Tony Blair and His Presidents
Tony Blair has informed his Queen and his Cabinet that he is stepping down as Prime Minister.
Americans tend to look at other country's heads-of-state through the prism of their own president -- but Blair even more so.
Blair used to seem a lot like Clinton. Now sadly, he looks a lot like Bush.
Here is a piece I have written for The Guardian and the opener:
Americans used to love Tony Blair.When Bill Clinton's presidency ended, a vast majority of Americans - despite a sex scandal and impeachment - preferred him to remain in office over either Al Gore or George Bush. For many Americans, Tony Blair - perceived to be a protege of Clinton - was their chance to see Clinton's charisma and Third Way style of problem-solving idealism carry on in the work and deeds of Britain's youthful and globally energetic prime minister. Blair, for a time, became for many "America's hope".
Now, Blair is telling the Queen that he's calling it quits - and leaving after ten years at the helm of Britain. And he and his acolytes are grasping for straws of legacy - trying to make sure that all know his key role in helping to settle centuries-old tensions in Northern Ireland and trying to remind his constituents of the massive economic gains the UK made after reforms led by "New Labour".
But the bottom line today is that Blair's potentially considerable legacy has been almost entirely blacked out by his close association with another American president and an ineptly conducted war and occupation that George Bush and Blair hatched together.
Now it will be interesting to see which President -- Hillary, Barack, McCain, Rudy, Mitt -- we choose to see Gordon Brown through.
-- Steve Clemons is Senior Fellow and Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation and publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Comments (23)
It shows Tony Blair's achilles heel.
That he was too easily led by the "bigger US brother" on the international front. When that bigger brother was popular, then he was popular. And vice versa.
Gordon Brown starts with a clean slate because he's not in the Bush camp. His only problem is Blair's legacy.
May 10, 2007 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couple of points about your column (very clever title, by the way!):
- Philippe Sands is a distinguished international lawyer, not just a "scholar and writer" as you describe him.
- The "UN resolution process" was not simply a dog-and-pony show. I am sure Blair thought that a 2nd resolution could have been passed, even though it was certainly the case that Bush and Blair were going to go to war irrespective of how the resolution process played out. The UN diplomacy was carried out in bad faith (because regime change, not disarment, was the objective), but I wouldn't describe it as motivated only by cosmetic and/or political reasons.
Personally, I think Blair's defining characteristic is his mendacity. I have an old college friend who came from Scotland, and his gnarly old father described the evolution of Britain over the last 25 years as follows: Thatcher made it acceptable to be greedy, Blair made it acceptable to tell lies.
Everything we learn about the Iraq War, from the "twisted and exaggerated" WMD intelligence, to the shifting rationalisations as to what we are fighting for, to the obfuscation on Iraqi casualties, to the bullsh*t evidence of progress... Well, I regard Blair as being nearly as culpable as Bush for the catastrophe, and just as responsible for the lies.
I think it's only a matter of time before someone tries to have him arrested and called to account for starting an illegal war of aggression. Then perhaps we'll see Blair's legacy and perhaps get a preview of what George Bush could face in his retirement.
May 10, 2007 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I ask all you knowledgeable people a little help with the parliamentary system in England? Do people in effect vote only for their member of parliament, and the majority party then picks a leader? If so, what distinguishes the by-elections for open seats, and how does the party pick a leader? Who chooses Blair then, a straight vote in a party caucaus somewhere? In fact, in any event, how does a PM get the power to decide how long he stays and when he steps down, even in mid-term?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
May 10, 2007 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you list the possible next presidents,
don't forget Edwards (and maybe Richardson).
May 10, 2007 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not an expert on British political system, but I'll take a shot.
Yes, people only vote for their MP (simple majority vote - Labour only got about 35% of the vote in 2005), but the party leader and prospective PM is already known at election time.
By-election rules are to my knowledge no different from regular election rules.
