Tony Blair's place among the stars

At ten-minutes-past-eight this morning on the BBC Asian Network the key question was of which current chart song would best accompany Tony Blair as he left Downing Street later in the day.

I was listening to BBC Asia because I was waiting to talk on it about relations between Blair and his successor.

Don't ask me why: call it a moment of weakness with a friendly-sounding producer who caught me on my mobile in a meeting.

I can’t now remember any of the musical answers - except that they weren't Bob Geldof or Bono.

I do remember that the best-clubbers-for-Blair debate was more appropriate for the moment than anything I ended up saying myself.

For 10 years Tony Blair has been the acknowledged stadium rock star of British prime ministers. Like other famed performers before him, he has taken many final curtain calls before the very last curtain falls this afternoon. But few politicians have made so many encores for so long.

Some of the reception has, fairly and reasonably, recognized his electoral success for a Labour Party that was unelectable before he led it: the Labour MP who appeared before me on the programme this morning was still a fan. ‘Things could only get better’ he and his colleagues sang in 1997: and give-or-take one or two things that were ‘perhaps a mistake’ they had got better.

Other judgments, from one-time autograph-hunters and friends in the past month or so, have been their last raging shrieks of betrayal. Even this morning’s  mild-mannered BBC Asian presenter – sensing the indrawn breath of her listeners – protested at the ‘perhaps’ in ‘perhaps a mistake’.

The Prime Minister  who so eloquently explained the case for confronting terror after 9/11 has received more broken bottles than bouquets. The orator whose press-conference duets with George W. Bush set so much of the storyline for the wars that followed will have a wide range of reviews to study when he is finally, finally gone.

Remember how at the start of the “Tony Farewell Tour” there was a good deal of  ‘why is he doing this?’. We were not used to it; we don’t normally do transitions. Unlike American presidents, British prime ministers are usually gone in a flash; once they lose their grip on power they get no time for a car-boot sale. This time there was not even going to be a contest for his successor, merely a coronation day for Mr Brown. What was the point of it all beyond the provision of one last adrenaline course for the attention addict?

These were not kind thoughts, nor were they meant to be. Long gone are those days of thinking kindly toward the modernizing idealist with the eyes of steel, the first prime minister with a young family, the first with an electric guitar and a whiff of the ’60s. This retirement tour began after the prime minister had been twice questioned by the police about corruption in the sale of seats in Parliament—and after he had barely escaped a botched Brownite plot to topple him last year. Why didn’t he just get on and go straight away?

There was a tired predictability in what people said about Tony Blair. OK he was good: but that was then. Weren’t New Labour leaders always telling us to ‘move on’. Why didn’t they move on themselves?

The Sierra Leoneans adored him - and adoration is not to be lightly dismissed in this ungrateful world. Still remembering that Special Forces rescue spectacular in 2000, they offered him such star-struck devotion on his tour date there that a life presidency seemed inevitable.

George W. Bush applauded his friend and supporter - but using the same language of gratitude, confidence and trust that he had used so often during the Iraq War.

The Scottish people, always more opposed to that war than even the rest of the country, elected their first “First Minister” committed to full separation from Britain.

The Irish prime minister, rightly but somewhat ritually, praised a tireless commitment to peace and power-sharing in Belfast.

English doctors and nurses did not react so well, despite the billions of extra pounds spent on their work under the rubric of “Reform in Public Services.”

Then suddenly there was a fresh and unexpected focus. We realized that our soon-to-be-ex-leader  was not just passively receiving other people’s verdicts; he was giving his own. On his favorite stages at home and abroad, he was not just hearing what was deemed to be his due; he was handing out scorecards on himself—and on us.

So what is the final score? The question is still being asked – with or without musical accompaniment – in every radio studio and news room in the land.

Everyone is allowed their own best version. And in mine, written safely away from the house-music in my office at the TLS, Tony Blair gets indisputable high marks for keeping himself—and therefore the rest of Britain too — in the international spotlight.

Business has benefited from that. Few foreigners cared as much when John Major and James Callaghan, his Tory and Labour predecessors, left office—or entered it.

