Blair's Day
Today began Tony Blair's long goodbye. At a time when we are sorely hurting for global leaders who combine thought and power, vision and mission, he will be sorely missed. It's tragic that his own legacy will be tainted by his alliance with Bush and his foray into Iraq along with Bush. For tpmcafe readers, especially, Blair's farewell address to the Labour Party Conference today, on the website of the Guardian newspaper, is well-worth reading. It's beautiful, forecful prose--but it also makes an excellent case for Blairism, the vision that brought the British left back from the dead.
Indeed, it's tempting to imagine that it was a vast-right wing conspiracy that served Blair the potion luring him to Bush's side, thus contaminating his own legacy--and that of the broader democratic left's to some extent--at the same time. But, it's important for those of us who care about a progressive renewal and a left that can govern and change the national debate not to dismiss Blair out of hand. He gave social democracy a new way to hold the national and even the global stage at a time of vast economic and social transformation. His model is being followed now by Segolene Royal, the French Socialist Party's front-runner for president, and to some extent, he's provided a model for the more moderate left regimes in South America. (The other model for the left today is Lula's in Brazil, a more robust, more populist model to be sure, but not one that can be matched everywhere, especially with unions so weak in most countries). Now, just as Blair is exiting the world stage, the Italian left is trying to hold its own in Italy and if Italian Prime Minister Prodi's unsteady leftwing coalition is able to hold, there's no doubt that the Italian left model will provide an important counterweight to American conservatism and perhaps even help the Laborites in the U.K. as they seek to move beyond Blair.
But, regardless, Tony Blair's legacy is one for the books--and one that Dems should examine. He transformed his party and his nation's agenda. David Cameron, the popular Conservative Party leader, is running a campaign as a true compassionate conservative, a social libertarian--even a liberal--who is concerned about poverty and equity issues. This is thanks to Blair. Even if you take issue with some of his leftism-lite (and I do), there is no arguing with his own claim, which is that he made the left in his own country--and elsewhere--relevant again. In his parting Labor Party speech he announced that he wants to devote his remaining time to trying to wage peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This is what he hoped to gain from his support of Bush, Bush's robust support of Blair's Israel-Palestinian peace wish. Of course, he didn't get it. Would that he could now. Blair offered a global vision for the left and had it not been mixed in with Bush, his notion of spreading and defending democracy would have perhaps been more realizable. It will be an interesting run, now, watching his heirs fight it out--the very able Gordon Brown, the chancellor, who is the rightful next in line and younger charges like David Miliband perhaps. Part of the Blair redo was a redirection away from Europe toward America for the British left and the British people.
Yet, for American progressives looking toward the upcoming bi-elections and the presidential election, we would do well to look across the ocean at the British example, for thoughts on how to proceed.
Sorely missed! After his moronic blind support for Bush's moronic foreign policy he should have dragged his sorry butt out of #10 Downing Street 3 years ago.
Tom
September 26, 2006 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Today began Tony Blair's long goodbye. At a time when we are sorely hurting for global leaders who combine thought and power, vision and mission, he will be sorely missed."
I will not miss a PM who got my country mixed up in an illegal war with a an idiot and his scheming henchmen.
The sooner he is out of office, the sooner the war crimes charges can begin with earnest.
Whatever good he did, and he did some, is drowned in the blood of innocence.
Good riddance, he should go now.
Regs, Shaggy
September 26, 2006 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blair is the greatest non-American Bush-enabler on the face of the Earth. He needed to go and needed to go 2 years ago.
September 26, 2006 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
From my occasional observations of the UK political scene I got the impression that the progressive party in Britain are the Lib Dems, not Labour.
September 26, 2006 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny. Not even Mort can claim that Blair accomplished anything in terms of policy as opposed to positioning.
September 26, 2006 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blair, my his own admission, is fixated on Churchill, who was a bumbler of the first order, but, like Bush standing in the ruins of 9/11, was credited with inspiring the Brits to stand tall and defeat the enemy. Blair's reign, in his mind, needed a stand-tall moment and Iraq became that moment.
Chamberlain, unfortunately for him, will be forever demonized as the guy who had an opportunity to stop Hitler and didn't. Which, of course, is hogwash but it does add to Churchill's undeserved mystique and ultimately Blair's role model.
September 26, 2006 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Three years ago!
Tom
September 26, 2006 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm reasonably sure that Jo-Ann Mort's post wasn't intended as satire, but apologies in advance if I'm just missing the punchline.
