Timehost: Hello everyone. Welcome to the TIME Auditorium. Our guest
is historian Paul Johnson. His most recent book is "A History
of the American People." He's just written an essay for the special issue of
TIME magazine, the TIME 100, on Margaret Thatcher. Mr. Johnson, thanks for
joining us today. Actually, this evening...you're in London!
Paul Johnson: I'm very glad to be with you.
Timehost: Let me ask the first question: For the TIME 100 project, you wrote an essay about Margaret
Thatcher. Why do you feel that she's one of the most important people of
the century?
Paul Johnson: Well, you can look at her on two levels. One is as a British
statesman, and the other is as a world statesman. As a British statesman, she
broke the power of the unions, which were ruining the economy, she reduced
the state sector by privatizing most of the nationalized industries, which were running on losses and inefficient, and transforming them into very profitable private companies,
owned by the public. This meant that the number of shareholders in Britain
tripled to over 12 million. Right now, there're about 15 million. And this
had a huge impact on 50 or 60 other nations who followed the pattern set by
Mrs. Thatcher and began to dismantle their state industries and privatize
them. So the consequences of her reforms were worldwide. Secondly, as a
world statesman, it's difficult to separate the role she played from that of
Reagan. She came to power in 1979 and was very influential on his approach to
world affairs. And when they were both in power together, they cooperated
closely, in rearming the West , stationing missiles in Europe, which
eventually showed the Soviet Union that they could not win the arms race.
That was instrumental in bringing the Soviet Union to the conference table
for multilateral disarmament talks. And that was followed by perestroika
and the Gorbachev reforms, which led eventually to the dismantling of the
Soviet empire, and the disappearance of the Soviet regime. Who exactly bears
the chief responsibility for these events is difficult to say, but clearly
Thatcher was right at the middle of the process. And I think history will
recognize that she was one of the two or three statesmen, the others being
Reagan and Pope John Paul II, who brought the 20th century to a triumphant,
democratic close.
matsguest_268d31447 asks: Has Thatcher spoken about her attitude
towards John Major?
Paul Johnson: She is a little reticent about that. She's a very loyal
person, loyal to her successor and her party, and, therefore, she is loath
to criticize him in public, but it is perfectly fair that she has a low
opinion of him and his government. And I may say that Denis Thatcher, her
husband, is much more forthcoming than she is in voicing her critical
thoughts.
matsguest_268d31447 asks: Did the IRA assassination attempt against
Thatcher affect her attitude toward the Irish?
Paul Johnson: Mrs. Thatcher, like every British prime minister, has to
deal with the Irish problem, which has been with us for 800 years, and is
likely to remain with us for as long as the British Isles continue to exist.
Like more sensible people, she doesn't regard the Irish problem as fully
solvable for simple reasons of geography. The island is too close to Britain
to be separate, but not close enough to be part of the United Kingdom. And
therefore, our relationship will always be uneasy. She did her best to calm
things down, but she didn't invest a great deal of political and emotional
capital in trying to solve the problem. Which by its nature is unsolvable.
She had better and more important things to do.
Mbalmer_1 asks: Mr. Johnson, do you think that the technological
advancements we have made have helped us prepare well for the next century?
Paul Johnson: I think so. On the whole. The most important advances have
been in terms of communications in its widest aspects. And the use we've
made of those advances have prepared us for a century where distances will
be reduced to a minimum, all communications will be speeded up. And all
forms of knowledge will be placed at the immediate reach of everyone. What
is much more difficult are advances in the life sciences and the way in
which we can master human biology. The technology is arriving very fast, but
we have not been successful so far in developing an ethical framework firmly
rooted in a clear philosophy within which we can make use of these
advances -- in such a way as to promote human happiness without endangering
human dignity. This is an area where we've failed and where it's vital we
should succeed in the 21st century.
