirms, ‘We have lost a great president, a great American, and a great man, and I have lost a dear “friend.” With the involvement of anaphora, her repetition of “great” emphasizes Reagan and his character, yet she additionally includes a recognizable contradiction to the last phrase, which describes Reagan as Thatcher’s ‘dear friend’. Thatcher calls Reagan ‘dear’ as opposed to ‘great’ when alluding to her very own association with the past President. As an authority above them, Thatcher segregates herself from the audience. This authority is discovered again later when Thatcher announces, “As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan . . .” Thatcher presents herself as an authority of the state, Prime Minister, to expand the validity of her argument as Reagan’s close working partner rather than simply as one of his admirers. By identifying herself as Prime Minister and Reagan’s “dear friend”, Thatcher increases the credibility of her eulogy and promotes the sincerity she has as somebody who is genuinely true when she speaks on behalf of Reagan as a leader and idealistic man who will be remembered fondly.

Thatcher exploits metaphors in her commendation to make a respectful, glorified perspective on Reagan. She says, ‘He looked to patch America’s injured soul, to re-establish the quality of the free world.’ This methodology centers around his ideal objectives instead of his policies. By implementing this metaphor, Thatcher develops an appearance of Reagan as a person who was powerful to his greatest extent, yet benevolent. By focusing on the policies rather than the actions, she endeavors to eradicate any negative pictures of Reagan from individuals’ minds. The implementation of the metaphor communicates a visual of Reagan rather than the man himself, allowing him to appear to be practically more than human.

Thatcher likewise abridged Reagan’s achievements and objectives so as to help the world remember the effectiveness of his presidency. Thatcher says Reagan, “sought to mend America’s wounded spirit, to restore the strength of the free world, and to free the slaves of communism”. With the use of the phrase ‘to mend,’ ‘to restore,’ and ‘to free’, Thatcher initiates Reagan as a man of action and healing. These characteristics intensify the audience’s endorsement of Reagan and amplify their sorrow. The parallel structure of the infinitives features Reagan’s actions and wishes for the benefit of the audience’s appearance of Reagan. The sentence continues to incorporate pathos, for example, “wounded spirit” and “slaves of communism”. These miserable characters are spared by Reagan through his rehabilitating and liberation which further identifies Reagan as a successful president and extraordinary man.

In establishing herself as Prime Minister to speak to power, including metaphoric expressions, and grammatical structure to parallel Reagan’s actions to his renovating character, Thatcher enhances the melancholy of losing a former President by a hundred folds in the hearts of her audience. She concretes Reagan’s legacy as a genuine legend and commander which left her audience in complete admiration and sorrow.

Neoliberalism is the idea that society should be shaped by the free market and comprises a set of economic theories as well as a more administrative, strategical, and policy position. The theory entails that ‘a largely unregulated capitalist system (a “free market economy”) not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth, technical progress, and distributional justice. Based on 18th-century classical liberalism, catalyzed by Locke, Smith, and Mill, the ideology provides a defense of individual liberty protecting private property and the freedom of markets from foreign interference in the form of taxes and restrictions. It includes central factors like personal liberties, a reduction of restrictions, liberalization of the economy, decreasing the public sector, and the disposition of import restrictions. Moreover, it entails the commodification of almost all aspects of life which means that ordinary goods, products, or resources are made a commodity by commercializing them and putting them on the market.

Before the reforms, the government and civil servants controlled the economy to a large extent. The economy was not regulated and there were not many laws installed. As such, the workers had too much influence on the economy which made the economy stagnant in nature. Nonetheless, a new economic ideology came up under the reign of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Thatcher, also known as the Iron Lady, was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 until 1990. Reagan was the 40th American president and served from 1981 until 1989. In 2017, Sir David Cannadine published a book called Margaret Thatcher: a life and legacy. Here, he elaborated on the great political impact she has had and discusses her relationship with then US president Reagan. According to Cannadine, this relationship was based on differences rather than similarities as he states that ‘he (Reagan) was sunny, genial, charming, relaxed, upbeat, and with little intellectual curiosity or command of policy detail; she (Thatcher) was domineering, belligerent, confrontational, tireless, hyperactive, and with an unrivaled command of facts and figures. Nonetheless, they found common ground in their distrust of the communist ideology which was dominant in the Soviet Union, their liberal beliefs, and their wish for free-market rights.

Even though the way for liberalization had already largely been paved by the Thatcher government and the Reagan administration in the 1980s, the end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall accelerated and strengthened the process of neoliberal reforms in Europe. The internal disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 and thereby the end of the Cold War is signified by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, which opened borders, started free elections, marked an end of communist rule in eastern Europe, and ‘seemed to be a total victory for free market capitalism and liberal democracy over state dictated socialism’ overall. After 1989, ‘the effective discrediting of communism allowed the proponents of neoliberalism to champion their economic model without serious challenge,’ as Guyatt says when elaborating on the globalization taking place through privatization of public assets and economic deregulation in the 90s. This new economic model was widely accepted, implemented, and promoted by Western leaders, through international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, which resulted in the constant growth of the ideology.

