Thatcher Biographer Berlinski Shines a Light on the Right Wing's Extremist Views on the Economy
The Heritage Foundation hosted author and Margaret Thatcher biographer Claire Berlinski, who discussed her book There is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters on C-SPAN’s Book TV, which aired over the weekend there. Here’s the description of the segment from C-SPAN:
Claire Berlinski argues that Margaret Thatcher deserves credit for reversing Great Britain's decline in the world during the 1970s. Ms. Berlinski says that Prime Minister Thatcher was instrumental in turning around the country's economy and saving it from socialism. This talk was hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.
The reason I decided to share some of this is because, one, Newt Gingrich loves her and thinks everyone should read her book, and second, even though Newt Gingrich deserves to be ignored by our corporate media, they keep putting him on the air, mainly at Fox, but even after he says something ridiculous at Fox the rest of them feel compelled to report on it as though it’s news, and last but not least because this woman’s extreme views are considered mainstream by the people in these right-wing think tanks that are pushing the policies of the Republican Party.
She says out loud here a lot of things that most Republicans would not dare say either on the air or on the record to a reporter, but what she expresses here goes straight to the heart of the conservative world view and what they have imposed and would like to continue imposing on the United States if they regain power this mid-term election.
I’m not going to take the time to transcribe all of this by any means, but wanted to at least transcribe a bit of it for those who might not be able to watch the video.
Berlinski: Before I talk about the points of analogy, I do want to talk the obvious of dis-analogy. The United States is not now facing a massive problem with inflation. Not now, not yet. And we are not… the economic debate is not focused around our trade unions. Our trade unions are not running the show. So when I discuss this document I want you to mentally substitute what I think are the analogous points.
Stimulus spending, for trade unions… okay? And benefits programs for… for um… nationalizing industries. And the reason I’m going to suggest those are points of analogy are because we’re talking about ways that the government is controlling the economy.
Will everyone go along with me that far? Will everyone agree to accept that we can just mentally substitute that when I read from this document… okay?
So there’s your first bit of claptrap from this woman. Trade unions = stimulus spending. And “benefits programs”, aka welfare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc. = the government having too much control over the “free markets”. And Margaret Thatcher’s Great Britain and their form of government and the strength of the unions in Great Britain during Thatcher's time is somehow comparable to the United States today where union membership has declined terribly over the last thirty years, thanks to Thatcher’s buddy Ronald Reagan.
I’m sure Berlinski is fully aware of this which is why she feels the need to make this bulls**t ridiculous analogy as to what’s going on in the U.S. today and pretend like what Reagan did to the unions in the United States never happened or to at least ignore it for the purpose of her narrative
And it gets worse from there. More of the really infuriating stuff below the fold.
Earlier in the interview she made sure to let the audience know how ridiculous it was for anyone to consider conservatives just greedy uncaring people who don’t care about the poor, but then contradicted that with her own words during the speech.
Berlinski: This is the low hanging fruit of the next election. If there’s anyone in their districts who doesn’t know what exactly they stand for in their words, their opponents deserve to lose. I mean this is easy… low hanging fruit… okay? I’m coming to the really important part.
The socialism he says, it must be explained to the electorate, the socialism leads to a sick society, which is materially impoverished, dishonest, stupid, arbitrary, unfair and finally frightened, so that it’s pitied as childish and backwards, rather than respected by other countries.
Spell out Clause 4. This is what they’re determined get in the end. In order to attack the adversary one must first identify his weak points or his critical links, he writes. He writes that for the Labor Party this is their… this obviously their relationship with the unions.
For the Democratic Party, it’s obviously the relationship with the health care bill… the health care and stimulus spending. We all know that that’s… that that’s the weak part. But the case has not been made sufficiently that it’s not just that this is bad legislation, it’s not just that it’s not going to work economically, it’s that it’s immoral.
It’s immoral. You’re taking money away from people who earned it and giving it to people who haven’t and you’re going to create a society of people who have no incentive to do anything with their lives, are incapable of making personal economic choices, who are not self sufficient, who are whining, weak, flabby loafers. That’s what you’re going to do. You’re stealing from people for people who haven’t earned it.
