« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Is Obama America's Tony Blair?
I just read a comment on another web site that was written by a Brit who wrote that Obama reminded him of Tony Blair. When Tony Blair was elected as leader of the New Labour party, he talked of a new politics of hope that would end the years of political bickering and game playing. He wrote of finding common ground and compromise in place of oneupsmanship. In short, his words sounded much like those of Obama in this campaign. We all know where the Tony Blair story ends: New Labour has been the party of corporate capitalism and colonialist wars. New Labour has gutted civil protections in Britain in ways that the Tories could not have accomplished, often in a way that Bush/Cheney can only envy.
I was looking for a trope to capture my general uneasiness with Obama, and this is it. Of course, even after New Labour became extremely unpopular, they won the last election, because their voters feared the alternative of the Tories taking power. And yet, so many of us in the U.S. are continuing to think that we will hold our noses and vote for Obama, even after he has begun clearly to reveal his true self since winning the nomination. FISA is only the beginning, I'm afraid of a Tony Blair regime in the U.S. under the name of Obama. Can one really say that Britain or the world are better off today because New Labour defeated John Major? Not really. Of course, no reasonable person could vote either for the Tories in the UK or for McCain in the US. But New Labour hasn't been better by much, if at all. What really do we have to think that Obama won't be more of the same. Nothing new about New Labour. Not much change in Change We Can Believe In.
Comments (58)
So, what you're saying is that Tony Blair took Labour and the UK more towards its base?
I would be happy if Obama similarly took the Democrats and the US more towards the Democratic base.
Speaking style and governing style are not the same thing.
July 12, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tony Blair was a disaster for Britain. He took the Labour Party to the right to such an extremity that it was able to accomplish atrocities that the Tories could not have accomplished. Is this what you want? Blair brought Britain to the war and occupation in Iraq. He weakened civil liberties and strengthened the police state more than did the Tories. Is this what you want by "taking Labour and the UK more towards its base"? If this is the base to which Obama will take us, you can go there without my support. I would be ashamed to support such policies, and you should be, too.
July 12, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was Labour's base, not the Democratic party's base. Re-read what I wrote, and also realize that there was humor in it. (Even if read without the humor, you're missing the point that these are two different bases.)
My very serious point is that you're extrapolating leadership styles from a few selected data-points, while ignoring all of the data-points that suggest your extrapolation is wrong.
July 12, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
To even compare the two is ridiculous and shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. I suggest you do more research before your next anti-Obama post. Next? What do I mean by 'next'? Well, let's look at your past statements:
Whether a McCain troll or a Nader troll doesn't much matter to me, you ARE a troll, first and to the last.
July 12, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brows = Brown
July 12, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good one: argument by name calling. You assume that I troll for either McCain or for Nader if I don't agree with you? Does it no occur to you that I represent only myself? I'll make you a bet. After 18 months of Obama in the White House, the US will still be an occupying force in Iraq. This makes me a troll for some other candidate. Other than call me a troll, what can you say that shows I am wrong? By the way, your copying and pasting skills are quite good, as are your name calling skills.
July 12, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, little Dave, there is no question to be discussed. The specifics of the Blair years obviously cannot be replicated by Obama. And anyone who reasons by trope is eliminated from serious discussion.
July 13, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and Blair's one mistake over his term was to side with Bush on Iraq. Other than that, having Brows on his back. I live in the UK and he improved the lives of millions of people.
July 12, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neil Kinnock would be turning in his grave to hear this. "New Labour" indeed! Tory Light is more like it. Further, if you think Blair's "only" mistake was to side with Bush on the war in Iraq, you've admitted to a doozy of a mistake. Blair supported police powers to lock up people without charges. Blair supported making it easier to deport people. Improved the lives of millions? You jest. I know people who live in the US who say that Bush has improved the country, too. That's not much of an argument.
July 12, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except he's not dead.
July 15, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Live in the UK for 15 years, then you can start talking to me about it.
And I didn't call you a troll, your comments make you one.
July 12, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, here's the current situation on TPM, at least as reflected by your name calling. If someone posts comments with which one agrees, one recommends the post. If someone posts comments with which one disagrees, one labels the poster a troll. TPM becomes less mature in this. Perhaps you prefer a site in which only the in group, the high school clique, can post words with which you agree. I think a citizen's responsibility is to push our candidates towards decency, not to accept their disappointing political slides towards the least common denominator. At any rate, for you to call me a troll, I take as a badge of honor.
July 12, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can call a person a troll when you can back it up, which he has. So, instead of whining about being called out, show some evidence of complex thought.
July 12, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I haven't live in the UK for several years, but I lived there for several years. I'm not sure that either your residency or mine is relevant on the matter of whose view of New Labour is the more accurate.
July 12, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the deal, little Dave. Reading is good & I'm real glad you've taken to reading more than one web-site. That's nice. And words like "trope" are fine words. It's good to practice using them. So, as you can see, I strongly support those parts of your piece.
But what I'd like you to work on is the "thinking" bit next.Like when you write, "Can one really say that Britain or the world are better off today because New Labour defeated John Major? Not really." Well now Dave, that's a big, tough, sentence. It goes well beyond finding the giraffe & putting it in the right hole. So congratulations on the ambition. But the THINKING behind it is may not be ready yet. Y'see... Tony Blair won 3 elections. And 3 is a mighty big number in politics. Maybe not so big in basketball, but in politics, it's quite big. Go look up a fella named FDR - cause he made it to 3 as well, right here at home!