Thatcherism is known as the political and economic policies brought to light by Margaret Thatcher, who was the British prime minister between 1979 and 1990. Governments of people such as David Cameron and John Major continued to represent Thatcherism after Thatcher’s resignation in 1990. The whole idea of Thatcherism consisted of the privatisation of nationalised industries and trade union legislation. On the other side however, classical liberal ideology was committed to individualism, equal rights, and liberty, and in order to achieve their aims, classical liberal ideologists believed that they needed a free economy that had as small as possible government interference.

Thatcherism as a ideology as a whole consists of the general theory that it is a possible platform that adheres free markets, as well as decreased tax and government spending. What can be seen as the main connection between Thatcherism and classical liberal ideology would be the movement of Margaret Thatcher herself, as she has commonly been described to have had a liberal movement within the conservative party. The borrowed aspects of this liberal movement in the conservative party of Thatcherism would be emphasis placed onto having a free market that included a reduced amount of government intervention, which can be closely connected to classical liberal ideology’s idea of a minimal amount of government intervention. Real-world examples of Thatcherism’s attempts on a free market would include its efforts of privatisation, which could be seen on the 1979 election manifesto, which then further privatised many industries such as British airways in 1987 to name one.

Thatcherism can be seen to borrow many aspects of Classical Liberal Ideology, as discussed above, however, it has only borrowed aspects, being an ideology of its own. Firstly, Thatcherism was considered a liberal movement that took place within the conservative party, meaning that it was not a full-fledged liberal movement, and was not considered to be level with Classical Liberal Ideology on many of its ideas. Some of these ideas included the fact that Thatcher during her reign as prime minister was considered by some to be authoritarian at times, meaning that she favoured strict obedience at the expense of personal freedom, whilst Classical Liberal Ideology promoted and supported a more gentle approach to the population, where they aimed to support the population whilst maintaining low levels of government intervention, something in which Thatcher didn’t maintain, with some considering her administration to be iron-clad, with heavy amounts of intervention, despite her intensions of reducing government intervention. Thatcher also contradicted the ideas of classical liberal ideology by attempting to use government intervention to put an end to socialised welfare.

In conclusion, it can be deduced that Thatcherism had borrowed some key ideas from Classical Liberal Ideology, such as the emphasis both ideologies placed on minimal government intervention, and a free market, as well as Thatcherism being considered as a liberal movement, despite that movement only being within the restrictions of the conservative party. The extent of how much Thatcherism borrowed from classical liberal ideology however is challenged when the differences between the ideologies are compared, as discussed above, as despite their similar intensions, they went about attempting to achieve their goals in different ways, with Thatcher’s supposed authoritarianism and large amounts of intervention causing controversy as she prided herself on reaching minimal government intervention. Furthermore her attempts to use government intervention to stop socialised welfare, was clearly against the theory of classical liberal ideology, that believed the population should be supported, socialised welfare included. Therefore, the extent of which Thatcherism borrowed from classical liberal ideology depends on the perspective and opinions of those making the judgement, however it is clear that Thatcherism did borrow a few key ideas from classical liberal ideology.

The political transformation of the Labour party into New Labour has traditionally been seen by historians as a significant shift, chiefly influenced by the electoral success and political dominance of Margaret Thatcher and so-called Thatcherism. This interpretation has been based on a variety of factors, especially when Thatcher said Tony Blair and New Labour when asked what she considered her greatest achievement, heavily implying that she considered New Labour an accommodation with the politics of Thatcherism. New Labour’s Third Way policies were not just influenced by Thatcherism however. Other shifts such as internal Labour Party movements and demographic changes also played a part.

The traditional view that New Labour was almost exclusively influenced by Thatcher proclaims that the policies and success of Thatcherism caused Labour to adapt to a political climate forever changed by what Thatcher accomplished in her years in office. Simon Jenkins argues that the New Labour governments didn’t reverse any of the key policies of the Thatcher ministries, stating, Blair and Brown brought their colleagues round to accept the Thatcherite settlement. He suggests that New Labour must have been influenced by Thatcher, as their core policy platforms were very similar. Jenkins claims do hold some weight, as Labour’s 1997 manifesto shows with Blair admitting in his foreword; Some things the Conservatives got right. We will not change them. The manifesto also contained no commitments to renationalisation, and strengthening trade unions. This, and the commitment of maintaining Conservative spending for the first two years of government, is reliable evidence that Labour were being directly influenced by the economic policies of Thatcher. While manifestos have their problems as evidence (because governments don’t always follow through on their promises), they can be a useful indication of what parties intend to do and the general direction they are taking.

