Margaret Thatcher and misapplied death etiquette
The dictate that one 'not speak ill of the dead' is (at best) appropriate
for private individuals, not influential public figures
*
* * Glenn Greenwald
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 8 April 2013 10.41 EDT
Margaret Thatcher Photograph: Don Mcphee
News of Margaret Thatcher's death this morning instantly and predictably gave
rise to righteous
sermons on the evils of speaking ill of her. British Labour MP Tom
Watson decreed: "I hope that people on the left of politics respect a family in
grief
today." Following in the footsteps of Santa Claus, Steve Hynd quickly compiled
a list of all the naughty boys and girls "on the left" who dared to express
criticisms of the dearly departed Prime Minister, warning that he "will
continue to add to this list throughout the day". Former Tory MP Louise
Mensch, with no apparent sense of irony, invoked precepts of propriety to
announce: "Pygmies of the left so predictably embarrassing yourselves, know
this: not a one of your leaders will ever be globally mourned like her."
This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure's death is
not just misguided but dangerous. That one should not speak ill of the
dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it is
wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure,
particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power.
"Respecting the grief" of Thatcher's family members is appropriate if
one is friends with them or attends a wake they organize, but the
protocols are fundamentally different when it comes to public discourse
about the person's life and political acts. I made this argument at
length last year when Christopher Hitchens died and a speak-no-ill rule
about him was instantly imposed (a rule he, more than anyone, viciously
violated), and I won't repeat that argument today; those interested can
read my reasoning here.
But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and
their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting
the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography.
Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately
diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the
great champions of freedom and liberty,
and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be
quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken
reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode
that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas
he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that
hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad
acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure
by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death.
When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to
demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.
Whatever else may be true of her, Thatcher engaged in incredibly consequential
acts that affected millions of people around the world. She played a key role
not only in bringing about the first Gulf War but also using her influence to
publicly advocate for the 2003 attack on Iraq. She denounced Nelson Mandela and
his ANC as "terrorists", something even David Cameron ultimately admitted was
wrong. She was a steadfast friend to brutal tyrants such as Augusto Pinochet,
Saddam Hussein and Indonesian dictator General Suharto ("One of our very best
and most valuable friends"). And as my Guardian colleague Seumas Milne detailed
last year, "across Britain Thatcher is still hated for the damage she inflicted
–
and for her political legacy of rampant inequality and greed,
privatisation and social breakdown."
To demand that all of that be ignored in the face of one-sided requiems to her
nobility and greatness is a bit bullying and tyrannical, not to mention warped.
As David
Wearing put it this morning in satirizing these speak-no-ill-of-the-deceased
moralists: "People
praising Thatcher's legacy should show some respect for her victims.
Tasteless." Tellingly, few people have trouble understanding the need
for balanced commentary when the political leaders disliked by the west
pass away. Here, for instance, was what the Guardian reported upon the death
last month of Hugo Chavez:
To the millions who detested him as a thug and charlatan, it will be occasion
to bid, vocally or discreetly, good riddance."
Nobody, at least that I know of, objected to that observation on the ground
that it was disrespectful to the ability of the Chavez family to mourn
in peace. Any such objections would have been invalid. It was perfectly
justified to note that, particularly as the Guardian also explained that "to
the millions who revered him – a third of the country, according to some polls
– a messiah has fallen, and their grief will be visceral."
Chavez was indeed a divisive and controversial figure, and it would have been
reckless to conceal that fact out of some misplaced deference to
the grief of his family and supporters. He was a political and
historical figure and the need to accurately portray his legacy and
prevent misleading hagiography easily outweighed precepts of death
etiquette that prevail when a private person dies.
Exactly the same is true of Thatcher. There's something distinctively creepy -
in a Roman sort of way - about this mandated ritual that our political leaders
must be
heralded and consecrated as saints upon death. This is accomplished by
this baseless moral precept that it is gauche or worse to balance the
gushing praise for them upon death with valid criticisms. There is
absolutely nothing wrong with loathing Margaret Thatcher or any other
person with political influence and power based upon perceived bad acts, and
that doesn't change simply because they die. If anything, it
becomes more compelling to commemorate those bad acts upon death as the
only antidote against a society erecting a false and jingoistically
self-serving history.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com
laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