There is nothing wrong with the impulse to want to take care of the weak and the sick and the poor, but you have to have a wealthy productive free market to do it first.
So all of you lazy whining slackers who don't have jobs out there, that free market of hers she loves so much is going to take care of you, so quit complaining and get off your dead asses and get a job! I'd love for this woman to have to spend a few days actually living the life of a laid off worker in the United States instead of drawing her wingnut welfare for putting out this sort of propaganda.
I guess if we want to solve our employment problems in the United States all of us should just start writing fact free books praising Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and those wingnut welfare checks can start rolling in for the rest of us as well. Problem solved.
If you've got the stomach for the rest of the speech at Heritage, C-SPAN has it up at their web site here.
There's a whole lot more there and in the video I included for the post that this woman deserves to be taken apart for. I don't think I've heard anything more openly condescending and full of disdain for the working class in a long, long time.
All you loathsome Widows of Dead Peasants and your awful pathetic whinging and you dead children with your annoying preexisting conditions and you selfish Brown People demanding to be helped after Katrina and on and on.Don't you realize the strain your immoral behavior put's on rich people?
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
Are you sure that she was quoted accurately. Seems all ascribed to her sounds exactly like a description of our current Plutoligarchy especially the "Its immoral" part when one considers all those parasites feeding on inherited wealth(Hi Paris and "W") and soon to be doing even better with repeal of the "dreaded" death tax. Oh, and let's not forget the hedge fund managers taxed only at the capital gains level! And what's this spending on trade unions crap when all these industry assocations, professional organizations, and cabals like the chamber of commerce set themselves up on K St. open checkbooks at the ready to buy off our oh, so ethical elected officials so that they'll be sure to guide us down that highway to hell called socialism? Cmon! Sticking Thatcher's name intermittently in among her wingnutty, talking points claptrap is like Loser Rudy's campaign pronouncements always leading to the now famous "noun, verb, 9/11" nonesense.
thwarts the predatory parasitism of the rich and privileged self-appointed elites.
The problem is that democrats and progressive generally allow the right to frame the debate.
it's the MSM that frame the debate.
The Democrats are simply not allowed to frame the debate. If Alan Grayson and Dennis Kucinich appear on TV with the same frequency as Liz Cheney or Newt Gingrich you'd have a different conversation. The formula now is Right Wing Hack versus Blue Dog Democrat moderated by a Committed Republican (John King or Wolf Blitzer at CNN are good examples.) It's the corporate owned media, not progressives, who allow the right to frame the debate.
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
THE corporate mouthpiece. Simple as that.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
I can't believe 2 bits is not enough for you people. Some one has to wash and detail the Beemer McFly...
...he uses big words like 'particularly' and 'delicatessen.' -- Jack
All these people seem to forget that Thatcher is hated in Britain.
A deliberate destruction of 25% of British heavy industry in the early eighties. Most likely to allow US industry to dominate the worlds economy. Basically a transfer of the 'empires' HQ from London to Washington.
... and neither does she, apparently, because she offers not the slightest justification for even suggesting that trade unions and governmental economic stimulus are analogous. Why in the world would anybody continue down the road of her point making after such a jaw-droppingly incoherent comparison?
If only for the purpose of watching her head explode, I'd be inclined to transport her -- however briefly -- to the "moral" world of government assistance-less society she fetishizes, in which millions-more (likely tens of millions) sick, impoverished, desperate citizens of this country are forced to live in the streets, destabilizing society and government in their wake.
Like her, those philosophically invested in the obliteration or hobbling of governmental safety nets for the disenfranchised should consider that – any moral consideration or obligation to our poorer citizens aside -- one of the pillars that society relies upon for coherent business function is the ability to operate without hordes of people wandering homeless in search of food or support. One of the essential fuels of commerce is stability, and endemic and perpetuated poverty among the most vulnerable will have its consequences in the streets, in the hospitals, and within the fabric of families.
More viscerally, I wonder if Ms. Berlinski has spent a single moment of true hunger or want.