In the Blair view, however, this visibility abroad is that rarest of things, an unalloyed virtue. His “What I’ve learnt” verdict on his premiership for Economist readers began with his surprise that foreign affairs had been so important a part of his diary and the proud boast that everywhere “over the past 10 years Britain has been in the thick of it.”

Surely no British prime minister should really have been “shocked,” let alone “somewhat alarmed,” at the potential demands of foreign policy?

Even the two Harolds, Macmillan and Wilson (hardly our biggest hitters), spent much of their time with eyes overseas.

Their age, however, was one of nuanced positions, based on the longstanding British principle that sometimes it was not in our interests, in Blair words, “to be as fully engaged as we can be.” Tony Blair’s impetus has been to make every possible intervention toward what he sees as “the right thing.”

He has also scored strongly  for confidence and for making others feel confident.

When I was with him during the Iraq War he never seemed to waver for a moment that his initial instinct to back President Bush was the right one. Thus none of his staff wavered—despite the pressures from party, friends and family.

History, he said, would have the verdict on his policies.

God, he said, would judge his responsibility for those who died because of them.

Mr Blair did not often talk publicly about God but he spoke often about a godlike kind of History, its hand on his shoulder, its right to judge his record.

Yet, as critics have complained, in the TLS and elsewhere,  the study of history—with all its reasons for not following instinct—was the prime minister’s least favorite part of the history course. The sorry history of earlier British nation-building in Iraq was barely considered at all.

Before winning the 1997 election, the Labour leader had never let his Christian beliefs affect his policies on church matters—changes to Sunday Trading laws or even abortion.

In office religion came to matter more, not in making policy but in intensifying his confidence in it.

He had always been an idealist. His trust in the guiding power of an idea, a trust shared with George Bush, made his the clearest of all responses to 9/11.

Some politicians instinctively want an enemy they can see; Tony Blair was comfortable with the hidden. How he explained himself to the Pope on his farewell tour stop in Rome remains also hidden.

Initial successes in office—in Kosovo, against the wig-drug-and-boom-box “West Side Boys” of West Africa, against the royal family after the death of Princess Diana—gradually dissuaded caution.

If he could later have removed Robert Mugabe or the “Dear Leader” of North Korea he would have done. He couldn’t, so he didn’t—a view he put with some force and much frustration inside Downing Street during the Iraq War debates.

If he could have swapped sterling for the euro and signed the new constitution allowing a permanent president and foreign minister for the EU, he would have done. But he couldn’t, so he didn’t.

Help to remove Saddam Hussein?

He could, so he did.

He also thought he could help the removal be done better. If the Americans were to go into Iraq alone, they would simply get Saddam and get out—which at the time of thinking in 2002 seemed the worst possible idea.

He hasn’t changed his mind. So Gordon Brown must now take over to the sound of his predecessor still singing the Ubiquitous Engagement song, with its three distinct verses (T. Blair, 2007: all rights reserved): “a clear self-interest as a nation in what happens the world over”; “an acceptance that international politics should not simply be a game of interests but also of beliefs”; and the necessity of constructing “the broadest possible agenda that is capable of unifying the international community.”

It will be fascinating to see how long this stays in the new New Labour repertoire.

Gordon Brown is less comfortable with  incoherence than the man he succeeds—and more guided by the past.

The new Prime Minister believes in control-by-wire, with every piece of domestic or diplomatic machinery if not obeying, then at least existing.

Tony Blair went wireless long ago.

Smart political musicianship always meant that Mr. Blair could slide over inconsistencies, take greater risks, “triangulate,” take the argument on to the next stage before the audience had absorbed what had gone before.

This was sometimes as wondrous an act to watch as that of his teenage hero, Mick Jagger, or that of Bono, his middle-age co-campaigner in Africa.

As the young Labour leader, he brilliantly persuaded party members to accept compromises they never saw, constitutional changes they never wanted, the comfort of a Third Way between socialism and capitalism which few understood but all felt was somehow preserving what each one wanted most.

The lowest form of this art was what became known as “spin”: Government information as a centrally planned and carefully stitched work of art, a cloak which would both contain news and control it, create patterns and disguise them.

This began as a practical protection against past Conservative press attacks and ended not just in the “dodgy dossiers” about Saddam’s WMD but in deep popular distrust of all official statements and statistics—on crime (guns and violence up, overall levels down), education (exam standards down, exam performance up) and health (waiting lists for treatment both cut and concealed).

