Marty1_99 asks: has Thatcher ever spoken about negative side effects from the globalization process she helped put in place?

Paul Johnson: I don't think she has. Margaret Thatcher is not a person who engages in wide-ranging, vague speculations. She tends to be very practical minded, specific and concrete. And tackles problems which are in the immediate future. And which need urgent attention.

MuleSkinner90 asks: How do you think history will judge and rate Ronald Reagan?

Paul Johnson: I think history is already beginning to rate him very high. I noticed on my last trip to America, last month, that opinion is moving very strongly in his favor. He's now seen as a strong and successful president, who served the American people well. And I think that's a correct judgment. Mr. Reagan was not an intellectual, not particularly clever or well-educated. But he had something much more important. He had a number of strong, well-expressed ideas which happened to be right and which happened to be popular, because most people agreed with him. He was able to put these ideas into practice and communicate his reasons to the American people and they reciprocated by following him, reelecting him, and they're now beginning to revere him. My guess is that he will eventually go down in history as one of the top presidents.

Skeptic998 asks: Reviewers say you're optimistic about America. Is that accurate? If so, why are you an optimist for our future?

Paul Johnson: I am an optimist about America. I must say that during the 70s, I was a bit pessimistic. That was a bad decade for the US, Watergate.. Vietnam and two weak presidents. But that changed under Reagan and things have begun to go well for the US since then. The economy has never been stronger, you have full employment, no or minus inflation, the budget has come back into balance, you have high productivity and the dollar is strong. All these things augur well for the 21st century. And I think the reason why I'm optimistic in a material sense is that America is the best country in the world in which entrepreneurs and businessmen can operate. It is a fuller society from a market point of view and it has an intellectual climate which encourages wealth creation. However, on the ethical, moral side, there are some doubts. Particularly, about the strength of the family, which is the basic building block of U.S. society. There are a lot of broken families, etc. That's one thing people are worried about. I'm not sure enough Americans are getting a moral education and these problems have to be addressed. But I think America is basically a moral nation with a strong sense of purpose, great reserves of self-discipline and a collective sense of responsibility, which is unique in the world. Americans create problems for themselves but they're also the great problem-solvers of history. And all their current problems, are already being tackled. A good example of this is New York City, which not so long ago was a dangerous city to live in. It has now become a very safe city. That is one of the ways in which American society is improving.

Timehost: We have a follow-up question on the issue of families...

Hkr33 asks: Are not broken families precisely produced by an 'entrepreneurial society' ?

Paul Johnson: I don't agree with that at all. Broken families are produced by four main factors: One, is lack of moral education, not least in the schools, where religion is frowned upon; secondly, by a legal climate which makes divorce easy and a welfare society which often actively discourages marriage; thirdly, by lack of leadership by people who ought to know better. A good example being President Clinton. And fourth, by lack of strength of character among the mainstream churches of the U.S. I think there too there has been a failure of leadership. I don't think the break down of the family has much to do with the entrepreneurial climate of the U.S.

Dehartt asks: You're the author of a new book, as mentioned, what part of American History most stands out for you?

Paul Johnson: Well, if I'm asked what is my favorite period, I would answer the period between the end of the War of 1812 and the outbreak of the Civil War. I find this period when America was being opened up and developed enormously exciting and colorful, and full of wonderful characters like General Andrew Jackson, one of my favorite presidents. This period also saw the beginning of great American literature. It's quite a readable period. However, if I had to choose one decade, I'd have to say the 1920s. I love that decade. I like the music, the literature, the arts, the politics, the excitement, the flavor. It was the last decade in which America was seen by Americans as a utopia. In which things couldn't go seriously wrong. Of course, the stock market crash ended that delusion. It was the last arcadia.

Beethovens_gal asks: Do you think the way a public figure handles his private life is a fair indication of how he will be as a leader?

Paul Johnson: Well, some years ago I wrote a book called Intellectuals, in which I argued that if there was a leading ideas person like Marx or Rousseau or Ibsen, if such a person's private life was seriously disturbed and even evil, the likelihood is that his public doctrine would be seriously flawed too. I think it is always possible, to some extent, to divorce a statesman's public conduct from his private life and you can think of plenty of examples of that. But at the same time, if that private life is seriously faulty, it is most improbable that the faults of moral character will not be an impediment to the statesman's public decision-making and conduct.

Hugh_32 asks: Mr. Johnson, do you think the Liberal Era has had its day?

Paul Johnson: Probably in some ways. I think there are certain areas where liberalism has failed and is seen to have failed. One is education. I think we are likely to go back to old-fashioned methods of educating our children. To some extent at any rate. Secondly, there is crime. I think recent years in which successful attempts have been made to reduce big city crime rates have been based upon traditional methods of law enforcement, punishment and imprisonment, and I think that trend will continue. I also think the attempts of liberals in interpreting the Constitution to eliminate religion from public life, particularly in the schools,, are now recognized to be misguided. Fourth, I think most people now agree that liberalism in public expression, in movies, TV, literature, printed word, and so on.. has gone too far. And that there should be retrenchment. The 20th century has been a liberal century, and to some extent it has been an increasingly disturbing one. I think it is beginning to end on a distinctly unliberal note. And that trend will continue in the 21st century, which is likely to be a non-liberal century in my view.

Hugh_32 asks: Although it's too early to tell, do you think Tony Blair will be remembered as fondly as Thatcher?

Paul Johnson: Well, I don't know that it is too early to tell. He's just as popular as when he became prime minister, if not more so. He's very well known in the world now. In Europe in particular he's regarded as a success figure. And he's just had a tremendous triumph when he addressed the French parliament in flawless French and was applauded to the echo by the French, who are normally very critical people indeed. The main object of his government, welfare reform, is very important and he's made a very good start to that, and I think these reforms are likely to be continued and widely imitated. I think Thatcher during the eighties achieved two great reforms, reforming the unions and privatization. She didn't get around to welfare reform, and Blair is doing that. So I consider Blair as the son and natural successor to Thatcher. I think future historians will see these two as a continuum.

Timehost: We've got two questions...actually a question and a comment... about Thatcher and the Falklands...