Let's for a second say you DO get rid of ALL government assistance and hand it back to the wealthy who "own" it and "deserve" it - the RESULT would be MILLIONS of people not spending money in their communities (because they wouldn't HAVE it) and the economy being destroyed - because you know that odds are if you gave all this money back to the filthy rich odds are THEY wouldn't spend enough to keep the economy chugging along in a healthy manner.
Haven't we been down this fucking road like 80 or 100 years ago? Don't these assholes ever open a book except for the propaganda books that they write?
The end result of what what they are calling out for would be catastrophic for EVERYONE - including the rich to some degree.
I lived in Thatcher's Britain, and in its aftermath, particularly in the northern coal regions. There are still people who cannot say her name without spitting on the ground in reflex, she is hated in a good deal of the UK, and for good reason. You can put all the spin on it you want, but people who lost their jobs and have lived precariously hand-to-mouth ever since the unholy Reagan/Thatcher lovefest know quite well Thatcher was indeed instrumental in turning around the country's economy - for the wealthy elite - and 'saving' it from 'socialism', i.e., screwing the working class into the ground and putting generations into poverty. They still know who put them in the shit, even if they don't have degrees in macro-economics. Their children remember as well. So spin on, Berlinski, reality tells a much different story than the 'official' revised one does. And the Brits aren't quite as brain-numbed lemmings as Fox thinks us Americans should be...
It takes a lot to motivate brits from their TV and the pubs, but when properly motivated then watch out.
.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Berlinski has to ignore so much of what is reality today in order to make her scenario work.
She seems to be effective while preaching to the choir, but like most repug ideas, they fall flat in actual practice. I do admire her attempt at breaking down liberals into taxonomic groups. It was probably pure magic to the choir, but of little value beyond the four walls that were compelled to absorb such vibrations as were expectorated from the orifice of one Claire Berlinski.
'Talk to the hand'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-BZIWSI5UQ&fe...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
Ohh the irony... lmao
BTW, donating time isn't the same as doing time. 'Thugs tend to confuse the two.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
I've given about 5 gallons.
Three to Wadley and about two to Carter.
But with all the burgundy and black coffee I drink
The poor sap getting it doesn't know whether to take a nap or go jogging.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air...
...Of anyone who needs to be lynched, it's this heartless b1tch. I am so tired of this shit. I paid into the 'system' like everyone else; now that I am taking advantage of it, I am constantly called 'a burden on society', welfare scum, and my favorite "You should be the poster boy for why the government should just start euthanizing the disabled". I really hate this country sometimes; maybe its just the assholes in it.
Sometime in the nineties, they had a sketch of a district care-worker visiting 'Snatcher' in her nursing home, sat in a high chair surrounded by bottles on the floor, drooling and mumbling "I used to be Prime Minister you know".
PS; Thatcher earned the nickname 'Snatcher' from her actions in stopping free school milk for under privileged kids in the 70s. Free school milk (drink) along with free school meals, was instrumental in bringing the masses of poor children proper nutrition, and improving the nations health. But 'free' is anathema to conservatives no matter the rhyme or reason.
I love how everyone both hear and abroad apparently, think the 'trade unions' were bailed out when then had to beg for a LOAN to help stay afloat. Never mind that untold billions were GIVEN to banks/bankers who already lost money, it's the 'trade unions' that are sucking the country dry.
More right wing clap trap from an old from an old slapper.
I'll never understand the American right's hagiography of Thatcher. They hold her second only to St. Ronnie Of Reagan in their Conservative pantheon.
Yet when she left office, despite the damage she did manage to inflict upon her country, England still had a social safety net the likes of which would make an American wingnut's head positively explode if anyone even suggested something half as comprehensive for the USA. When Margaret Thatcher left, England still had.....hold on to your wigs and keys, wingnuts......socialized medicine! Not just socialized health insurance, like Canada, but actual socialized medicine! Still in place even after Maggie worked her Conservative magic.
And the only people who pay for them are working taxpayers, if you are on benefits or a non taxpayer then you pay ZERO. And if you reckon you pay too much per month on items then you can buy a years pre-pay form, 100 quid or so, and that covers the prescriptions.