A defensive weapon became an offensive weapon and then a suicide weapon.

In one of his final tour dates, at the Reuters news agency, Mr. Blair conceded that his administration had considered the media too much in its early years.

He then unleashed a savage attack against the “feral beasts,” those news organizations which put views (their own views) first, the news (his news) far behind, and which, as broadcasters and newspapers converged ever closer on the Web, would soon have to be equally controlled.

Press reaction was, hardly surprisingly, hostile. Here was a man who used global 24/7 news deadlines and celebrity culture like a master, both as justification for spin and as its tool.

The “Cool Britannia” party after his first election had brought Oasis to Downing Street.

One of his farewell tour jokes was that when he left office he himself would be “a former celebrity.”

This particular farewell concert was by far his worst—like that of any ’80s punk band, with theatrical  snarling at the last Dom Perignon in the last dressing-room fridge.

If spin is at the low end of information management, the highest form of rhetorical deception ought to be statesmanship, the careful calibration of international negotiations where “doing good” trumps “telling the truth”—and always has and will.

Any Metternich or Talleyrand would have seen the Blairite route in 2002 clearly enough – the potential of backing Washington with secret assurances, curbing the worst US impatience, seeking the best political and commercial rewards—and if the whole event needed a few misstatements of reality, then when had that ever been different?

But Tony Blair, while often wily in his way, became too committed to the Iraq policy too soon. George Bush is a hard man to deny. The British Prime Minister thought he was being realistic and smart as well as bold. But as the months moved on, his private promises and  public rhetoric kept him tightly to the unraveling plans.

Tony Blair gained George Bush’s gratitude for early support. He had done the “right thing” at the time. But when the time came for that gratitude to become a gift, and for Britain to influence the rules of postwar Iraq, the Washington audience had stopped listening.

That is the betrayal which British foreign policy makers feel most keenly now. Tony Blair told me before the war in 2003 that he would rather go out in flames for an idea that he believed in than trickle out of office like his friend, Bill Clinton. This prayer, at least, was most certainly answered.

Our outgoing Prime Minister could never be faulted for the enthusiasm of his foreign-policy hopes: that once Yasser Arafat was gone, the Palestinians would seize the possibilities of peace; that once he had proven himself the perfect Atlanticist, he would have the leeway to join the euro and the EU constitution, too.

But confidence and hope fill only a part of the scorecard. His marks for statesmanship must be put only in the low-middle of the range: a better Belfast, a calmer Kosovo, a safer Sierra Leone.

His final marks at home?

Anyone with a liberal social agenda, the money to keep their children out of state schools, a modest preparedness for home rule in Scotland and Wales, the need for cheap immigrant labor and the liking to live in a famous country under a famous leader has felt five-ways blessed.

Anyone who hoped for a transformation in schools, a sensibility to the countryside, civil liberty, tradition and a better sense of urban safety feels five-ways robbed.

Between those extremes sit most Britons, most BBC listeners this morning, most choosers of the perfect Number Ten  retirement tune, mostly wise enough to know that the essence of a decade is more than its prime minister and mostly giving a polite wave to Tony Blair as he leaves them behind.

Comments

[Judith Fitzgerald]

Nary a casualty? Music to my ears. (Bet Noel Coward could create an anthemic little ditty filled with big ideas with that title. Or, maybe Monty Python could work with it. I'm thinking Tra-la-la-ishly, right? Nary a casualty . . .

Forgive my manners, Tony; but, it occurs to me I gotta see a man about a poem . . . BRB:

[aside]Dion Per Sona, I saved this request to the best for the rest till last: [*grovel*]: Isn't there a limerick in all this, too? Your limericks are extraordinarily good, biting beauty. Politically, they really hit home and give a breath of fresh h/ear to a form considered "light" because most focus on its jockula.[/aside]

Thank you for your indulgence, Tony. I respect your virtual personhood and may occasionally agree with Gelfling (which makes me wonder if Gelflings wore foil beanies, hrmm).

The last century, the one where the concept of "a kinder, gentler nation" reared its uglies? Even Desert Storm Sr. put human beings first. Not anymore. What happened, I idly wonder . . .