Others have commented on the "he will be sorely missed" line. But instead of poking fun at this telegram from outer space, let me point out the one part of Mort's post I think we can all emphatically endorse: "Tony Blair's legacy is one for the books..." Bingo.
September 26, 2006 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never in my long political life has there been a leader that I held in such high esteem at one point who has fallen so far in my estimation. From being one of my global favorites to someone I would very much like to see tried as a war criminal. It took less than five years. A wonderfully articulate, seemingly decently intended, deeply discouraging, war criminal. There has never been another like him and we can be thankful for that, I suppose.
global citizen
September 26, 2006 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand why everyone's glad to see Tony go, and I certainly am deeply disappointed in him, but I think you're missing the fact that the Western democratic Left is still losing one of its biggest -- one of its only -- voices out there today. Who else have we got? No major Western democracy is run by the center-left but the UK: not France, not Canada or Australia, not Germany. Italy is a second-tier major power, and Prodi looks shaky. There's an argument to be made that for all their flaws, Blair and Clinton held the forces of Reaction at bay in an era when they were ascendant in the Atlantic world.
It's interesting that the latest uptick in Clinton outspokenness -- he's our Opposition leader, now -- comes as the only other voice of the democratic center-left, Blair, is increasingly eclipsed.
It's important that we have guys like Tony and Bill. They can convince a voting public, which is more than could be said of the rhetoric in the comments here.
Then again, I'm not a Brit, in which case I might feel differently.
September 26, 2006 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to thank folks for their posts and comment on several of them. First, no, this is not satire. If anything, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in writing about the tragedy of Tony, how he squandered much of his role and legacy by getting in with Bush, but the fact is that he has many domestic accomplishments to show, including improved health, education, welfare and equality in his home country. Interesting that someone mentions the Liberals as the real progressive party in England-Blair makes a dig at them in his farewell speech. It's easy to be completely correct when you are never going to be in power, but as Blair argues, and here I have to agree with him, it's when you have a chance for power, and indeed, hold power, that you must make tough choices--and you must bring a majority of the people with you. He did that, like him or not, but he did it and he did it longer than any PM in British history. you have to admire him for that. Re Bush, I have no doubt that Bush would have gone to war with or without Blair; I don't think that he could have stopped him. Although Blair did of course enable Bush.
I think that some of the same arguments against Blair can be made about Clinton, more domestic than foreign policy of course, but as was pointed out by a poster above, Clinton and Blair both have been incredibly successful at keeping the ultra-right away, and no one else has been. The key for a Blair successor is to differentiate himself from U.S. foreign policy when it is imperial and wrong-minded and of course, the key for a future Dem president is to not be wrong-minded (fill in the blanks re what you think that wrong-mindedness may mean...)
September 26, 2006 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blair might be sorely missed in the UK, but he won't be missed by more than a few of us in the US. His blithe pandering to Bush regarding Iraq should be embarrassing to the British.
Blair's ascendancy is one of the reasons that I have come to the conclusion that the parliamentary form of government is not particularly effective. A leader of a party who is perceived to be strong can increase that perception by eliminating party members who might seriously challenge him, and surround himself with his sycophants. I suspect that that is what Blair did with "New Labour."
September 27, 2006 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not an issue of perception - New Labour under Blair is very powerful. (Just as the Conservative Party was under Thatcher).
I think Blair's ascendancy is explained by two key factors: (1) his large majority in Parliament; (2) his ability to triangulate as effectively as Clinton.
Basically, Blair has never had to rely on total support from his party, either because enough of his party were prepared to support him (on center-left policy), or he could rely on some Conservative support to win key votes in Parliament.
The Iraq War was an example of the latter; the Conservatives in Britain got Blair the parliamentary endorsement he needed. Labour rebels, led by Robin Cook, nearly stopped Britain getting involved in Iraq. Blair pulled through largely because the opposition party decided, for a variety of reasons, to stop being the opposition.
September 27, 2006 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saying that Blair brought the majority of people with him is misleading. In the last election, Labour only received 37% of the popular vote (Tories 33%, Lib Dem 22%, others 8%). It is only because of the British electoral system that this translates to a majority in the Parliament.
But historically, Blair is certainly an extraordinarily successful PM. Now we'll see if in the long term he'll do for Labour what Thatcher did for Tories.
September 27, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink