Margaret thatcher biography video of barack obama

Similarly, tax receipts as a percentage of the economy stood at 37 percent when she became prime minister, and 11 years later, they stood at 34 percent. A significant change, but hardly radical. On both scores, the Labour government that came into power in returned the size of the state to levels before the economic crash. In the grand scheme of things, Britain has chugged along relatively undisturbed by the political fighting over its captaincy.

Does the story we tell about Thatcher, then, not reveal more about us than it does about her? Is the point, in fact, that we need the myth of Thatcher—the visionary and transformational leader—to affirm to ourselves that we too can make a difference and change the world? Otherwise, what is the point? It was not, fundamentally, because of anything Obama had done wrong, or any of his own character flaws.

Crucially, it was also not because his promise of a better America was wrong. In my time covering politics, I have heard a very similar explanation from almost every losing candidate I have come across: Gordon Brown and Hillary Clinton told a comparable story; Jeremy Corbyn constructed the same defense. Each of these narratives makes the age-old attempt to weave conflicting facts into some form of harmony.

For Obama, the question he must wrestle with is how can the same electorate that showed its goodness and wisdom by electing him subsequently have chosen Trump? And for Trump, if his success in made him great, is he now a loser? In Britain, the same confounding problem presents itself for Tony Blair and David Cameron: How can the same voters who made them successful have become, in their view, so populist and gullible?

Rare are the political leaders who blame themselves for the political landscape that follows their departure. Similarly, the international and European Britain that Blair thought he had created brought about the Brexit Britain of today. In the U. The argument that policy failures, character flaws, personal weakness, or legitimate public distaste was the real reason leaders or their philosophies were rejected is rarely countenanced.

The closest example of a genuinely remorseful political figure was Robert McNamara, who admitted that he was catastrophically wrong about Vietnam, but, of course, McNamara never held the top job. In fact, it is possible to discern something of an iron rule for former political leaders: Nothing can ever happen after power has been relinquished that in any fundamental way proves their central political analysis wrong.

Admissions can be made on the margins, even confessions offered for minor sins, self-deprecating reflections draped over the whole proceeding, but one cannot ever admit elemental failures of foresight or character. Politicians have long understood that their ability to forecast the future—to be on the right side of history—is central to their legitimacy as decision makers.

The 18th-century philosopher-politician Edmund Burke argued that statesmanship required deciding a course of action by assessing the probable course of events that would unfold. In other words, a leader leads by anticipating the future using their understanding of how the past led to the present. For any statesman to admit that he failed to foresee the future is to admit that he failed as a statesman.

Margaret thatcher biography video of barack obama

It is for this reason that none ever does. Instead, new narratives are created recasting the present as confirmation of what a leader has always predicted, even though it appears to flatly contradict everything they said before. Obama—like almost all political leaders—feels vindicated by events, even as they drift further and further away from the path he foresaw.

Read: The great British humbling. For political leaders, questioning their own record and judgment is difficult, because it challenges their very purpose, the status they enjoy, and the place in history that they crave. That introspection would implicitly go against the very things we demand of our leaders: power, wisdom, foresight, and control—that they be on the right side of history.

Instead they must persist in arguing that however far from the path the world has veered since their departure, the destination remains the same: that the arc bends just as they prophesied. A Soviet journalist dubbed her the "Iron Lady", a nickname that became associated with her uncompromising politics and leadership style. From in-depth celebrity biographies and fascinating history videos to the latest in science and technology, we bring you an expansive collection of infotainment videos.

Explore the stories of legendary sports personalities, dive into the history of the World Wars, marvel at wildlife documentaries, and enjoy our informative and funny shorts. Subscribe now: www. For any questions, please contact: mail trendest. Transcript Display full video transcript. The dividing line between the Labour Party programme and communism is becoming harder and harder to detect.

Governments lost them. Mr Callaghan is off today in Scotland starting his campaign. This is the longest campaign we've ever had.