Is the strategy about oil or is that the distraction (cf. The Art of War)? Aside from the horror of the casualties, that neck of the world's one of the cradles of civilisation. Does this possibly mean all that shall remain of us is the ruins formerly known as DisneyLand or Niagara Falls?

The Big Red One's well-known, even to Canadians. Coolness. Guess Kerry's one-prick-phony medal-ditching lip-schtick impressed you not at all, either? Pukifying . . .

Most everyone's heard of the Big Red One's Two Daggers. The Second Dagger Brigade took up its position along Iraq's Road of Death all those years ago, an action leading to the eventual surrender and cease-fire.

Now, I can't stand seeing body bags and coffins carrying our kids returning home for their funerals. At one point, I could reassure myself it wasn't *so* bad; the body count hadn't surpassed the serial-slaughter Pickton victim count. Not anymore.

Something about false premises, broken promises, and futility, I guess . . .

p.s. You were what they got? They got lucky, then

[Tony Francis]

Judith, Yes, I was in Desert Storm, sort of. They called me, looking for civilian trauma surgeons. They thought there would be many more casualties than there were. I was "sick and tired" of where I was, so I thought it was a good idea. It was a joke, sort of: A Special Forces Colonel had put in a request for his "own trauma surgeon". I don't know if I was what he wanted, but I was what he got. Anyway, I wasn't there long. By the time I got there, the war was over. Special Forces was all through Baghdad, and never had a casualty. After that I was with Big Red One (First Infantry Division) and First Armored Division.

[Judith Fitzgerald]

No need for concern, I have no plans to go there, either, Tony.

You were involved in Desert Storm, BTW? My dad said SNAFU a lot; my mom never swore, not even acronymphomaniacally. She hated the fact I did; but, it was difficult to go from a newsroom where every part of speech worked its way into one's vocabulary (so, it was possible to say, "The effin' effer effectively effed her effin' EX-IT six ways to Sunday").

Yech, the whole idea — the Clewinsky rambustious sex affaire — seems distasteful to me. My mom gave me the same advice about not putting things in one's mouth as yours gave you, especially concerning money, since you don't know where it's been.

Toilest is excellent; your interpretations hil-flippin'-arious! Consider it a donation, pls/tnx. (Of course, you get credit . . . mebbe :).)

Don't worry, my mom already warned me about me . . .

[Tony Francis]

Judith, If T. Eliot is "toilet" spelled backwards, then what is gained by putting an "S" in there? (As in T. S. Eliot.) Seems to me this would be: "Toilest". It might be a neologism in the manner of a Fitz-ism: "Toilest": 1.) the person who works the hardest; 2.) The fanciest water closet on the block; 3.) (slang) the prettiest girl at the party. 4.) (slang, New York) what Santa checks at Christmas time. Concerning Bill Clinton: someone asked him who was the better lover, Gennifer Flowers or Monica. He is reported to have said: "Gennifer was close, but no cigar." Considering your question about lighting up: I was wondering if it would be light-able in view of where it might have been. But then that is too much information, and I really have no need to know that kind of thing.

[Judith Fitzgerald]

Oh, oh . . . SNAFUBAR's an original, Tony, a Fitzism (as the publisher of the 2008 book of same calls 'em). Over the course of his life, Shakespeare deployed approximately 17,778 words, ten percent of which were his original coinings. Articulate? Check. Irregulous? Check. Co-Mart? Cadent? Congreeing? Fracted, immediacy, friended? Mated, Mate.

So, one of the tasks I set myself in December 1972 (and, I only know this specific time because C. T., I think, mentioned reading "Aubude" in the TLS at the time; and I, too, recall reading it and being transported by its luminosity. It was then that I talked a richer friend residancing in Windsor into sharing a sub to the TLS with me, a practice which continues to this day and which frustrates me since I pay less and got to keep the dictionary and magnifier I still have; but, I don't see the issues, sometimes, for three-four weeks) . . .

Okay. I hear you. Done there. Been that. Bit the dust.

BUT, I set myself a task then to coin more neologisms and phrasologisms than Shakespeare (since he's in the Guinness). And, I did surpass his record plus added a thousandish more so nobody could beat my record. That's but one reason I love SU, MM, TP, and JJ, natch.

