What would the Iron Lady think of politics today?

Oct. 13 would have been the 91st birthday of Margaret Thatcher. If she were alive today, Lady Thatcher would have been both overjoyed and dismayed at the global political landscape. The mortal departure of Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan left the world bereft of the kind of leadership and resolve that it so desperately needs at this moment. If she were with us still, she would feel both great sorrow and great joy regarding contemporary events.

The studious grocer’s daughter from modest Grantham rose to the highest elected office in Britain in the 1980s. She won a scholarship to Oxford and then wended her way to Tory party leader in 1975 and finally prime minister in 1979.

{mosads}Thatcher had a deep friendship and great partnership with Reagan due to shared principles that enabled both leaders to position their respective nations for greatness. Her mantra of strong national security, free markets and small government enabled Britain to cast off the shackles of previous decades of decay owing to socialist leadership in post-war Britain.

Together, she and Reagan negotiated the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of communism. For Thatcher’s part, she was happy to host and house NATO’s rockets at the U.K.’s Greenham Common base. This deployment, combined with Reagan’s “Star Wars” Strategic Defense Initiative, forced the economically challenged Soviets into an arms race they could no longer afford, ending in their signing the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987.

Tragically, the strength of the Reagan-Thatcher partnership is critically absent in an Obama America that alienates friends, courts enemies and projects weakness rather than strength. Thatcher would have been mortified by Obama’s approach of appeasement and would have been alarmed by the Iran nuclear agreement and the $400 million ransom for hostages recently paid by the Obama administration. Likewise, she would have been outraged by the Obama-Hillary Clinton reluctance to assert American power and instead bow to a global world order. The result has been foreign policy failure after failure — the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), increasingly aggressive Russia and China, and most fearsome — a restored and emboldened Iran.

So, too, Thatcher would be repelled by the sentiment that with the impending election, it is Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s “turn,” and that it is “time” for a woman. No one ever gave Thatcher anything. She labored tirelessly for every victory. She abhorred the sense of entitlement that “it is time for Hillary.” No feminist she, Thatcher would have bristled at Clinton’s chorus that it is time for a woman president (as long as it is a woman like Clinton). Thatcher appointed effective people to government, by merit, rather than demographics. Moreover, she and Reagan would have been disgusted by the level of coarseness and baseness to which American debate has fallen.

On the other hand, Thatcher would have been very encouraged indeed by recent developments in her nation, chiefly the outcome of the Brexit referendum, and the performance to date of Prime Minister Theresa May. Thatcher wouldn’t have cared a bit that May is a woman. Rather, she would have been impressed by her resolve to uphold the will of the people in voting to exit the European Union. May’s resolve, against a loud chorus of “Remainers” whining about the outcome and demanding a second referendum has been inspiring.

For her part, the current prime minister is pressing forward in Iron Lady style, declaring “Brexit means Brexit!” Or at the Conservative Party Conference a few weeks ago, stating:

“When it legislated to establish the referendum, Parliament put the decision to leave or remain inside the EU in the hands of the people. And the people gave their answer with emphatic clarity. So now it is up to the Government not to question, quibble or backslide on what we have been instructed to do, but to get on with the job.”

Additionally, among many other policies, Thatcher would have cheered May’s resolve to combat terrorism, and her government’s decision last week to freeze transfer to the Palestinian Authority of 25 million pounds due to concerns that such money could be passed to terrorists.

Thatcher’s legacy is undeniable. Former Prime Minister David Cameron once said of his predecessor: “She didn’t just lead our country, she saved it.” Opposing bloated statism while championing sovereignty and personal responsibility has enabled the U.S. and Thatcherite Britain to flourish, and this is clearly the spirit of Thatcher’s countrymen in voting to exit the EU.

Even from the grave, Lady Margaret Thatcher’s great wisdom is apparent, for if it hadn’t been for Thatcher resisting joining single currency, the already-complicated process of withdrawal from the EU might have proven impossible.

Rest in Peace, Lady Thatcher. You will always be remembered for your great leadership, wisdom and friendship for the transatlantic relationship.

Cohen, head of the New York office of Off the Record Strategies and New York director of the Anglosphere Society, spent years advising the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee on Western European affairs and was founding executive director of the House United Kingdom Caucus.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.