The more the capitalist conservatives whine and carry on about Obama being a socialist and socialized this and that, we should take it as a calling to organize and work toward Democratic Socialism for all.
Democratically participatory socialism is just what not only this country needs, but the entire world. Let's work towards that end and be recognized by history as the trail blazers evolving the human race. It's time for action and we have a leader who may privately know this and is just waiting for the right time to help us create a fair and just system that ends the privileged class for good. They may have won a battle with reagan/thatcher but we will win the war, the class war they fear so much.
will never happen because people like me will do better by keeping our money out of the hands of "government".
Let's evolve the human race by showing our fellow man how to do better by keeping his money/property out of the hands of "government".
Private money will never build a bridge, a hospital or a highway. Pure profit motive helps 1% or less of the population to the detriment of everyone else.
One might as well say, "Let's evolve by keeping money out of the hands of corporations." Corporations are NOT dedicated to the common good; at least governments, if well constructed and elected by INFORMED citizens CAN be. The fact that the US federal government is not now a benevolent force is due to right-wing ideas being implemented. The Republicans have made government into something to be feared so that they can say, "fear government."
As Einstein noted, one doesn't solve problems using the same kind of thinking that created them.
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
How do you know that private money will never build a bridge, a hospital or a highway?
Corporations are a fantasy created by corrupt "government". If someone introduced you or most people to the concept of a "corporation", you and most people would laugh it away. If someone had a gun pointed at you and introduced you to the concept of a "corporation", it's very likely that your response would be "Okay, anything you say".
The someone with a gun pointed at you is "government".
"Governments" have been around for well over 5000 years and there never has been one that did squat for the common good/human race. After all of this time, I think it would be smart to assume that "governments" are bad for humans.
It's time to evolve by removing "government". Then there will be nothing to stop you from getting your life in order so that you can then help lift others to your level. You do want to see your fellow man reach a higher level, don't you? You're not too weak and helpless to do that, are you?
"Governments" have been around for well over 5000 years and there never has been one that did squat for the common good/human race"
Well, given that the government had a part in creating the intertubes that you just used to write that ridiculous diatribe....
"I could give a flying crap about the political process.... We're an entertainment company."
- Glenn Beck - Forbes interview; April 26, 2010
Her highlighted statements and framing are straight out of the Strict Father Morality play-book. Please read George Lakoff for ways to deal with these type of statements.
young lady was not saying that conservatives/republicans are better or less corrupt than progressives/democrats. She was saying that socialism is immoral and leads to big problems. She was right on the money.
I haven't read her book so I don't know her exact take on Thatcher. It doesn't matter. Thatcher could have had a better grasp of morality than most politicians but would not have been able to do much with it because she was stuck in the immoral environment called "government"
Anyone on this site thinking government by the people is a problem is promptly put on ignore. Guh-bye.
if you could explain in even remotely amplified terms what you mean by that.
the initiation of violence or threat of violence is immoral. Theft is immoral. Remove those from "government" and see how long it lasts.
conflate corruption with an economic system, and that is a false comparison. It is too simplistic. I've heard many right wing lunatics claiming that European countries are socialist. Thus, in your terms they should be corrupt and immoral, are they? Why? Is it such a black and white issue? Does it have anything to do with e.g. totalitarianism, income inequality, history and culture, public policy?
And how would you defend your simplistic premise when looking at this chart: Corruption by country
When someone says that a "country" is this or that, unless they define what they mean by "country", I have no idea what it is that they're talking about.
Taking someone's property against their will is theft and always immoral. Taking someone's property against their will is what all "governments" do to survive. Therefore all "governments" are corrupt/immoral.
It's obvious that you and most of the commenters on this site are products of a "government" school system. To get an idea of what that has done to you, read this: http://www.voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/homes...
Yes, definitions do matter. That's one of the reasons I see nothing bad in the word socialism per se. You on the other hand seem to be discussing totalitarianism or some other extreme form of government because since you talk about "taking someone's property against their will". But you fail to make your case. What exactly are you saying? And how does it relate to the topic at hand?