Thing is, the words had to be published ones, right? So, I've spent the last three decades or so slipping 'em by editors; my record for doing so? Eight. In my review of Thomas Pynchon's masterpace, Mason & Dixon, another ne'er-do-ill nameskuller.

Names are endlessly fascinating, IMO. McLuhan likewise found their attractive nuances irresistible: "For the name of a man is a numbing blow from which he never recovers." He got that off JJ; and, anutter wise guy, Nabokov, riffs on the name "Antonio" in Lolita while simultaneously reffing JJ in his inimitable digressionary voice.

(Consider, for a moment, the fact that Eliot refused to be anyone but T. S. because, without the "S," his name spelled backwards was a bit of a piss-offering for him.)

As for the predecessorial subject of these comments, he is definitely one tony Tony, a fact which may explain his love of guitars and musical stars.

(Did I dream it or did he confer special status on Victoria Beckham before he departed? Now, this, if true, really puts one a condundrically sarcaustic frame of mindless sardiculousness; and, the mind so put simply boggles. Talk spinnitude!)

[Judith Fitzgerald]

Oh, Dear, Tony, let me break it to you gently:

As much as I like Mr. Clinton's "persona" and, despite the fact one of my best buds was a Rhodes Scholar and befriended by him during their student days (and whom, to this day, avers he's "a fine man" and all that); and, as much as I never judge philandering men (nor women) independently (since it takes two takes to tango or salsa), I'm so sorry to be the messenger on this one (which was leaked to Matt Dredge :)).

At the height of the Moni-Moni Baloney — you know, that meaty affair? Well, the Starr Report included the following snippets I hereby reproduce simply as a heads-up to you, a kind of PSA, I guess:

"Ms. Lewinsky gave him, among other things, six neckties, an antique paperweight showing the White House, a silver tabletop holder for cigars or cigarettes, a pair of sunglasses, a casual shirt, a mug emblazoned 'Santa Monica,' a frog figurine, a letter opener depicting a frog, several novels, a humorous book of quotations, and several antique books [including an exegetical biography of Theodore Roosevelt]."

"And then he had the cigar in his hand and he was kind of looking at the cigar in . . . sort of a naughty way. And so . . . I looked at the cigar and I looked at him and I said, We can do that, too, some time . . . [He] fondled Ms. Lewinsky's bare breasts with his hands and mouth and fondled her genitalia directly by pulling her underwear out of the way. In addition, the President inserted a cigar into Ms. Lewinsky's vagina . . . then, [he] put the cigar in his mouth and said: 'It tastes good.'"

"Ms. Lewinsky testified that the President gave her additional gifts over the course of their relationship (such as a brooch, the book Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman, an Annie Lennox CD, and a cigar) . . . 'Whitman is so rich that one must read him like one tastes a fine wine or good cigar — take it in, roll it in your mouth, and savour it!'"

JSYK, Tony, Mr. Clinton's most fond of Montecristos, IIRC. And, BION, Ms. Lewinsky subsequently did a cover and feature spread for Cigar Aficionado (slugged "Rising to Stardom").

The sin? Wasting such a fine cigar! Purgatory? That's a bit harsh, IMO. Nice; but, no cigars (or, at least, I don't recall Dante mentioning any); 'sides, I think you get a free pass to Hotel Sacre Blue if you're hot-to-t/rot and stay out of the shade; so, let's go easy on the guy (and, give him a pass libre, FF-style, to the sun-drenched splendour we call Cuba).

See? No irony. No Freud. No treble entendricatering to cheap shots and venal spots. No hotstuff snarks nor canoodlian barks. In short? Right real Conradian-strength restraint, right?

Right.

[Kurtsies.]

Got a light?

[Tony Francis]

Andrew, I don't think you and I disagree very much about this topic. From my perspective, it is always liberal thinkers who end up getting us in these messes. Madeleine Albright, as Secretary of State said, "What's the point of having the military if we don't use it?" This was over the Balkans. Is anything really resolved there? The liberals believed Iraq could be made into a western style democracy. Maybe Tony Blair was one of these. Were they correct? Time will tell, but it isn't looking very good. The Chinese are invading, only they are doing it economically.