Anthony Seldon argues that Blair owes much to her legacy and that her policies of reducing the role of central government, boosting individualism… have been directly copied by the Labour Prime Minister since 1997. Seldon indicates that Thatcher’s cornerstones in terms of both policy and attitudes were copied by Blair and her influence is very significant, given that these policies and values had not been adopted by a Prime Minister before the Second World War. Therefore, it seems far more likely that it was her influence that inspired Blair into the New Labour transformation, rather than any other leader, especially not former Labour Prime Ministers. Seldon even goes on to say that Blair owed more to her than James Callaghan or even Harold Wilson. That opinion is given weight by accusations by those on the Labour left who referred to Blair as a neo-Thatcherite, many MPs even rebelling against more Thatcherite policies such as Tuition fees, which barely passed the House, despite Labour having an enormous majority. If it weren’t for the Conservatives voting in favour of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, it wouldn’t have passed, indicating that New Labour’s policies had strong Thatcherite elements.

However, Seldon and Jenkins ignore key areas of policy in which Blair and New Labour as a whole differs wholeheartedly from the Thatcherite Conservative party. In terms of social policy, Labour’s emphasis on a generous welfare state and progressive social reform were entirely at odds with Thatcher’s policies. For example, New Labour’s policy of creating the Food Standards Agency, in effect regulating the food and catering industry. Indeed, the agency, created in 2000, conflicts with Thatcher’s belief that the market will solve most problems. This also conflicts with Seldon’s assertion that Blair continued reducing the role of central government and boosting individualism, as also evidenced by the greater welfare state. Furthermore, Seldon’s argument falters to some extent on a crucial area of policy: the National Health Service. The average yearly health spending increases under both Blair (6.1%) and Brown (5.4%) are in stark contrast to those under Thatcher (2.7%). These figures come from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is a reliable source of data. The implication here is that, while Seldon may be correct in suggesting Thatcherism’s influence over Blair (and consequently New Labour) was significant, it arguably applies a lot less to social policy than it does to economic policy.

An alternative explanation for the New Labour project is that it was not an accommodation with Thatcherism, but rather an accommodation with a more middle class, less ideologically left-wing Britain. The idea here is that New Labour essentially had to broaden its appeal as its own traditional base decreased in size. Indeed, it is true that the percentage of workers in Trade Unions sharply declined over the 18 year course of the Thatcher and Major ministries, from 52.7% in 1979 to 27.3% in 1997. This conveys a decline in what can typically be seen as solid Labour voters. Furthermore, John Curtice put forward the case that in 1979 Labour had a much larger base of core support compared to the Conservatives (35% for Labour, 26% for the Tories). But, by 1997, the Conservative core had grown to 37% of the electorate, while the labour core had shrunk to just 20%. This suggests that, while other factors were certainly at play, the constitution of the British electorate changed over the course of those 18 wilderness years for Labour in such a way that proved highly disadvantageous for the party. This constituted an upwardly mobile working-class and a growing middle-class, groups that were historically far more likely to choose the Tories on election day. Thus, we can posit that New Labour’s politics was less about ideology and more about demography. Blair himself recognised this when he described the exact moment I knew we’d lost the 1992 election.when a man described his change in voting allegiance from Labour to Tory after buying a house and setting up a small business. His instincts were to get on in life, he thought our instincts were to stop him Blair said. The fact that the most influential figure in the creation of New Labour seemed to be concerned with the difficulty Labour was facing with the upwardly mobile working class, homeowners, small business owners, and the fact that they were an expanding group in society, indicates that New Labour was significantly influenced by these demographic changes. However, Curtice rightly acknowledges while these trends were occurring all over Europe, they had also been actively encouraged by Conservative governments. Therefore, in this regard New Labour can be seen as an accommodation with Thatcherism to an extent, as policies like the right-to-buy scheme increased private home ownership and created a demographic shift in favour of Thatcherite policies.

Overall, New Labour did represent an accommodation with the politics of Thatcherism. Going even further than Thatcher on privatisation and introduced tuition fees, New Labour’s acceptance of Thatcher’s influence is evident not only in Tony Blair’s admiration for the Conservative leader, but also in Labour’s total abandonment of public ownership, high financial regulation, and military pacifism. However, the effect of changing demographics and the gradual disappearance of Labour’s core voter base was arguably an influence over New Labour. Yet, much of those changes can be put down to changes the Thatcher Ministries made. New Labour’s acceptance of deregulation and reduction in government economic intervention was more of an accommodation with Thatcherism than internal Labour Party movements, as its own pre-Thatcher revisionism never went as far as to argue for a removal of the post-war consensus. Margaret Thatcher had made widespread changes to the British economy and to British society, to which Labour made little to no effort to dismantle or reverse, conveying that her influence was significant. The Labour party that came to power in 1997 had very different views from the one that left it in 1979, indicating that over the course of 18 years of Conservative rule, Thatcherism had fundamentally altered the nature of the party. After all, the Iron Lady herself seemed to regard New Labour as an achievement of hers and Thatcherism itself.