Because of exams in the first half of this month, I amassed a considerably backlog of issues of the New Yorker, which arrive weekly regardless of whether I have read the previous week’s issue. (Ain’t that the damnedest thing?) What with the two weeks at the beach — which I’m halfway through — I’ve now caught up. Perhaps the most interesting article that I read was David Remnick’s “The Masochism Campaign,” about Prime Minister Tony Blair’s recent reelection campaign.
What’s striking about the article is the contrast between Prime Minister Blair and President George Bush. Blair (or “Tony,” as he encourages his constituents to call him) is extremely accessible — he rides in a regular seat on a regular train to travel about the country; he regularly grants unfiltered, unrestricted interviews; he appears on talk shows and is willing to face relentless criticism, and can stand up to it. At one point in the piece he’s interviewed by a pair of ten year olds for “Ant and Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway.” Questions include:
“You run the whole country. Have you always been that bossy?”
“When your children are cheeky, do you ever say ‘How dare you speak to the Prime Minister like that!’?”
“My dad says you’ve got to be mad to do your job. Are you mad?”
In response to Blair’s rock band, as schoolboy, named The Ugly Rumors: “When my aunt makes a smell, she says ‘Oh, my, I think I started an ugly rumor.’ Is that where the name comes from?”
“If you make an ugly smell, do people pretend not to notice because you is the Prime Minister?”
“Why does the Labour Party have flowers as its logo? Isn’t that a bit…girlie?”
Of course, Blair also routinely faces questions of great substance, not only from author Remnick, but from other reporters whom the author observes interviewing Blair. When confronted with questions about Iraq and Bush that cut to the quick, Blair doesn’t shy away, but states his position and his justification.
The difference between Blair’s up-front style of leadership and Bush’s is so stark as to obviate any need for stated contrast. Suffice it to say, my takeaway is that a significant portion of what makes President Bush such a poor president in my eyes is not based on the choices that he makes, but his total inability to justify those choices. It could be a presidency by Magic 8 Ball for all I know, for all anybody knows. For a guy who claims to be all about accountability, he and his administration certainly don’t have much of it any.
I get in to a lot of discussions with friends on the Left who are sick of Bush that they think we ought to start pushing as radical a left agenda as the far right is now pushing through Bush/Frist/DeLay. I always disagree. The United States of America is not going to go running to the left again in our lifetimes. American Liberals have been pilloried up against the excesses of the 60’s for decades. The Radical Left will not reclaim this nation.
What is clearly happening now in American politics is the Radical Right is getting their chance to stomp on America, and the pendulum will forcefully swing back. We’re seeing the backlash in Bush’s poll #s and especially in the poll #s for congress.
The power of the Democratic Party is in the superior Enlightenment morality that argues forcefully for Fair Wages and Fair Trade over Free Trade and Slave Wages, for strict penalties to corporate excesses, for a solid social safety net, for environmental controls, for gun law enforcement, and most importantly for open debate, checks and balances and separation of church and state.
The Conservative party surged to power under Margaret Thatcher, but is now all but a footnote to the Centrist Progressive power of the Tony Blair Labor Party. Mark Warner is the Centrist Progressive who can overcome the excesses of the Radical-Theocratic-OneParty-Right.
The middle path is the path of enduring power and worldwide prosperity.