[Judith Fitzgerald]

No kidding. Casts a whole new pall on Live Aid, don't it? Vampires 'R' US. He *is* a mimic, he copy-cats back a given invitation and individual; Brits do this extraordinarily well; G. Bush, happily, will always look like the Idjit NitWit Doofus . . .

Excusex-moi de vous deranger, S :).

"The bums are already on the seats"; they paid the price of admission; and, impossible is nothing if not defeat. Tnx, Guyz.

CONFIDENTIAL 2 UK:
Quite a few peeps parking their browsers in this CbyerAlley said a little prayer today; it's fearsome. Please, stay safe. Pax.

[Tony Francis]

Judith: re: Clinton's cigar: I can think of nothing, except, perhaps of Monica. Reminds me of what my mother told me when I was 2: "Don't put that in your mouth, you have no idea where it might have been!" Good advice, most of the time! Has Clinton paid for his sins? I have no idea. That's what they made purgatory for!

[Tony Francis]

Judith: SNAFUBAR: I figured out what you are talking about on a second look. This was a common expression in the US Army when I worked there. It is a variant of SNAFU: "situation normal, all fugged up". (My mother liked that one). SNAFUBAR: "situation normal, all fugged up beyond any recognition". Or just FUBAR. My father liked that one. They had it written on the wall of the hospital during Desert Storm the First. Alas, was too true to express in words!

[Andrew Kenneally]

Tony, you seem to be have misunderstood my point. I'm not making an argument about China vs the West. We know China's regime is of dubious morality and so we would be quick to judge the very aggressive actions described in the light of that. However because the West has a democratic tradition and very desirable recent human rights histories compared to China or the old USSR, the US & British regimes benefit from seeming to represent these comparatively benevolent traditions. However their actions undermine and reverse the democratic traditions rather than represent them, but for various reasons they are not viewed in the light they should be.
"By their actions shall ye know them, " went the New Testament line. Not, "By their actions shall ye know them, unless they happen to be British or American in which case, by the good intentions one ascribes shall ye know them."

[Susan Balée]

Good heavens, that picture of Bob Geldof is scary! He looks like Tony's evil genius.

[Judith Fitzgerald]

Big tease? Big cheese? I got it :). (SNAFUBAR.)

Andrew, Tacitus originally said, loosely translated, "They created a desert and called it peace."

(Well, this blog is about history, ancient and modern, she said defensively.)

Tef-Tone's converting to Catholicism at an odd time, IMO, given all this talk about souls, soma, serial leaders, et so forthia. Marshall McLuhan converted to Catholicism (and, we do know many English authors also did). I grew up in the Catholic Church so, fell in love with the Mass before Vatican II destroyed it banning Latin (among other things). I think that's when I went Frank-Zappa-maniacally ipso-nutso, hehe . . .

There's a connection between soma and Huxley and Greene and C. Black and Paris and Brown and Blues and all of this/these, one that seems to be leap-frogging all over itself despite the angle on Sir P's posts. Something to do with "corpus vile."

Another gem I thought might be appropriate at the time issues from Terence; and, perhaps, bears fair scrutiny in the current context:

"Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges" (or, "In the most corrupt state are the most laws"). Tony will appreciate this one, too, I'm sure (and, Tony, don't give up, just remember that Sir Peter gave us the time of morning in his Blair Farewell-a-Ware).

I mention McLuhan because he influenced Guy Debord and — ah, ha! — allows me to segue into offering up for your critical consumption a piece I wrote on the op-ed page of the paper for which I write here in Canada. It was the first column featured in the new millennium, one which seems to me to get down to what's really up; I apologise if this appears to be rather self-serving; but, the column I inked was penned by a different contributor each week and was called "The Spectator." The paper ditched it a couple years ago. I think, though, it really does get down to brass facts and, therefore, I plead the drift . . .

http://www.judithfitzgerald.ca/spectatoes.html

I solemnly swear I shall never do this to you again. There's something suspect about it and I am not insensitive to that fact; but, I believe my motives are pure and I hope you trust me on this.

(Clinton still has to pay for his sins with the cigar, though, Tony :).)

