January 21, 2004
'New Labour' Blair now rooting for Bush.
In an interesting observation of the degree to which Britain under Tony Blair, originally elected as a Clinton-like 'New Labor' leader, has moved to the right, is this Guardian commentary,
The Democrats' dream has become Blair's nightmare, discussing how desperate he is now for Bush to win. Quite a switch. But Britain has rejected the EU, the Euro, and so much more under Blair. And now he needs Bush to justify his war on Iraq, his increasing racism and opposition to immigration, his corporate economics, his revival of British imperialism, and so on.
Blair is now left crossing his fingers or praying for a US president who is against Kyoto, who has been bad on trade issues, who remains a "big oil" hawk, who despises the EU, who has implemented massive tax cuts for the rich and who has channelled spending into another huge military build-up. For all the fine words, his impact on the Middle East peace process has been zero. With the possible exception of a programme to fight Aids in Africa, there is no progressive issue in the world where he isn't on the wrong side.
And if Blair tries to turn to European allies to mitigate this, where can he now look? To the plucky Poles? To Berlusconi? As the French and Germans wonder how best to deepen the EU after the collapse of the constitutional talks, they are hardly thinking about the future of the third way. When it comes to the great question of Europe's future, they are not on the same side as Tony Blair, with his pound sterling and his closeness to Bush.
Blair himself, of course, has plenty of good personal relationships with a host of other leaders - Putin and Chirac among them. He is now a survivor in the international power game, who has outlasted every obvious rival. He has become an adept negotiator and player in summits and is respected by other leaders even when they don't agree with much that he says.
That doesn't alter the fact that after six years of trying to be at the centre of world politics, New Labour looks isolated. Blair may have wanted to be a bridge between the US and Europe, but the American superpower has gone its own way, and Europe has recoiled. Instead of being at the cutting edge, surrounded by friends and allies, Blair's third way suddenly looks like a fusty anomaly. And he would be lonelier still if the Democrats returned to power in Washington. It is more than odd, it is extraordinary, that the Democrats' dream has become Blair's nightmare.
But to a certain degree this is just the British way of avoiding responsibility for its actions. They are fond of portraying Blair as Bush's "lap-dog", of saying that he is just doing Bush's bidding. So his moving into Iraq is portrayed as courting American favor, not as an extension of British imperialism. But after all, they've been in Iraq for over a century, long before the US showed up. The same with Afghanistan of course. American materialism and influence is to blame for their increasing infatuation with money and riches. Even though they invented capitalism. And so on. They like to blame Americans for many things, even though they've been doing these things for ages.
But you've gotta hand it to them though. They're the masters of imperial spin, of being the world's thugs, while presenting an image of fairness and decency. The champions of democracy, while they themselves remain the subjects of one of the world's few remaining monarchies. Demanding elections everywhere, while resolutely resisting all efforts to introduce them to the House of Lords. It's funny really. Or would be if it weren't so sad.
And you'll notice in this article, it's Blair who's gone to the right. Not the British themselves. Of course not.