How exactly a party chooses its leader is up to that party and the system isn't fixed. MPs usually play an important role in the process.
The PM can step down whenever he or she wants and can stay as long as he or she has support. If there is a significant opposition to the PM in the Parliament, a no-confidence vote may be called.
Margaret Thatcher had to go when she lost the support of her own party. John Major had to go when he lost general election. Blair has to go because if he didn't, he'd face an open revolt by Labour MPs. Basically the same reason why Thatcher had to quit but under much more controlled circumstances.
General election is held at least once every five years, but the PM can call an early election at any time.
It may be helpful to note again that Britons do not vote for a PM, they vote for their local MP; consequently Blair can leave and Brown can replace him (most likely) mid-term, without any need for early election, if that passes muster with the Parliament.
May 10, 2007 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to Polly Toynbee in today's Guardian here's another way of viewing Blair's term :
o 600,000 fewer children in poverty;
o children able to read at 11 rose from 59% to 79% ;
o in 1997 283,866 people had waited over 6 months for operations on the National Health , last month that number was 199 and , contrary to Rush, O'Reilly and the Times' Alan Cowell , use of the private medical sector ( for which Nye Bevan specifically provided at the creation of the NHS )actually declined despite the substantial increase in median income.
Something to bear in mind the next time your republican friends tells you that Government is the problem rather than the solution.
May 10, 2007 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully someone will bring him up on charges.
Immediately after he leaves, he'll earn a fortune. £10M for for his autobiography and another £10M for speaking engagements / endorsements / etc / director appointments and working for Rupert.
May 10, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.
http://www.haberarts.com/
May 10, 2007 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
codegen writes:
This is correct. In fact, general elections typically take place at the end of the fourth year. The reason is that a Prime Minister who hangs on into the fifth year may lose control of circumstances as Jim Callaghan did during the famous winter of discontent that led to Margaret Thatcher's victory in 1979. Although general elections could occur on any Thursday in the year the last seven elections have all taken place in April, May or June - mainly because the weather is nice and there are no major disruptions to the campaign season in these months.
May 10, 2007 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The key to British politics is the strength of the party system. While the voters only vote for their district's MP, the reality is that the vote is almost totally for the candidate's party (i.e. leadership) rather than for the individual candidate. Within Parliament the expectation is nearly absolute voting along the lines of the party leadership. Any significant deviation by "back benchers" spells trouble for the party leader. Tony Blair's stepping down today is a perfect example.
May 10, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is it that Tony Blair didn't realize that Clinton was just more competent than Bush? How could Blair have been so foolish as to put his own foreign policy in the hands of some one less qualified than himself?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 10, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Things looked different in the winter of 2003.
TPM carried a bsically friendly interview between Josh and Ken Pollock. The New Yorker mostly supported the war : Remnick , Packer and Goldberg in favor , Hertzberg opposed . "This American Life" carried an effective interview with Iraqis whom Saddam had tortured , ending with the narrator saying that he didn't know much about politics but he knew Saddam should go.In "Saturday" Ian McEwan's surgeon-hero got all the best lines in debating his anti war daughter.
And Hillary said : Regime change had been the
policy of Bill's administration.
Blair just agreed with all of them.
May 10, 2007 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And OBTW Blair's government demonstrated that economic growth doesn't require Milton Friedman's economic policies.
May 10, 2007 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Bush, Blair is primarily a politician with little experience in the real world. He sees everything through the light of politics. For example, backing Bush made him invulnerable to foreign policy criticism from the Conservative party. Keeping in with the US also guarantees him huge speaking fees which his wife has already started to collect. Given the large house they bought in London - above their means - they need all the cash they can muster. Even Thatcher admires Blair - he is, in many ways, more Maggie than Maggie.
On a personal level it has all worked out well for Blair - won 3 elections, made sure his future is lined with cash, and started the privatization of the NHS. He and Bush are not that different.
May 10, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apropos of party discipline and "crossing the aisle" to another party, Churchill said that crossing the aisle once was a mark of principle. Crossing it twice was the mark of a cad. Crossing it three times, however, was the mark of considerable creativity.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 10, 2007 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eddie-george says:
Personally, I think Blair's defining characteristic is his mendacity.
Ever so right. My friends in UK have been spelling his name BLIAR for several years now...
May 10, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
... and all those achievements are flushed down the sewer of public opinion, because he chose to be Bush's poodle on foreign policy
May 10, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"600,000 fewer children in poverty;"
Woops. the no of children in poverty rose by 200,000 in the last year. In the meantime there are more childless adults living in poverty than at any time since 1961.
"children able to read at 11 rose from 59% to 79% "
It's amazing what you can do when you simply change the definition of literacy , oh and drive up the no of kids attending private school.
"in 1997 283,866 people had waited over 6 months for operations on the National Health"
Again, simply tweak the definition of what you mean by 'waiting'. A large no of NHS areas simply stopped putting people on the 'waiting list' for an operation.
"use of the private medical sector ( for which Nye Bevan specifically provided at the creation of the NHS )actually declined despite the substantial increase in median income."
Given the UK's largest private healthcare company treated 4.4 million patients last year, this is quite frankly ridiculous.
A word to the wise, toynbee is often guilty of simply making up statistics to back up her somewhat wild claims.
May 10, 2007 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've long thought that Blair is a truly tragic figure, despite his long run as head of state, just waiting for the playwright able to communicate it. In the runup to war, a sensible person could well reach the conclusion that Bush was going to do what he pleased. Even a principled opposition could be in denial, like those of us who marched and congratulated ourselves that this was making a difference in democracy or those, as in Europe, who disdained events.
I could see Blair thinking that, well, this is going to happen, so maybe if a decent person leading a world power and perhaps America's most significant ally could bring this back to reality. Blair had been used to at least some level of reality checking in alliance with Clinton. And he didn't even have to play Powell's good soldier and shill for war.
Blair was dead wrong, and he should pay the price (belatedly), but it only goes to show how insane and unprecedented Bush was. In a tragedy, like Othello, one often needs an inexplicable horror akin to a force of nature to precipitate human failures.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
May 10, 2007 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should probably apologize for my simplistic view of Tony Blair, but my view is that his weakness was that he was/is too polite. Too polite in that he was incapable of upsetting the Bush Administration's (and America's) apple cart.
Just because we saved Britain's tail in World War II doesn't mean they are obligated to be glued at the hip of the United States forever more.
I'd wager that Blair's IQ is equal to both George Bush's IQ's combined. But that his English "correctness" prevented him from using it.
May 10, 2007 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was my statement , not Toynbee's and it's not ridiculous. Nicholas Timmins in the May 2 FT :
"The numbers covered by private medical insurance
have remained virtually static for more than a decade , while the numbers prepared to pay for treatment our of their own pocket have declined."
i.e. use of the private sector declined. OK ?
I'm know it's boring to write defensively but I simply don't agree that the encouraging statistics can be explained away as due to Labour's changing definitions which they also did of course.
I don't reply out of any need to defend myself ,
but because it's important to counter the conventional US view that Left Wing governments can't govern and their public services are inevitably incompetent. With the corollary that right wing governments ,able to recruit from the corporate world provide good public serices. As in "Heckofajob Brownie".
In fact those corporate recruits very effectively accomplish their goal , which is to so undermine the public services that they become easy targets for privatization.
I stand by what I wrote , and with the greatest
respect ,disagree with your position.
May 11, 2007 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The numbers covered by private medical insurance
have remained virtually static for more than a decade , while the numbers prepared to pay for treatment our of their own pocket have declined"
Key phrase there is "own pocket". Yes less people now have private medical coverage they pay for themselves. And many more people have coverage paid for by their employer.
May 11, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree but it's time to move on.
May 12, 2007 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink