Source 3 questions ‘whether the country was yet prepared to accept a woman’ however, it is likely that this helped her case, as men had failed Britain for too long. Thatcher provided someone for the British housewives, who had struggled through the winter of discontent, to vote for, and a majority of her votes did indeed come from women. As said in Source 3, Thatcher saw ‘her opportunity’ and called a vote of no confidence as she anticipated his defeat and consequential loss in the following general election; Thatcher ‘knew she was going to win’ (Source 1). The unexpectedly high voter turnout probably also aided her win, even if she did only win ‘43% of the vote’, it allowed her to ‘deliver a parliamentary majority’ (Source 3). Source 1 mentions her election manifesto, which she wrote herself.
Perhaps the worst economic downturn in the history of the United States occurred from 1930-1939. The Great Depression led to domestic and international crises effecting the poor and wealthy alike. Many financial experts today continue to debate the cause of The Depression, although most agree that several events led to the economic decline. The famous stock market crash on October 29, 1929 is just one of many causes economists believe led to The Great Depression. Known also as Black Tuesday, October 29th left stockholders shattered with recorded losses reaching $40 billion dollars (Kelly, n.d.).
[4] Encouraging Eleanor, Americans told her that they had never seen a First Lady like her. For thirty years, from the time she entered the White House until her death in 1962, Eleanor Roosevelt was the most famous and, at times, the most influential woman in the
Using these four passages and your own knowledge, assess the view that Thatcher’s electoral success was a result of the weakness of the Labour Party In 1979 Margaret Thatcher was elected as the Prime Minister of Britain for the Conservative Party, winning with the majority of 44 seats. Thatcher continued to win two more elections in 1983 and 1987 and then resigned in 1990, after dominating the House of Commons for 11 years, due to the Conservative Party demands. Both interpretations A and C strongly support the view that the weakness of the Labour Party was the reason to Thatcher’s electoral success across the elections, due to their poor leadership, policies and therefore divisions. In contrast, the Falklands War of 1982 is suggested by interpretation C as to the reason behind the three electoral wins of Thatcher. Finally Thatcher’s socio-economic policies are portrayed by all four interpretations as to the reason behind the three electoral victories, although this view can be seen as controversial as her policies did not always have positive effects.
The power of the factions was mainly determined by the woman in Henry's life at the time. Due to Henry's Marriage to Catherine Howard between 1540 -1542 the conservative faction had the upper hand. She had been a key player in Norfolk's scheme to lure Henry away from Cromwell to ensure the rise of the conservative faction. However, the power of the conservatives was short lived as the fall of Catherine Howard was disastrous for Norfolk and the conservative faction. In 1543 a very weak and ill Henry married his last wife, Catherine Parr.
The histrorian James Romm portrayed Agrippina as a woman who was simply trying to escape the restrictions imposed on her by society. To quote james Romm “she stands out as the sole Roman woman to attempt to break the ultimate glass ceiling: to wield the power of a princeps, not just behind the scenes but before the astonished eyes of the senate,” Romm takes into account both the ancient writers and his own interpretation of Agrippina. Romm believes that her determination not only furthered her power but ultimately caused her downfall. He observes that the majority of Claudius move show us that Agrippina was shown as a “political asset”. Romm concluded that even though Agrippina may have been manipulative and ambitious she was still able to achieve what women of the era could not.
In Germany America’s economic failure contributed to the rise of Adolf Hiltler, so the Stock Market Crash had a domino effect on our country and others. In America there were 16 million unemployed, which was about one third of the available labor force (Livingston1). There was some companies that faired well through-out this gloom; Camel Cigarettes was the top selling tobacco product. The reasoning for that is people were stressed out and felt that cigarettes relived
Thatcher’s administration saw and annual percentage growth of 2.7% and a total percentage growth of 69% . Employment plunged from 1.66 million in 1980 to 3.16milllion in 1984 to 2.1million in 1990 and inflation was 6.2% from 1981-1991. Consumer Price Index in the USA went from 47.85% in 1980 to 71.99% in 1989 and in the UK 39.27% in 1980 to 67.67% in 1989. So it can be concluded that both the Reagan and Thatcher governments in terms of economic growth and stability were successful in achieving their objectives. But in terms of public manner the UK experienced much civil unrest under the Thatcher Government and is remembered extensively for this uneasy time.
Frances Clarke, in an overview titled “Women in the Revolutionary Era” agrees with this idea, while asserting “The American Revolution was not much of a revolution in the lives of women, at least in a political or legal sense. Much like other so-called dependent groups (servants, slaves, non-propertied men) women were generally understood to lack the independence required of republican citizens” (Clarke 1). Within the political realm too, androcentric principles dominated all standards. Former U.S. President John Adams is quoted to have said “As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh” in response to his wife’s recommendation to include women when framing the constitution (Martin 332). Adams continues his onslaught of anti-matriarchal values and sexism by upholding “his commitment to the social hierarchy…based on the belief that women along with other disenfranchised groups must remain subordinate because they lack the capacity for reason, and therefore, for the responsible use of liberty” (Martin 332).
Presidents use their appointees to cement their legacy, trying to choose individuals who share their ideology. I know that has become a dirty world in how the government uses to interpret the law, but right now, there is a very bright line separating conservative and progressive issues. One should nominate someone who believes in the same causes he or she does. Choosing a nominee who is not, already a judge has the advantage of giving less fodder to the opposition, because she has no opinions available for scrutiny. On the other hand, she could turn out to be something other than the president expected.