[Tony Francis]

Sir Peter, How does it feel to be the big tease on BBC? I went to the site recommended by Judith, and listened, hoping to hear your voice. Instead all I heard was young maidens filling dead air with dead commentary. I will have to go back when there is more time. Concerning the song for Blair: I would go with Culture Club "Karma Chameleon"; not because the words really fit. But it is an upbeat tune with a kind of glittery, commercial edge. Andrew: China is invading the world. Our President Carter felt so bad about the Panama Canal that he gave it to the Panamanians, who sold it to the Chinese. They are drilling oil wells off the coast of Florida which banned US companies from doing the same. And what about human rights abuses? Ockham's Razor (lex parsimonia) enough for you? Not that this justifies anything. But we have seen this before: liberal thinkers believing they can impose liberal democracy and use the military to do it. It worked in South Korea, but it didn't in Vietnam. Iraq still is in the balance.

[Andrew]

Thanks for roughly doubling my knowledge of Latin, Judith. Spectaculorum procedere debet is particularly fine.

[Andrew]

Instead of all this straining to interpret Blair & the gang's actions in a good well-intentioned light it might be interesting if we took a slightly different angle from which to view events.
Does the ethical standard of an action depend on who's doing the acting? I wonder if, for example, we took the case of the invasion of Iraq but instead of the US and British regimes, we were to substitute China as the aggressor- how would this attack be viewed by the West? Likewise if we substituted the invasion of Afghanistan with Chinese forces, and again the desire to attack Iran by Chinese forces with the same offered justifications. The same Abu Ghraib abuses but again substitute Chinese for Americans with the same claims that this wasn't officially sanctioned. Also, extraordinary rendition of foreign citizens to secret prisons by Chinese forces with the same claims that this is a war against a dreadful enemy requiring such behaviour. Would these actions be viewed the same by supporters of the current imperialist Western expansionism? Being presumptuous enough to say no, they would be viewed differently- why? Are we in Cecil Rhodes territory, ie the Anglo-Saxon is innately superior and his invisible motives to be trusted?
I also think Ockham's Razor, though not in itself an infallible doctrine, should be taken more seriously. If someone continuously commits bad or evil actions it is naive and bizarre of us to interpret this that they have good intentions beneath the evil, stupid actions. This is needlessly rendering complex the much more straightforward explanation which is that the evil actions are the result of people with evil intentions.

[Judith Fitzgerald]

It seems to me, Tony, the word I don't even like to think, let alone type, applies more to a generation than a gender. Jarvis is Joe's nephew, a child of the Boomers who really wound up lowering the boom on this gawd-forsaken planet. I am listening to the re-broadcast of the show waiting for Sir Peter so, if I am incoherent, blame it on him :).

The host has just suggested Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You" and, now, we are listening to "Rasta, Rasta" followed by Rihanna and okay, it's almost 8 AM and she's just called him Teflon Tony! She's not made any smart remarks; just tells Teflon T not to nick anything packing up and leaving :). Now, we are being treated to the news about Paris and her hair extensions and designer existence.

Sports! Wimbledon. We're getting warm. Whew. It's a three-hour show; but, you can click through it at fifteen-minute intervals and, I think you'll need to click about eight times.

Gloria Gaynor?

OMGulp.

Sir Peter's too subtle. GB and GB now rule GB? Canada, too. Manifest Destiny's no longer out of reach. And, it's the Boomers who done us wrong, IMO. My father did three tours of duty and won the DFC; he loved Trudeau; and, Trudeau was the last true Liberal, IMO. Our Liberal party is really more Conservative than anything else; thus, look who's still running the world . . .

(My father died the day before Trudeau did; he was the other last true Liberal; and, I thank Him for small mercies since the loss of Trudeau would have really hurt my utterly idealistic dad.)

Leaders in the so-called first world? Each is simply a chip off the ol' blockhead. I can neither see nor tell the difference. Corpus sine pectore.

No, Sir Peter's *still* not put in an appearance; but, at this point, I shall allow you the pleasure of hearing this programme for yourselves:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/asiannetwork/sonia_deol/running_order.shtml
27 June 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2caub9

It's worth your while; I will say that much. Sir Peter's laugh is warm and wonderful; and, he is lucid, incisive, and utterly engaging.

