Hillary wants us to see her as strong.
A strong candidate, a strong woman, a strong world leader. There’s only one problem with that plan. We’ve already seen what a strong female leader looks like. We’ve seen Margaret Thatcher. And Hillary, whatever she may be, is no Margaret Thatcher.
When Thatcher came to office, she inherited a mess. Runaway union demands — blackouts strikes, unrest — high taxes, little money. A real miserable situation.
The fact that her time in office got the nation back on course, restored a degree of national identity, expanded the middle class, and reined in the powerful unions is a testament to her determination. Because none of those were done the easy way. In fact, things got worse before they got better. But she held her course, because she knew it to the the correct one.
Foreign policy? Thatcher earned the moniker “the Iron Lady”, and was credited along with Reagan and Pope Jean Paul II for bringing an end to the Soviet Empire.
It’s likely that Hillary has earned herself a nickname or two with the Russians and other world powers, but they would not be as flattering. I expect the video clip with her yapping like a chihuahua would have inspired one or two. So — very — presidential, that Hillary.
Thatcher had an implicit belief that the British could be trusted to do the right things if the economy were just unleashed for them. She took the top and bottom tax rates, and lowered them both. People were able to actually accumulate wealth again. The middle class thrived.
Hillary, of course would take the exact opposite path: the rich must pay their fair share, she would say. Which really means she wants to make government bigger, and the only way to do that is to fleece “rich” people to do it.
Thatcher, on the other hand, said the problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. What were Thatcher’s changes? Top tax bracket went down from 98% to 65%. Lowest bracket went from 40% to 25%. But because people could actually earn more and keep more, the economy roared to life.
In 1974, just a few years before Thatcher’s election, the question of who ran Britain, the politicians or the trade unionists was answered in the union’s favour. They would strike with impunity, disrupting services with rolling blackouts, interruptions in trash collection — even human burials delayed. Margaret Thatcher stood firm against them, and brought their power back into a more level relationship with other aspects of society.
Coal miners suffered badly, as that industry in Britain was collapsing after a long decline. This differed from Hillary in the fact that Hillary intends to destroy the coal industry — even while jobs there are still viable — but somehow still expects to be embraced by those unions whose memberships she would gladly harness for her campaign.
Thatcherism has been shortened to mean:
- Belief in the importance of the Free Market
- Prioritization of Personal Responsibility and Self-reliance over Social Welfare
- The Effectiveness of the Privatization of services
These keystones, with a few common-sense Britishisms thrown in, led Britain back from the Brink of the collapse it was trending toward, renewed its strength and shifted the political landscape back to the right.
She led largely by the force of her will.
She never used her sex as a plea, an excuse, or for any special consideration.
She ran for a man’s office, and showed herself more capable than the men that opposed her. That is why she won. That is why she won RESPECT, even among her foes.
Hillary, it seems, is incapable of learning that lesson. It is not her gender we judge. It is her character. Her endless and unapologetic stream of lies. She lies about unimportant things she need not lie about. Like being named after the guy who climbed Everest, several years after she was born. Like being shot at. Wipe servers, like with a cloth?
It’s tedious. She is an uninspiring used-up political flunkie we have the misfortune of suffering under, presumably because she knows where the bodies are buried — metaphorically, if not more chillingly so. She don’t even electrify her own supporters. They are just so used to kneeling before the Clinton machine (So to speak) that they just accept it as inevitable.
Would we be ready for a female president? Sure. If she did it Thatcher’s way: showing herself more capable than the men who opposed her. Before the wheels fell off her campaign, there was one person who might have had a shot at doing exactly that.
Hillary, however is no such candidate. She’s an entitled Establishment insider in a time where the public is demanding an outsider.
That, and she’s generally repulsive. That doesn’t help.
Hillary for Prison. 2016.