And yes, I have faith in the demoratic system of government, although as with all human creations, it has it's flaws. You might want to study history to figure out what kind of other systems human societies have tried and why we have ended up with the current system.
"government" has always been by people and someone can always call them "the people". Doesn't mean much. It always oppresses someone.
If it comes from the
HeritageFascism Foundation, I know it is 50% lies, and 50% bulls**t, and that reality and the truth lies 180 degrees from what these t**ds have to say.If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
"the socialism leads to a sick society, which is materially impoverished, dishonest, stupid, arbitrary, unfair and finally frightened, so that it’s pitied as childish and backwards, rather than respected by other countries."
funny that, after the last decade of conservative and conservative-lite in the US, i look at you folks and i *already* pity your society as sick, childish and backwards. that horse has already bolted, Berlinski. and it happened in the most unabashedly capitalist period, and via that philosophy, NOT from a 'socialist' one. the bizzarro-worldness of these kinds of observations is really starting to get me as they swing further and further out from reality.....
"There is nothing wrong with the impulse to want to take care of the weak and the sick and the poor, but you have to have a wealthy productive free market to do it first."
BTW you got that bit frack to bunt. you take care of the weak and sick and poor, if you want to have a wealthy productive market. sick people have economic impacts; certainly the fact the states that are economically worst off atm are also the states with the worst health outcomes (and incidentally mostly Red states too) should give pause for thought around that philosophy.
the worst part is the stuff is contagious - here in Australia we now have a hung parliament with conservatives making many similar stimulus bashing and deficit peacock arguments as ive seen you folks putting up with for some time now. oh and they are also known as the Party of No. i really really hope they never get introduced to Berlinski's guff, their policies (or lack of them?) is bad enough already.
and once again i wonder what the "socialism=immoral" crowd think about Jesus. Since He is so frequently appealed to by many on the right, yet espouses values that.. well in this case clearly "take away personal incentives" and "the ability to make personal economic choices" from the poor... recommending those who have give to those who have not, who did not earn it and so on. Its baffling He is so valued as a moral authority and yet in the same moment the "morality" beliefs of many adherents at the same time would seem to run so diametrically opposite.
Berlinski is just another Reich wing fountain of bullshit .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
notice that she simply asserted these lies, she never bothered to explain why her assertions might be true or not?
Also, what would she say about Norway or other Nordic countries re: morality of equality in the social framework?
Barf. What a precocious C#NT.
I hope she doesn't spawn.
far left loon >.<
...trying to flip reality on it's head and call working class people immoral because they want decent wages and benefits - because it may have to come from people who already have WWAAYY more than they could ever possibly need.
Do these scumbags - conservative women ALSO - SCUMBAGS - (as in a condom that has been stretched out and ejaculated in) REALLY want a society in which 98% of the people are working poor and the remaining 2% live like Gods?
I would recommend she read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.
".....materially impoverished, dishonest, stupid, arbitrary, unfair and finally frightened..."? Those things are the inevitable outcomes of placing property above human well-being and human rights, which is what capitalism is all about.
An immoral confiscation of wealth from those who "earned" it? The people she is pimping for don't earn money or wealth, they steal or parasitize the wealth created by the people whom they perpetually victimize. And taxes? It isn't "their" money; it ceased being their money when they began to enjoy any of the benefits that the government provides, like roads, police, the security that results from a common defense.....
I'll tell her what's immoral: sociopaths who would impoverish the entire world, who would poison the world so that they could increase their wealth even more and further concentrate the wealth into the <1% of the population that already controls the majority of wealth. It's beyond immoral, it's evil.
...seems to be mostly provided by it's opponents.
The audio from Eric Fromm in 1960 (posted yesterday) pointed this out, and the more I think about it, the more I realize that it is true. I'm not saying that full-blown socialism--with a completely planned economy--is the solution for the United States, but neither are most socialists! But Americans hear about socialism through hard-core capitalists, who love to put a strawman, totalitarian spin on the concept. That's what we get here, and that's why we see these absurd signs at teabagger rallies that say things like, "Keep the government out of my social security!"
Unbelievable.
Beware of anyone promising a future full of yesterdays.
Comments are closed on this entry