No politician taking up residence at No. 10 Downing St. in London has escaped public criticism, some of it of a very personal nature. Like the house, it comes with the job. Various unflattering epithets have been used to describe former prime ministers, by the British press and by other politicos. Harold Wilson was called ”a shoddy little man,” Sir Alec Douglas-Home ”a refugee from Madame Tussaud`s” and Edward Heath ”Identikit man.”
Yet it is Margaret Thatcher, 65, with her unique place in British history as Britain`s first female prime minister (elected in 1979), who also has the unenviable record of attracting the most relentless in-depth character analysis and invective. She has been cast as ”Attila the Hen,” ”The Iron Lady,” and ”Joan of Arc.”
Since she became prime minister there has been an unprecedented preoccupation with her appearance, her character and her personality, due in no small part to her being a woman. She has been described as ”the only man in the Cabinet.”
Those who know her well speak of her softer qualities.
Brian Walden, a television political journalist and ex-Labor member of Parliament, says, ”Margaret Thatcher is a compassionate, sympathetic woman, but she should loosen up a bit and let those qualities shine through.”
I asked the prime minister what she thought of Walden`s observation.
”Yes, I know people sometimes say this, and obviously (these qualities)
do shine through in daily life, but I think what one has to remember is that for a long time now (people) have seen you on television or heard you on radio in a very combative position, when you are deliberately being made a target and everyone is weighing in with everything they can to throw at you verbally. ”If you do anything good, then you have got an ulterior motive, and so you are naturally, like any female of a species, defending yourself and defending everything in which you believe.
”I think sometimes that the characteristics that they criticize you for- that you are very strong-minded, that you make firm and tough decisions-are characteristics which, if you were a man, they would praise you for, and I think they have not yet fully come to terms with that.
”However, it does have its advantages internationally. If we have a big international conference, they will always know the president of the United States, they will always know the president of the Soviet Union; and being a woman, I`m the other one they will automatically recognize.”
Personal attacks
Politics is not a forum for the faint-hearted, but aren`t the malicious personal comments distressing?
”Sometimes you get vicious attacks upon you,” Thatcher said.
”Sometimes it is some of the things that are written, often by people who do not know you or who have never met you. Sometimes people can come here, be really very nice and then go away, put pen to paper and write really vicious things, corrosive things. And you just wonder what sort of people they are. But there is no point in getting fussed about that. This is a feature of some modern-day journalism, fortunately not of all of it.
”The style of the television interview in this country is a very combative, confrontational one. That is not necessarily the best television interviewing. The best television interviews are conducted in a much quieter manner, and as a consequence they will elicit much more interesting conversation and information from you.”
Another thing that bothers her is a reporter who uses information from previous press accounts without checking its accuracy ”so if you get a report (in a press clipping) which is wrong, it stays wrong for years.”
So just how important to Margaret Thatcher is the public`s perception of her?
”I think it`s important in winning elections, but when it comes to winning elections different factors come into play. You have got to have someone who can command respect and who is firm, who (people) know will take what (the candidate believes) to be the right decision and will not merely play for popularity. You have got to do things which in the long term are good for our country, and sometimes that does mean doing things which are difficult in the short term. . . .
”So when it comes to an election, (people) do want someone who they know will stand up to other heads of government and who often will say things in international conferences which other poeple run away from saying.
Members of the opposition and others have systematically portrayed Thatcher, Britain`s longest continuously serving prime minister in this century, as ”hard and uncaring.”
Brian Walden once said to me: ”Margaret has enormous resilience. She has had some nasty blows. I suspect she bleeds a lot; she hemorrhages internally, but it never shows.”
Is that, I asked the prime minister, an accurate reflection of her feelings?
”I think that is about right. . . . I get a press digest every day, and I must tell you that I do not read all the vicious things that are said about me. I used to read them, and they hurt a great deal.
”I cannot avoid seeing some of them because they are in the headlines. But I will not sit down to read them because if I did, they would hurt so much that somehow they would stop you from doing the volume of work you do and they would stop you from getting on with some of the difficult decisions you have to take.
”So you do develop a kind of protective mechanism, but you are grief-stricken in that people who do not know you think some of those things are true, and you think: `How can they believe those things?` I have a family-we are a very close family; it just doesn`t make any sense!”
The opposition
Bitter exchanges within and outside the House of Commons are a prominent feature of political life, and from the barracking and riotous behavior of some MPs it is difficult to imagine that a great deal of camaraderie exists between opposing party members.
”You always have considerable respect for someone who holds a different view sincerely,” Thatcher said. ”And you always recognize that you could not get good decisions in politics unless you had (political) parties, because parties are there to get things discussed and to get decisions made.
”Without them you would merely have a collection of independents, all of whom were trying to assert their own views, and you would not have the forward momentum which enables you to make progress.
”Consequently, I always have respect for some people, and of course there are always some people for whom the differences between the parties are very much smaller.”
However, the edicts and policies of the Labor Party are pure anathema to the prime minister, who is aligned to the Conservative Party.
”What I dislike is the fundamental creed of socialism,” she said. ”In Moscow, in Prague, in Warsaw, in Budapest, they will tell you the poverty of socialism. It brings neither dignity nor liberty nor prosperity, nor does it allow you to work out your own talents in your own way.”
As we sat amid the elegant surroundings of a room (in No. 10 Downing St.), I asked the prime minister whether the events of the last years had changed her convictions in any way.
”No, not in any way,” she said. ”They are based on fundamental philosophies of which I suppose the best written expression is in the American Constitution, in the American independence statement, and all the policies are just as relevant now.
”You cannot take freedom without taking responsibility, but you must have strong defense, sound financial policy, a firm rule of law, which is the rock on which democracy is built; fundamental education for opportunity and for the world of work; and then the basic safety net, that in our civilization no one falls below a certain standard of living. But people are expected, if they are able, to work for it; they are not expected to think that they can rely upon the state.
”No, we have not altered that in any way, altered those convictions or those policies.”
I asked the prime minister what had been the most difficult decision to make so far during her term of office.
”I think there are very many times when we have to make difficult decisions, and one of the most difficult was when America wanted to bomb Libya,” she said. ”(The United States has) bases here, and they asked whether the bombing could take place from here. Fortunately, they gave us plenty of time to put the questions and to make sure they were really going for military targets in self-defense.
”We felt the bombing was justified, provided they were military targets. It was one of the most difficult decisions, but (the U.S. military was)
extremely careful. In fact, some of the aircraft came back without dropping their bombs over Libya because they could not find their particular target. That I think was a very, very unusual decision.
”I had no difficulty in supporting President Bush over what he did in Panama: I thought it was a very good, bold and courageous thing to do. No difficulty in supporting President Barca of Colombia in his fight against drugs. He is fighting for us all. He is fighting for all our children.”