The problem with your thinking wasn't that you compared Obama to Blair - they certainly DO have many things in common. You are correct. Both in style, but also in some of their message - and even in their proposals. The problem is that you then leapt from that point (personal similarities), and aimed to grab hold of a second point - that New Labour never accomplished much. In Latin, this is known as "flappin' yer gums." Which is why further reading would be a good thing. From big books, not blogs. Ask your friend, he'll be happy to help you carry them home to read if they're real heavy.
Because - and I'm givin' you as many points as possible here, so don't complain to your Mum about the D - you may in fact be correct about the colonial war and civil liberties and corporate capitalism. These are complicated issues for people in other countries too. And to make it even tougher, to write what you wrote would mean you'd have to ignore:
The creation of massive new investment in hospitals & schools. The New Deal employing hundreds of thousands of inner city young people, who had been utterly lost under Margaret Thatcher (that's a good name to go look up, by the way.) The first ever Minimum Wage. Creating whole new GOVERNMENTS for Scotland, Wales, Ireland and restoring local government to little cities like London, which had been abolished by Thatcher. Keeping Britain in the EU. A thriving economy. And Mr Blair actually reading and LEARNING about something, and going from not caring about climate change to becoming the, well... the #1 political voice on the planet working to stop it.
These may have had something to do with why Tony Blair won 3 terms, without even having to use the Supreme Court or special machines! And even at the very end, when he was so unpopular, he won by 3%, and in terms of Parliamentary Seats (which is important, kinda like our Electoral College), why he squeaked in by 356 seats to..... 198.
So, there are comparisons here, son. You made a good one - Obama IS like Blair somewhat. And that's worth a passing grade all on its own. But until the books you read on Britain can be stacked up til they reach above the mark on this yardstick, I'm afraid this Blog Ride is not for you.
July 12, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where does your introducing a nickname, "little Dave," improve your argument? And why does the number of elections won show whether someone's policies were good for mankind or not? I suppose if you think of politics as sport, as your words suggest, then this is the metric one should use to measure what is good. Finally, what makes you think that using a word like "trope" is something one needs to practice? To understand something by analogy or metaphore, etc., is to use a trope. I learned that is school in London, by the way, when I was in the third grade. Been using the word ever since. Sometimes I use other words that come from Greek or Latin. No big deal when I was a school boy. Anyway, it's interesting to see how many Tony Blair fans there are at TPM. Sad commentary on the world view of those who view themselves as progressive these days, I think.
July 12, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough Dave. I was just playing with the avatar you use. I won't do it again. My apologies.
Now. I agree, what's good for humanity is a better measurement than "sports." Yes, Obama has some real stylistic similarities to Blair. Which is an interesting thing, I think, but I'm not sure it tells us much about how he would govern. In fact, in many ways, the similarities of Obama to Clinton to Blair are also quite striking. Don't you think? Going beyond that, their "New" labels and messaging also have similarities. I agree on all that.
The substance of what Blair achieved is a different thing. but to be fair to the guy - and to take away something of value for this American Presidential race - it's important also to place it in its time, and context; and also, to at least weigh in with some of the positive things accomplished. I listed at least a few of the positive things above. But Blair came in after 17 years of Thatcherism, which tore that country apart. To have lived or spent time in the northern cities of Britain, during her years, was - for me at least - to be staggered by the sight of an utterly collapsed and demoralized working class, which had once had great vibrancy and strength. Thatcher busted the miners and many others, and enormous numbers of people under 30 had NEVER had a job. I spent a lot of time there, and to see teenagers shooting up, on the front steps of working class row-housing, in plain sight, knocked me on my ass.
Inside New Labour, this was an incredibly important target. If those people could not be saved, somehow, they would never work again, and their families and cities, likely never function again. The New Deal and a raft of associated programs and efforts, including returning local government to these regions and cities (and please just forget your feelings about Blair for a moment), did some real good here. Gave Britain a chance to recover, in my books. That's just one set of issues and initiatives, and there were many others - again, listed above.
Did they tackle corporate capital in ways I would have liked, and felt were plausible? No. They didn't. London is far too dependent on hot money & money-dealing, and is in for a terrible fall. But the question was (and I suspect the political pragmatists answered it correctly), "Did Labour really have the cultural, media, organizational and political support to challenge that?" They decided they didn't. Robin Cook (God rest him) and many other reasonably "progressive" people worked long and hard on tuis, but there just wasn't the kind of political or movement support they might have needed to change that.
Iraq is really the stinger here. The issue which forever, in the minds of many of us, scarred Blair forever. The odd thing here is that he actually had very little support, within Labour, Cabinet and caucus, even amongst his own advisors, for supporting that move. But let's state it fairly - not even within New Labour was there much support for this. That was Blair's call. As best people could work it out afterward, Blair seemed to feel that the US was a real danger to the world at that moment. A rogue nation. And when an Empire gets that kind of vengeful, "lashing out" thing happening, it's hard to know what to do. He seemed to think the problem of terrorism had to be dealt with in some manner, that the historic special relationship with the US was critical to keep, and then, that he could perhaps "restrain" Bush from his worst excesses. And it's quite clear that he felt enormously let down, as he realized that the forces within the Republican party and the American polity, were not strong enough to help much in that task.
He looks to me now more and more like a broken man, turning to religion as a result of this decision. An odd fellow, Dear Tone. But all I'm really arguing is that we should keep some of these threads and connections somewhat separate - personal style, political branding, real-world accomplishments, historic contexts, and the judgment calls of individual leaders.
I hope this makes up a bit for my earlier clowning about with your avatar. Apologies again for that.
July 12, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I didn't mind being called "little Dave," so I required no apology. What I did object to was the tone that using such a name was sufficient to diminish the points I was trying to make, which I took as serious. The parallel between Obama's language and Blair's is striking, I think. And clearly Blair stripped the Labour party of its historical mission. Further, Blair's coming immediately after Thatcher does have a parallel to Obama's coming immediately after Bush. The need to do something to counter the pernicious effects of Thatcher and Bush is obvious. But Blair's legacy ultimately isn't one that I can view with much enthusiams. As a number of British friends of mine have expressed it to me, Blair pissed away his opportunity and probably has permanently weakened the historical mission of the Labour Party. To say that his sole mistake was to support the invasion and occupation of Iraq is to diminish the horror of that error.
On a slightly different note: TPM increasingly has treated serious comments with sarcasm and contempt. Increasingly it seems like a Junior High School crowd that thinks it sufficient to cry "troll" when someone expresses a thought that runs counter to the thought that is accepted by the "in crowd." I thus am relieved to read a more serious set of comments in your more recent post that the "troll" accusations that stand in for serious commentary too much of the time.
On Obama: For a man whose has come from so far back to being the nominee in a few short months on the strength of his soaring rhetoric, he and his supporters must expect that something more is to be expected than simply another politician. He promised more than that. Yet, in recent days he acts as though he is the same old same old. I am alarmed. He does seem like Tony Blair to me: someone who ultimately will side against the common good and can be judged a success only in that he won and replaced the Tories. Blair promise more and delivered less. In the end, he sided with forces of repression and war. I see many reasons to fear the same of Obama.
By the way, when Blair won his great initial victory, I felt ecstatic at having the Tories whipped. Now, when New Labour likely is defeated in the next election, I shall shed no tears. It's hard to think that the Tories can be much worse than the legacy that Blair/Brown have left.
The "Little Dave" photo, by the way, was taken when I was a school boy in London in the 1950s.
July 12, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This as a reply to Dave at 2:00.
Yes, there were "opportunities." The question always is, can you seize them and win, or can you at least "lose" in a way which positions the issue to be won later. Britain's historic working class, and the historic mission of the Labour Party associated with that, has - and I do feel this as a loss - probably been lost. The global economic changes unleashed, are just wiping that away. And - my personal attachments to one side - this may not be an entirely bad thing. Factory work is not necessarily a joy, eh?
But in terms of what could have ACTUALLY been accomplished, in a particular time and place, it's worth seeing what others managed to do. Red Ken Livingstone, for instance (whose handiwork I know very well) got some good things done - and officially was far to the left of Blair. In substance however, they too were nothing like the Old Labour mission. Same in Scotland. There were a large number of Old Labour types there, but the results were not that much more "progressive" than Blair.
Expand the search wider, across Europe, the USA and Canada, and we see, again and again, the same thing. The 90's and even 00's contained forces which the older approaches could not defeat. No matter the will of one man, or even one party.
Obama I see as being in the very earliest stages of change. In many ways, he does look like Blair - at this point. But I think the US is up against a series of crises which will require decisions and changes to be made, on the foot. The old party positions, for instance, in NO way help us on energy or climate. Nor has the world ever seen the entrance of new labour forces hundreds of millions of people deep - tens of millions of them well-educated. The old tools - nationalist/protectionist policies, simple redistribution, etc. - cannot possibly cope with that.
What Obama is doing now is very straight-forward, however. All the forces he needs to win an election are in place. He wants to have daylight between he and McCain on 2 or 3 issues ONLY. Therefore, on all other issues, he will close any "gaps" 'til they disappear. It's excellent electoral politics, but tough on the stomachs of activists. The real question for me is how he will respond to the crises, which are building daily - and I don't believe will wait til after-November. As for Hillary, she has much to admire, but I've watched and listened to her on the issues, and I see little sign there either of the innovative thinking required. The gas tax holiday thing was an appalling signal here.
But to create new answers, you have to at least put yourself out there with new words, new organizational forms, a new image, attract new energies and people. Obama has done this, to some useful degree.
Finally, I agree that the "troll" thing has become ridiculous. I don't use the word (other than here, obviously!) I just felt that - perhaps in the interests of writing a shorter post in a constrained space - you had too-rapidly jumped from Blair's style to the entire Labour record in the UK. I'm pleased to have the space down here to hear more fully from you on that.
Thanks again.
July 12, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
A relief to have some serious discussion of what I intended as a serious post. I fear that Obama has promised far more than he intends to carry out (or could carry out if he wanted). Clearly, he is positioning himself now as a creature of big monied interests. Yet, he has used a quite different rhetoric that has led to a sort of enthusiasm that is unrealistic. He won't live up the the "change" expectations anymore than Blair did. Anyone supporting him with such an expectation will be hurt in the end. It was this rhetoric that got so many people to send in record-breaking amounts of money to his campaign in small denominations. This was a delusion. In the end, I am afraid, we will be speaking about him in 20 years the way we are speaking of Blair today--as a serious disappointment. But the Democratic Party in the US never was the Labour Party in the UK, and if Obama drives in the last nail in its demise, I'm not sure that will be a bad thing. I'm not sure that the Democratic Party ever will be able to be a progressive party again. It's too beholden to the power of the corporations, as is New Labour now in the UK.
July 12, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enjoyed this substantive exchange.
Can't resist adding a historical question. You're right that the Party today is beholden to corporations -- or at least, to the corporate business class.
But at what point in the past, exactly, would you locate the moment when the Democratic Party was purer and more progressive than it is today?
We used to be beholden to the South. Specifically, white voters in the South. That was populist . . . but maybe not so progressive. It's the main reason why civil rights didn't happen in the fifties. And I betcha there was plenty of corporate money sloshing around then as well.
Maybe one could point to Johnson? Or maybe Carter? as a perfect moment, when we had ditched the South but not yet sold out to the suits -- but I'm dubious.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that political institutions have always sucked. But it's not clear that they're getting worse, and they might possibly, if you use a microscope, be getting, very slowly, better.
July 12, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me to accept that political institutions are getting better would take some doing. The Democratic Party has been the hand maiden of the powerful since the 19th Century. Union busting in the 1880s was not left to the Republicans alone, and some of the worst abuses of federal power were under Democratic administrations. Thus, serious union leaders like Eugene Debs were led to found alternative political parties. Debs gained more than a million votes as the Socialist candidate for President while in prison for his anti-war stance. I can think offhand of three examples in which the Democratic Party moved in directions that could be called progressive. First, the New Deal under FDR instituted serious efforts to improve the lives of ordinary folk and to introduce some fairness into the economic and financial systems (e.g., social security, the SEC), but this really was an effort to save the capitalist system from collapse during the Great Depression and to forestall something much worse (from the capitalist perspective). Second, the passage of civil rights legislation in the mid 1960s was a politically courageous moment that cost the Democratic Party the south until this day. Nixon and others took advantage to turn the south Republican, which was a consciously cynical act--but successful act--based on racism. One could argue that Johnson's Vietnam war was an attempt to show his toughness to the country in face of the loss of white racist voters. Third, Democrats in Congress finally moved to cut the money for the war in Vietnam in the early 70s. It's hard to think of too many other instances in which any major political party has acted progressively. Surely, the Democratic Party has shamed itself in the past ten years and does not deserve much in terms of support. The only excuse to support the Democrats now is the alternative, the Republicans, but this is a bit like saying that Mussolini doesn't look so bad next to his German counterpart of the same era. One could make the argument that in an election between the Facist and the Nazi Parties, one should vote for the Facists, I suppose, although many of us would sit out such an election.
July 12, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
In each of those cases, one *could* choose to look at the dark side. E.g., the New Deal Democrats were still complicit in segregation, and Johnson was still complicit in Vietnam.
You're not describing moments when the Party deserved unquestioning support, because its hands were clean.
You're describing moments when the Party moved in the right direction, making the country a little better than it had been five years earlier (in one particular respect).
I think we can reasonably hope to get a similar moment in 2009-2010. Not because the Party "deserves" our support, but because there are a lot of us who have gotten out of the car to push it in the right direction.
July 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your optimism is admirable. The alternative perspective is that the party will move in the right direction only when it thinks it will lose support if it doesn't. From that perspective, a vote for Nader or McKinney would be better, because it would strike fear into the party, thus forcing it to move in a better direction in the next election. A similar argument is made concerning the consistency with which blacks vote for the Democratic Party. Why meet their needs if they'll vote for you anyway. Why act as the peace party if we'll vote for them anyway? Anyway, I've got to sign off for the night, as I'm on my way out the door. Be well.
July 12, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. I can't resist noting that, if you don't like where the Party is today, it would be very odd to conclude that voting for Nader (again) would make it straighten up and fly right.
Because, after all, people tried that strategy. And the Nader vote apparently didn't fill our Democratic Congresspeople with the spirit of steely resolution that the Nader voters expected to produce.
I like the way they put this at DKos. "More and better Democrats." In that order. More of em, first -- and when we've got more, then we work on the "better" part.
July 12, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this guys. I hope the wheel of debate can return to this type of discussion sometime soon.
July 12, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at the documentary
Century of the Self (BBC)
This places both Tony Blair
and Bill Clinton in a similar position.
Clearly both the old labor and the old Dems (Say Lyndon Johnson) move to the center.
Let's not quibble about this okay?
The basic point here is that on a number of issues Obama has accepted the Democratic move to the center (that is more to the right than before):
1. FISA (with telecom immunity)
2. Abortion (no psychological health exception for the mother in late term abortions)
3. Heath care (as non-manditory)
4. Church-state link amplified
I mention these as just a few obvious cases.
Now what to do about it?
That s/b the gist of the discourse--not is someone a troll or a droll.
July 12, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a silly comparison. Obama has to win a National election all on his own. Presidents win national elections, even when the opposition is in charge of Congress. British Prime Ministers are only as strong as their numbers in parliament.
July 12, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful to see such a substantive discussion manage to triumph over the usual knee-jerk troll attempts.
Thanks guys.
I'm wondering if it's possible to compare leaders of such different polities. The situation maketh the man?
For me, Blah's utter betrayal came before Iraq: it was his privatisation policies. You know, when a Labour prime minister starts talking about subjecting air traffic control to the profit motive, politics has turned completely arse about face. But Obama isn't operating in the same sort of polity so how can you compare? The target for him is to defend arguing for more government involvement, not less.
One huge difference I see is Alistair Campbell's spin control in the early days. I don't see anything like a similar professionalism coming out of the Obama campaign in terms of media management.
July 12, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worthwhile questions, Fran. Since nobody's slappin' us down for writing more than 18 words a shot, I'll take a loner rip at a couple of them. I'd like it if the others here would chime in too.
1. "The times/situation, maketh the leader." I would absolutely give this weight, and it's part of what makes me angry when I hear people critique either Clinton or Blair TOO fiercely. A lot of people spent years of their lives working to get those two into office. Why & with what hopes?
Well, the #1 overwhelming hope was to STOP something which had huge momentum, and did enormous damage. Namely, Reaganism & Thatcherism. Obviously, larger dreams were floated in public - but beyond anything else, these trains had to be ground down & stopped. Anyone who thinks we had some magical political or cultural moment in 1992 or 1997 when we could have miraculously transformed society and global capital is - if I may say - a damned fool. Just remember - Clinton was attacked about how he MOVED INTO the White House, and Blair for who APPLAUDED outside. That is how ready & eager to tear them apart the Right was. So I have little time for holier-than-thou types who think these two leaders could have somehow been an FDR or even an Atlee - given that their times & their people had no such majority impulse for that degree of change.
2. Privatization. Blair always always always talked this way. And yet, on the ground, remarkably little got privatized - his own Cabinet and party often wouldn't let him. Why did they allow him to talk it anyway? Because it reassured Tories that he wasn't JUST going to shove money into the mouths of the old union & local government machines. Inside the Government, they had a phrase - Talk Right & Move Left. And very often, they did. Look at Brown's budgets.
What I would add here - as someone who despised the pro-privatization language & push - was that those Tory voters made enormously GOOD sense in some cases. While in the UK, I got to speak and work in every single city & county in the country. The depth of corruption in the most strongly-held LABOUR cities and councils was breathtaking to me. FAR beyond anything we have in North America today. e.g. Hundreds of "ghost" employees - i.e. official checks mailed to people who didn't even exist - this wasn't just in one city, it was all over the place. Threats of physical violence dealt out by old machinery politicians. In some cases (I speak personally here) the threats were passed on by reporters for local newspapers, just to let you know how strongly they had those cities sewed up.
3. Professionalism. Oh, I think Obama has some professionals around him. Perhaps too many right now - I expect some further sorting out will come over the next two months. Do they have an Ally Campbell, meat-eating spin doctor? Please God, no. But he DID know how to dance with The Sun - the UK's "Fox" equivalent. He was a meat-eater, took no prisoners. And a savage bastard personally. Mono-maniacal. BUT. He did what he did to achieve that one end, and he succeeded. Blair won. And kept winning. I'm sure Ally would take the hit for that critique, and with some pride. I think Obama's team has some real professionals on it, and I hope that they won't become Masters Of Spin, but do keep one or two "meat-eaters" inside.
Most important, the two gaps I see as the most important, when comparing these two two nations, are that: (1) The US faces what I regard as much greater crises today than the UK in 1997; and, (2) That the UK developed an extraordinary civic culture to prepare the way for change - beyond party politics, culturally-based, idea-generating & people-mobilizing organizations. It wasn't just moveon.org, or internet videos - much though I like them. The idea-generation out of the near-Labour think tanks - such as Demos and IPPR - was magnificent. Truly creative. Imaginative, funny, provocative, and always aiming to drive new phrases & silver bullet ideas into the wider culture.
And it's worth noting that Blair took these people into the very heart of his campaign AND his government - it certainly wasn't the Old Labour guard that had any time for this, I can tell you. Comedy and music and art were shifting fast as Blair came in - "Cool Brittania" a narrower/later term for what had been happening. But public energy also poured into wider campaigns such as those for Fair Trade & Ethical Investment, Local Control, expanding and creating using the Internet. The range of ideas outside, and their leaders, who often went INSIDE (the most notable being Geoff Mulgan, who is well worth reading for his essays & books) were impressive. And then... these people actually got time & space & money & support to test & grow things. How else do people think they managed, in such a short time, to get entire new levels of government put in place, devolving power? Or shifting ALL parties in Britain from being weak environmentally, to a place where the TORY leader is now a cycling & solar "freak?"
I see few signs that the culture & wider political life in the US today is providing that sort of active engagement - beyond elements directly "supporting the campaign." Which is good, but not enough. Yes, there's Stewart & Colbert - but this is pretty weak cheese compared either to the UK a decade ago, or even the US itself in the 60's and 70's. Film? Music? Both weak right now, I would argue. New creative organizations coming up with ideas & successfully putting them into wider circulation? I haven't found as many as I would hope for. Think tanks?
And without that kind of wider cultural force behind you, you cannot, even if you swept every office into Democratic hands, expect to get much more than a small shift in political outputs. Which is one reason I get irritated at the progressive blogger types who are critiquing Obama for adjusting rightward. I AGREE with them, but the progressives' own efforts are weak. Worst, they are often just more of the damned same. They're head-on, same old arguments, overly-complicated to the public, Us vs Them in how they're pitched - with no wit, no pizzazz and quite fear-bound in many ways. This is the context in which Obama has to run and beat McCain, but also mobilize a population to deal with a series of massive crises? And some of the younger Obama-backers, squeezing tight and arguing that nobody should speak up for the next few months? It makes me cringe. It's such bad political advice I can barely breathe.
Too much from me. Love to hear more people pile in on this. Especially that last point, which is the one I care about most - the wider intellectual & cultural ferment.
July 12, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fabulous stuff -- very interesting. One certainly got the sense that a profound cultural transformation swept over Britain in the 90s; I'm intrigued by this perspective on it.
We are in a different place here and now, aren't we? So much of our emotional and cultural energy has been going into ain't-it-awful kinds of expression. Because it has been awful! TPM itself is a supreme example, arguably, of the sort of institution this decade did a good job of producing on this side of the Atlantic. World-class muckraking journalism.
But I would love to see a more positive vibe emerge in the next couple of years. I'm a bit worried that we Dems are going to turn into the Apocalyptic Party, warning people about rising sea levels and overconsumption. Not a good long-term marketing strategy. Obama is certainly trying to offer hope, of a pragmatic problem-solving kind, but I feel what you're saying about the relative thinness of that vis-a-vis Cool Britannia.
July 12, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
To draw an analogy to another moment: I wish we had something like: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
But I guess you play the hand you're dealt.
July 12, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny thing is, I feel that the cultural potential in the US today is greater than in the UK in 96-97; likely to come faster & run (much) deeper. Because of the War, the multicultural nature of US society, the way the crises seem to be closing their jaws - faster & harder; and partlybecause US society is more explosive.
Look at Obama. He rose FAST. And the speed at which the new Internet fundraising, and Will.i.am video, and 1.5 million people piling in - that IS quite an extraordinary thing. Right now, there's a lull. But I very much suspect that most of the "political" issues we're debating today will be washed away by the wider economic & cultural & campaign events of the next few months.
Which is one reason I feel the "ain't it awful" brigade is such a dead-weight. In an actual crisis, or time of real change, what do those voices usually produce? Nothing. They're excellent at giving great, long lists of how Bush or whoever did abcdefghijklmnoprstuvwxyz wrong (the "q" they got right. Q is always right). But solutions? Creative thinking on the hoof? Not.
And that brings us to your need for the positive vibe. Part of the whole Cool Britannia thing was that it was.... upbeat. And yet it started when the Thatcherites were in office. It was goofy & drunken, but other wings of that cultural change (some listed above) were quite "serious" & economic. You'll hear people here talking about the need to "Take Our Country Back." Well, yeah. But when it's grim & overly-earnest, it ain't gonna add much - like some of the worst discussions of "patriotism." Compare that to a Spice Girl wearing the Union Jack as a mini-skirt, or Noel Gallagher makng his guitar into a Union Jack. Take the name itself - Cool Britannia played off "Rule Britannia," and was invented by an American in London, as a suggestion to a Ben & Jerry's competition! No, it wasn't serious (and yes, I hated the Spice Girls), but it showed a confidence & a freedom that the country WAS theirs. Not could or should be, but WAS. Any good athlete will tell you the same thing - if you go in thinking you HAVE A CHANCE to win, or SHOULD win, you're 95% beat, right there. Go in thinking you WILL win, you're much better off. As you said, JFK & the moonshot had that feel of confidence.
TPM is an interesting creation in this whole cultural game. No, it's not the old smoke-filled rooms or the union halls, or "superb" Letters to the Editor of papers of old. But there are 000's of readers across these sorts of sites. Who can get instant responses from people all across the country, from other countries, from old and young, different parties & independents. They can - and do - hop from culture and music to polling and targeted states to MSM watch to new catch-phrases.
I think if people can loosen up a bit, focus less on repeating things they've heard 1000 times, and start playing, creating, cooking - we'll get some great results. And that's partly why some of the wilder characters here - who love the wider & deeper cultural play - seem a key part of the mix to me. We NEED some insanity. When the cultural mind has been locked shut, and what we really want or dream of is locked down by fear, where else are we gonna find the key to pick those locks if we don't look OUTSIDE the walls?
And the Brits GOT this, 10 years ago. YES, ultimately, the marketing & branding wing of New Labour won out. Lesson in itself there. But. The creatives got 1001 little seeds planted. And the Tory leader today sides with dozens of proposals they made a decade ago. And THAT, after all, is a key part of what changing a culture & polity is about.
Just as one example of the interplay of politics on the Left, and cultural creativity, check out the "The British Spring" (link below.) Note that it was written as a "Manifesto for the Election AFTER Next." i.e. Done in 1997, they knew first & foremost the Tories had to be beaten. But it laid out what might be done over the next 10 years - with a bit of imagination & style. Then also note that the main author became... Blair's head of Policy & the head of his Strategy Unit.
To repeat one last time ('cause I can hear the footsteps of the Cool Britannia & Blair-bashing brigade), NO, it did not defeat the marketing types, or break the power of the spin doctors. But it DID achieve a lot, and plant a lot. And maybe, this particular style of politics will be transformed in the US today, in the same way Howard Dean & his Internet efforts were accelerated. You can download that document from here if interested:
http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/britishspring
July 12, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fabulous. I downloaded it, and just looking at the ToC, I see what you mean. For some reason, I think we get more nervous in the US about embracing culture as part of the agenda; I can still recall the backlash when Hillary Clinton started talking with communitarian philosophers in the 90s.
July 13, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sweet Baby Jesus (as would be remarked in the South) -- THIS was a fine read. More of it, more often, please, Sirs.
July 12, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The British Labor Party got nowhere with loons like Michael Foot as their focus. That's where the progressives who can't stop tch-tching about Obama will take us if we let them.
You talk about Iraq.
The Green Party invaded Iraq. The grand contribution of the argument that Gore = Bush and Blair = Thatcher, which is incorrect nearly to the point of nihilism, was to trigger an immoral war, occupation, and curtailment of civil liberties.
Gore did not equal Bush. Thanks, far left dissenters from that notion.
July 12, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/obama-is-new.html
Bush (43):
Wall Street Journal editorial board, 7/2/08.
L. Whitey Johnson, 7/10/08.
Kerry:
Steve Schmidt, 6/20/08.
Grover Norquist, 6/26/08.
Frank Newport, 5/7/08.
Hillary Clinton, 4/14/08.
Gore:
Hillary Clinton, 4/14/08.
Hugh Hewitt, 3/30/08.
(Bill) Clinton:
Paul Krugman, 6/30/08.
Abe Greenwald, 1/15/08.
Ron Fournier, 12/18/07.
Dole:
Mark Halperin, 2/28/08.
George H. W. Bush:
David Brooks, 5/19/08.
New York Sun editorial board, 4/18/08
YouTube, 4/6/08:
Dukakis:
Susan Estrich, 5/12/08.
Nate Silver, 7/10/08.
Mondale:
Ronald Kessler, 2/27/08.
Dan McLaughlin, 5/30/07.
Reagan:
Andrew Sullivan, 7/24/07.
Darrell M. West, 7/8/08.
Diane Winston, 6/27/08.
David Paul Kuhn, 7/24/07.
E.J. Dionne, 2/29/08
George F. Will, 5/8/08.
Barack Obama, 1/16/08.
Carter:
John McCain, 6/21/08.
Dinesh D'Souza, 6/18/08.
Matthew Continetti, 5/5/08.
Kurt Anderson, 6/16/08.
Ford:
Dennis Byrne, 1/4/07.
Nixon:
Karl Rove, 7/10/08.
James Kirchick, 7/2/07.
John Pitney, 3/4/08.
McGovern:
John Judis, 4/23/08.
Jeralyn, 2/16/08.
New York Sun editorial board, 5/9/08.
Humphrey:
Dr. Violet Socks, 6/5/08.
Johnson:
Rush Limbaugh, 6/10/08.
Jeffrey Lord, 6/10/08.
Michael Crowley, 6/5/08:
Goldwater:
Alfred Regnery, 2/25/08.
Kennedy:
Caroline Kennedy, 1/27/08.
Ted Sorensen, 7/23/07.
William Rees-Mogg, 2/18/08.
Justin Raimondo, 8/3/07.
E.J. Dionne, 4/22/08.
Eisenhower:
Susan Eisenhower, 2/2/08.
Alan W. Dowd, 6/3/08.
Stevenson:
George F. Will, 4/15/08.
Steve Clemons, 11/4/07.
David Greenberg, 11/16/07.
E.J. Dionne, 4/22/08.
Truman:
New York Sun editorial board, 7/2/08.
Chicago Sun-Times, 5/13/07.
Dewey:
East Hartford Gazette, 6/25/08
Voters of New Hampshire, 1/8/08.
Tony Blair:
david obrien, 7/12/08.
July 12, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is the New...
Fucking lack of an edit feature...
July 12, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, so that one bored you ChronoSpark. Fair enough. How about we try something more fun, eh?
ChronoSpark is the New.... __________________.
This thread is now open for creative contributions. (And NO, Chrono, you may not add your own.)
July 12, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid the answer is "Satan," if the avatar is anything to go by.
July 12, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's probably a touch harsh on CS.... but headed in the right direction, I'm sure even he would agree. How about:
ChronoSpark is... Satan's Little List-Maker.
July 12, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused as to what you're exactly trying to say and/or accomplish here.
My point is simply this: for months now, one of the talking points of numerous people in the media has been to compare Obama to different political figures of the past: "Obama is the new Dukakis," "Obama is the new Kerry," "Obama is the new George W.," and this is absolutely no different, though it's even more of a stretch because of the fact that Tony Blair isn't even American.
If you truly wanted to, you could equate Obama as being "the new..." anything, whether political or otherwise, and I'm finding the comparisons a little tiring, bland and frankly, quite pointless.
July 13, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
No problem. Point taken.
July 13, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. I was just funnin' ya, CS. No harm intended. Still.... thought you might get some cool T-shirt ideas out of it.
July 13, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, ok, good to know. =) Thanks, guys.
July 13, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies. I've had a tough time recently and my snark detector has been short-circuiting a lot lately.
July 13, 2008 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't participate in the discussion of Tony Blair and his tenure in England because I am woefully under informed.
BUT...
Regarding the original post, sometimes when I don't want to be disappointed, I convince myself that the worst is going to happen: I'm not going to get the job, my team isn't going to win the game, etc. Then, if the worst happens, I can console myself with the fact that I predicted it. And if the best happens, I can forget that I was ever worried.
