I am, in many ways, an Anglophile, though one who's never been to England, has no particular affection or familiarity with British culture, and sustains himself entirely on vague and unlikely plans to jet off to the London School of Economics for a grad degree in political philosophy. That said, I've always found their politics rather interesting. I'd long ago forgotten this, but Matt's post reminded me that back when the Iraq War was starting, I put a fair amount of weight on Tony Blair's evident enthusiasm for it, thinking him well-motivated and competent, and assuming his endorsement evidence that the war would prove the same.
Now, however, Blair has collapsed beneath his own lies, weaknesses, and failures, and is being forced to set a departure date by his long-suffering number two, Gordon Brown. Given the stature and tacit deal between the two of them, not to mention Blair's recent troubles and missteps, it's a pity Blair didn't step down before today. He did, after all, once say that:
"Going is the most difficult thing to do in politics. Too many people stay for too long. I would rather stop when people said, "Why is he going?" than when they said, "Why isn't he going?" Or, even worse, "When is he going?" I hope I will be able to do it the same way.'"
He hoped wrong. And partially because of his resistance, his likely successor is not the Gordon Brown, but the Blair-lite savior of the conservatives, David Cameron. But maybe that holds a silver lining. If you believe, as I do, that the most important metric in politics is to what side the center veers, then Cameron holds some interesting possibilities. Because just as Blair revived Labour by dragging it to the right, Cameron seeks renewal through a shift to the left:
Thatcher famously derided social democratic values by declaring, "There is no such thing as society." Cameron pivoted away from that line, proclaiming, "There is such a thing as society--it's just not the same thing as the state." He does not rule out tax cuts or further privatization of the British economy, but he expresses disdain for rightward radicalism by focusing on global warming as a primary concern and riding a bicycle to work. He renders himself warm and fuzzy with declarations like, "We believe there is more to life than money; that the beauty of our surroundings, the quality of our relationships and the sustainability of our environment are central in building a strong and just society."
There's an interesting alternative history question as to what would've happened had Blair opposed the Iraq War. Forgetting the conflict's likely course -- or potential negation -- Blair's legacy, now tainted by his deep alliance with American conservatism, would be a sort of pure third wayism, albeit one with far more in the way of legislative accomplishment and internal coherence than Bill Clinton's warmed over offerings. Shame, then, that Blair wrecked his opportunities on that front. As for Cameron: Who knows. An interesting if vague preview comes in this essay on fraternity by his special advisor Danny Kruger. I'll say more about it when I've decided what I think, but for now, it's refreshing to dip into a politics where advisors to ascendant politicians write such philosophically dense and interesting statements of principle.