At any rate, IMO, Candadai almost says it all in the first sentence (concerning the truth and beauty of immediacy, authority, and such in this particular Sir P. S. post).

Andrew? You simply nail it to the wail:

"Novus Ordo Seclorum uber alles."

Solitudinem fecerunt, pacem appelunt?

Spectaculorum procedere debet.

[Tony Francis]

Sir Peter, You have stated, "He [Blair] also thought he could help the removal [of Saddam] be done better. If the Americans were to go into Iraq alone, they would simply get Saddam and get out- which at the time of thinking in 2002 seemed to worst possible idea." Is this true? When the war was sold to the public, there was a belief that Saddam had WMD, or if left in power would get nuclear weapons. It was only after no WMD were found that the mission shifted to "democracy building at the point of a gun." We had been under the impression in the US that it was our State Deparmtment that cooked this up. You are indicating it came from Mr. Blair. I was of the belief that the mission was to set up a large military presence in Iraq, with no intention of leaving for decades (similar to Europe after WW II). No one in Washington counted on the continued violence. Why they didn't is another question. Anyway, it provides enough fodder for the historians to dissect for decades.

[Andrew]

And if this new world order becomes more and more like unto itself, we'll become ever more free to do exactly as we're told, Judith. Novus Ordo Seclorum uber alles.

[Tony Francis]

Observing Tony Blair from afar, he seemed to be a chameleon. When Bill Clinton was in office, he looked a lot like Bill Clinton. When George Bush came in he looked like George Bush. A gifted speaker (better than Clinton or Bush), one couldn't help but like Tony Blair. American presidents have broken their necks over Asian wars: Turman in Korea, LBJ in Vietnam, and now Iraq. From my perspective, this hurt Blair more than anything. It seems the health care fix didn't work out too well (if I am to believe the reporting). But Candadai is correct: only time will tell. Anyway, 10 years is a long time. As they say about politicians and fruit: the longer they are around, the worse they get.

[Tony Francis]

Judith, Concerning the video you have recommended: it is at complete odds with the June 26 posting of Dan Finkelstein, Comment Central. The Guardian has an article stating that women still lack political power. So which is it? (As we say in court, "There is conflicting evidence, and it is for the Trier of Fact to determine the ultimate truth.") I would have to say that your version is probably more correct, although I wouldn't have worded exactly your way.

[Candadai Tirumalai]

You have written of the Blair era with the immediacy and authority of somone who was there on the scene and observed the Prime Minister in Downing Street.
The transition of power in the United States is formally different. The new President is elected in November but does not assume office until January, when he and the outgoing President meet in the White House. The meeting between Truman and Eisenhower in 1953 was frosty, mostly because of Ike; that between Eisenhower and Kennedy in 1961 was very cordial. It is rumored that the Clinton staff ripped out the "W" key on several White House computers before George Bush came in. In all these instances the old and new Presidents belonged to different parties.
Both Bush and Blair wish to leave the ultimate judgment to history, not to the immediate present.

[Judith Fitzgerald]

Sir Peter's on top of his game, I see. (Kudos on the great lead on the WSJ autopsy, BTW.) Very okay by me; I want to re-read this Farewell to Harms and truly absorb its various charms. Lots of food for thought; but, a wee appetiser for the time being?

If Blair feels comfortable taking credit for rock 'n' rulin' the nation, that's okay; but, ISTM, he was in the right place at the right time and, IMO, the groundwork for his various "successes" had already been laid — brick by brick, slab by slab, hankie by yankee — by the Conservatives before him.

(Same thing's happening here in Canada. The Liberals did the work, got ousted by in-fighting revengious self-interested back-room boys and the worst PM we've ever elected narrowly grasped the reins of Poorer in what looks more and more like a Pyhrric victomy).

Rock stars, racing cars, and damn the torpedopes (that's for you, Tony, since Stanley's my herope!).

Welp, C U L8R 2 D8R (since we're all like, you know, wireless and with-it hiphuzzah); but, really, the only song that will do, both coming and going, unseeing and unknowing?

http://www.bloggerheads.com/running_the_world/

Ain't that the truth? Ain't that a shame.

Clearly, in this, the epoch of our new-world ordered, we are all free to do exactly as we are told.