If you generally vote for Democrats, it seems like there might be a little of that going on here.
I think though that it is a tad bit unfair to compare Obama's presidency to Blair's prime ministership (if that's a word).
He hasn't even been elected yet, so first and foremost the cart is slightly before the horse.
Second, although there may be some parallels, the systems of government, problems, and populations are vastly different--apples to oranges really.
Third, if there are more parallels than I'm willing to admit, maybe you should give Obama some credit for being a student of history. I'm sure he watched Blair's implosion just like the rest of us. And if we (or some of we, anyway) see the parallels, probably so does Obama. And he's probably astute enough to at least give some thought to how to avoid them for himself.
So, I suppose my point is why don't we get the man elected first and then hold him accountable while also doing some work ourselves to help right the ship.
Let's not make doom and gloom a self-fulfilling prophecy!
July 12, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let me get this straight: Obama, Blair, and Hitler were all popular iconoclasts, so Obama, Blair, and Hitler are exactly alike. Is that about right?
July 12, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scalfin, you have the only intelligent comment amidst all this drivel.
July 13, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
For what it's worth, I grew up in Britain under New Labour. Trust me, I hate Tony Blair's guts. I can't ever forgive him for Iraq, Terror Laws, 90 Days, and all the other civil and foreign policy issues that I think he allied himself with Bush on. He saw the world in Bush's terms - ie, Black and White. Good vs. Evil. Terrorists vs. Us. And the government reactions to 9/11 and 7/7 were sickening, sickening scaremongering.
But to argue that the country is NO better off than it would have been under the Tory government of Major? The Conservatives wanted to sell off the NHS. Labour saved it. The middle class were truly given a new lease of life, and I really feel that my family was a perfect example of this. Over the course of ten years, my father went from working out of our front room, and my mother taking three jobs, our mortgage repayments nearly killing us after the interest rate explosion of '93 - to my father owning an expanding business, my mother working part time, and me going through University to the point that I was able to move to the States several years ago (I'm back in London for a year-long stint right now).
Not only did the economic situation improve, but the social scene changed dramatically. Labour had a concerted effort to improve race relations, integration, and generally change the country. I should know: my parents were immigrants. If the Tory 'reign' had continued any longer, do I think that I would have felt the same level playing field that I feel existed several years ago? No. Not for a minute.
The third thing that Blair did was that he genuinely ended "politics". It stopped being about State vs. Market, Private vs. Public, Industry vs. Business. Britain exists now in an era of consensus politics, where the whole country is unified - both Tories and Labour - around a fundamentally 'socialist' agenda: entitlement to the welfare state, but with it administered through a pragmatic market-based system. The debate today is not whether the government should provide healthcare free to every citizen, but rather how they should achieve it.
As I said, this doesn't mitigate his gross, gross error in siding with Bush on issues of foreign policy. A liar and a crook is still a liar and a crook, no matter how long the laundry list of achievements. So you've got it all wrong - Blair's failing wasn't that his efforts to be 'new' didn't succeed: they did. His failing was that he was I think allured by the 'power' of Bush, and along the way lost the trust of the British people.
Back on topic, then - is Obama the new Blair? Let's hope so, just without the militaristic bible-thumping neo-con foreign policy. Given that Obama has been pretty consistent on Iraq, and his foreign policy is very very well considered and well planned (Blair's wasn't upon coming to office - he was elected on economic, not foreign issues) - I highly doubt that Obama will become the next Blair in the sense you outline.
New question: Is Obama the next ....... David Cameron?
July 12, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should add that in my experience, a lot of British people won't be willing to concede the successes of New Labour simply because it has become so deeply allied in their minds with the duplicity of the Iraq War - the WMD claim, the 45 minute claim, etc.
A friend of mine was a researcher in Parliament, and had to do phone-banking and polling in a Labour constituency. The single issue that still comes up, even five or six years, and one election later is that they fundamentally can't trust a government that lied to them about National Security and Intelligence. I should obviously add that I am one of those people - but I also recognize that at some point I shall have to forgive them: I can't continue to blame an entire party for the error of what was effectively one man. Brown was reportedly a tacit opponent of the war, but didn't speak out because he would have lost his job, and thus wouldn't be PM today.
July 12, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy s**t! I actually read that comment with a British accent. Beautiful. I've always liked Tony Blair, and now I know why.
July 13, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you were referring to my comment, then I'm afraid I've lost a lot of my British accent. Five years in New York as an impressionable young man has left me with this annoying crossover accent - not a sophisticated Mid-Atlantic drawl, but a kind of generic urban-big-city-fast-paced-aggressive sound. Maybe I still write with a British Accent... :-P
July 13, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just got back home and discovered that the discussion continued without me. Glad to see that what I wrote prompted some thoughtful discussions. That's all one can ask for. Thanks.
July 13, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was really useful. Thanks Dave.
July 13, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
IS TONY BLAIR AMERICA'S CHURCHILL?!?!?! THINK AGAIN!?!?!?!?!??!?!
July 13, 2008 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is the new Bush Poodle!
LOL
July 13, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember when Blair and Bill Clinton were supposed to be kindred spirits. That was the MSM meme for a long time. Does this mean that Senator Obama is the new Bill Clinton.
July 13, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment