Gavin Evans: Why Blair Embraced Bush

In all the political obits this week to Tony Blair, the one theme that nobody seems to have touched is what, in his personal makeup, allowed him to move from a paid up member of the Chile Solidarity Campaign in the 1970s to an eloquent pitch-man and apologist for the imperial misadventures of the Bush Administration. To answer that question, I had to turn to my old friend Gavin Evans, in London. Gavin arrived in London in 1993, and immediately got behind Tony Blair as the man to lead the left into the new millennium. Needless to say, the honeymoon didn’t last long. As Blair bows out, Gavin looks back with schadenfreude and a teeny-weeny bit of grudging admiration, but concludes – via an interesting mea culpa from his own political career — that Blair’s disgraceful legacy is a result of deep-seated character flaws. It’s always a pleasure to welcome Gavin back onto Rootless Cosmopolitan, but you should check out more of his work on his own web site,

When Tony Blair stood for the leadership of the Labour Party 13 years ago, I backed him in a spirit of enthusiastic delight. Having joined the party on arriving from South Africa 18 months earlier, I was relieved to see it led by a sunny optimist with the vision to keep Britain in tune with a changing world – characterised by a free-flowing, outsourced capitalism of the post-industrial information age. Not that I relished the prospect of private greed encroaching on the public space – far from it – but having witnessed the early signs of retreat from socialism during my ‘struggle’ years in South Africa, I doubted the feasibility of resistance to capitalism’s global march, and Blair seemed to grasp the implications more than anyone else on the left.

So my support wasn’t glazed by illusions of turning the corner on Thatcherism – sadly, that option seemed closed (although now, as a result of the implications of global warming, it has re-opened) – and I appreciated the compromises essential for staying in power. New Labour needed to neutralise opposition from the alliance that had kept it out for 18 years: the City, big business, middle England, Rupert Murdoch. I liked Blair’s stand on law and order (‘tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime); I liked the way he picked a tactical fight with the antediluvians of his party (by scrapping the anti-democratic Clause Four in the party’s constitution); I even liked his personal style: more steely than his slightly effeminate exterior suggested. So I was delighted be among drunken English and Irish friends in 1997, cheering along. This Cool Britannia thing suggested if not quite a new era then certainly a fresh ethos.

Blair’s early policy probes- not least in raising spending on health and education (initially cautious, but increasingly bold) – were consistent with these imperatives, and it was a bonus to have a leader prepared to use his limited global power in a way no Tory would contemplate: his interest in debt relief, his commitment to peace in the north of Ireland, the interventionism seen in his strong stand against Serb ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and his commendable decision to tackle barbarism in Sierra Leone (incidentally, in both of those cases there would have been no concerted international action without Blair).

One of his major domestic thrusts was crime, and here his record was more ambiguous. Crime figures eventually declined, yet violent crime continued to increase, as did fear of youth lawlessness. The reasons surely relate, in part, to the neglect of the Thatcher years – the children of those left behind then are today’s delinquents – but there is also a sense that despite huge increases in social spending, a steady reduction in unemployment and higher growth rates than the rest of Europe, Blair’s government was not tough enough on the causes of crime (the gap between rich and poor continued to grow, with the bottom 15 percent beginning to resemble the American underclass); nor were they tough enough on crime itself. Blair admired the ‘zero-tolerance’ approach taken in American cities but was reluctant about the follow: more prisons, more prisoners; longer sentences, less remission, more police on the beat; more armed officers.

Some more marginal domestic policy initiatives, like the ban on fox hunting and the halting reform of the Lords, were Labour projects that happened despite rather than because of Blair. Others clearly had his stamp, and were unambiguous successes, ranging from civil unions for gay people to the introduction of the minimum wage to the Scottish parliament, Welsh Assembly and London Mayor’s office. And yet, like so many other early New Labour enthusiasts, I soon became so profoundly disgusted by the man that I not only allowed my Labour membership to lapse but could not bring myself to vote for the party until he bowed out (which will finally happen on June 27). I don’t expect substantial policy changes from Gordon Brown but it will be a relief to see the back of a man who, despite his ‘hand on heart, I did what I thought was right’ plea, consistently misled his people on issues of life and death.

It is hard to escape the suspicion that Blair’s character defects played their part in dragging his country into the myopic mess of its current foreign policy. These emerged in three areas: First, an attitude to power and money that is, frankly, craven; Second, a profound cynicism about those who had made him their leader; Third, an inability to reflect on his own motives. Early hints came in the tone of his dealings with the moneymen, extending way beyond cautious admiration, and ending in his government’s determination to make the entire public sector a giant feeding trough for its benefactors, prompting the current cash for peerages scandal. That he needed to get along with men of money and power was obvious; problem was, he seemed desperate to prove he was one of them. Just one example: a suck-up remark to the British venture capital conference in 1999. “I bear the scars on my back after two years in government,” he gushed, in reference to their shared antipathy to the public sector.

One quid pro quo should have been an unbending fervour about the keeping the dinosaurs of Old Labour at boot tip length, but instead, when it came to getting his way with the party he despised, he was only too happy to use these beasts from the past to keep order – like when he turned to the union bosses to secure the ascendancy of his hopelessly irascible lapdog, Alun Michael, for the Labour leadership in Wales in preference to the slightly less compliant Rhodri Morgan. When that cynical scheme collapsed I assumed it was a lesson learnt, but not a bit of it. London’s Labour members overwhelmingly backed Ken Livingston for mayor but Blair and Brown dug in, fearing the immensely popular ‘Red Ken’ was too much the maverick. Their insistence on reviving the Old Labour voting formula and of allowing union bosses to bypass their own members, ended in the public disembowelling of their sad candidate, Frank Dobson. On a matter of principle I campaigned for Livingston, and never regretted it, but I still lived in hope that Blair would learn from his mistakes.

Worse was to come, however. When it came to his dealings with Europe, Blair always dressed right (Aznar in Spain, Merkel in Germany, Sarkozy in France, and, most disreputably, Berlusconi in Italy). But the implications were far more serious in the United States. Ever since the Suez Crisis, conventional wisdom in British foreign policy was to stay close to America, but there was still room to manoeuvre. Harold Wilson avoided sending troops to Vietnam; Margaret Thatcher went against Washington’s will on the invasion of Granada or the 1980 Moscow Olympic boycott. Blair had no alternative but to get on with the new American president, but this need was taken to extremes never seen before. The craven attitude shown to the moneymen at home – to the kinds of men his wealthy Tory dad would have admired – was magnified in his approach to the ‘Special Relationship’.

Blair seemed driven by an overwhelming urge to be respected by the big beasts of the American right; a craving seen in all its pathetic servitude in the transcript of the open-mic “Bush-Blair recording on the Middle East last year (which saw Tony sucking up to W, and getting brushed off with something approaching contempt). Blair had been comfortable with Clinton’s like-minded charm but with Bush, and the hard men around the president, he had to try harder to please. There have been many fictional attempts to capture the tone of this relationship but for me one of Alison Jackson’s lookey-likey television sketches came closest. It showed a tennis game between Tony and W, where Bush’s ball is clearly out, but the fawning Blair insists it’s in. Watch them together and the body language is unmistakable – the no-doubt unconscious attempt to mimic Bush’s casual machismo coming across stiff and slightly awkward.

A note of mea culpa here: In the mid-to-late 1980s the ANC in South Africa was engaged in an attempt to prize loose powerful elements within the white community, including business leaders, opposition politicians and Afrikaner notables. I became deeply engaged in it at every level, while remaining an active member of the underground. I thought I understood the fears, concerns and motivations of the business leaders, and became embarrassed by those within my tribe who didn’t fully appreciate the implications of our strategy (who still talked of insurrection and nationalisation) and I developed a measure of disdain for some of them, while along the way I became over-eager to please those I had been sent to woo – hinting that we weren’t all that-way inclined, letting them appreciate that there were realists among us. It was almost as if I was trying to say: trust me, I’m one of you. In retrospect, I cringe.

I think Blair was doing the same thing, on a far grander scale – sucking up without realising it (because, like most top politicians, sportsmen and business leaders I’ve met, he’s devoid of a capacity for introspection) while at the same time feeling brave and original about putting down his own tribe. The most tragic result of this misguided sycophancy was Iraq.

I’m not inherently opposed to using troops abroad. It was certainly the best option in Sierra Leone, the Balkans and, initially, in Afghanistan (at least before the bulk of the troops and money were withdrawn to concentrate on the Iraqi misadventure), so the idea of removing a torture regime like Saddam’s might have seemed worthy enough if taken in isolation. But aside from the fraught question of whether the invasion would make the world a better place (and, sadly, the verdict is now in on that one), there was a pressing, home-based reason for caution. The one absolute principle every national leader should respect if sending troops to possible death, is to tell them the truth why they are going. Instead, Blair lied.

I have no doubt that after 9/11 Blair thought ‘regime change’ was a fine idea – it was certainly consistent with the tenor of his internationalist streak. I believe him when he insists, ‘hand-on-heart’ that he felt he was doing the right thing and I can’t even say he consciously fibbed when getting it wrong on weapons of mass destruction (although he and his bully of a press officer, Alastair Campbell, had no qualms about misleading the public on the evidence). But all this is irrelevant because his initial decision to support the invasion had nothing to do with WMDs or regime change. We now know he made a promise to Bush that he’d back him four-square in Iraq – a promise that long preceded the UN process and WMD inspections. Had he told this truth – rising to the despatch box and pleading, ‘Hey, look, I gave my word to George and I like to be thought of as a man of my word and I believe this is vital to the Special Relationship and I think I can influence the way the war is conducted and what happens next and that’s why I want you to vote for war’ – parliament would have laughed him out of office, America would have entered Iraq alone, and, quite possibly, John Kerry would be president today. But, instead, Blair pretended his real motivation was the WMD thing, misled parliament about the nature of the intelligence, and got his way.

This man wants his legacy to rest on other factors. He hopes to finish with a flourish, with the reasons for his decision on Iraq forgotten. But this will never happen. Like Lyndon B Johnson with Vietnam, like Anthony Eden with the Suez, he will forever be associated with a catastrophic military adventure. His thirst for the approval from rich men and men of the right, his hubristic disdain for those who chose him, and his lack of capacity for self-reflection, all came to together and he sent (so far) 150 British men and women to their deaths while at home 55 were killed and hundreds injured in bombings prompted, in part, by his policy. The blood of these men and women – and of many more Iraqis – is on his hands.

Blair should be torn apart by guilt, but I can’t quite see it. I suspect that like most of his calling he’s a man incapable of serious regret, let alone remorse. He will leave office wounded and, increasingly despised at home, and head off across the Atlantic to wallow in the warm glow of approval on the US lecture circuit. And when that finally happens, I will give Labour another try.

This entry was posted in Guest Columns, Situation Report. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Gavin Evans: Why Blair Embraced Bush

  1. Alex Morgan says:

    I can’t say I’m impressed by this analysis. Some of the elements mentioned may have been a part of what drove Blair, but they were far from decisive. I think there’s something else at play. His religious faith seems to have provided bond between him and Bush and more importantly profoundly informs his view of the world. Blair is unusual for a British politician in that he seems to be under the sway of a born again form of Christianity that’s almost American. And it is his views that seem to me central, not any of the ridiculous motives ascribed in the article (“gave his word”, “wanted to bask in the glow of rightwingers in the U.S.”). The man speaks with sincerity and conviction that is not an act – and in terms which are apocalyptic (as if based in religious belief), about the “war of civilizations”, where in black and white terms he sees forces of Good (the West) confronting the forces of Evil (Islamic “terrorism”). He has spoken of this often, and in circumstances he would not have done, had he merely been doing it as an act, or because he “gave his word” and out of obligation to Bush – he did it, sometimes even before Bush had a chance to react, pre-empting and being *more* hardline than Bush. That’s the behavior of a true believer, not a mere actor caught reluctantly in a bind.

    I don’t know the full story of why a man so seemingly intelligent could go so very wrong. However, the flaw in his character, lies elsewhere – I suspect it’s the same kind of a flaw, which allowed him to be a born again Christian fundamentalist. That part of the brain, which thinks in black and white, Manichean terms, and which doesn’t allow for complexity under certain circumstances. It’s the same flaw that allows Bush to say “you’re either with us, or against us”. It’s the kind of flaw which makes understanding other cultures hard – and Blair has something of a track record here… look at some of his statements and actions vis a vis the Muslim community in Britain.

    Again, I certainly don’t feel I have all the answers to the riddle that is Blair – however, I think my analysis comes a lot closer to the truth than the article. Not to be too harsh, but I think this is a very weak article.

  2. Gavin Evans says:

    Response to Alex: Actually, Blair is NOT a born-again Christian. He is a believer, certainly, but is a very long stretch from a religious conservative or fundamentalists. His wife, Cherie, is a liberal Catholic and Tony was previously a liberal Anglican, but is said to be considering a conversion to Catholicism. Privately, he’s pretty foul-mouthed (more of a Catholic trait) and, unlike Bush, he’s never used his religious belief as a political weapon. Basically, his theology – his religious belief system, if you prefer – is a very long way from that of the American president. The point I am making is that the motive force prompting Blair’s sycophantic relationship with Bush has nothing to do with religion.

  3. Alex Morgan says:

    Hmm. I stand corrected wrt. the “born again style Christian” – I read somewhere, that he had a “born again” experience visiting America, but now I can’t find it, and more importantly it doesn’t appear true.


    I still very much stand by my claim that religious belief informs his decision making to an unusual extent (unusual for a British, not American statesman). Here’s a quote from an interview Blair did for Third Way Magazine:

    “I was brought up as [a Christian], but I was not in any real sense a practising one until I went to Oxford. There was an Australian priest at the same college as me who got me interested again. In a sense, it was a rediscovery of religion as something living, that was about the world around me rather than some sort of special one-to-one relationship with a remote Being on high. Suddenly I began to see its social relevance. I began to make sense of the world.”

    His bond with Bush, and the Iraq situation: he prayed with Bush in Crawford about going to war – that’s by far a stronger bond, the religious one, than any alleged (and I don’t believe it) wish to impress the American right wing nuts.

    He repeatedly made remarks to the effect that God will judge him for Iraq – again, unusual for a Western leader these days. And he did this despite repeated pleas and warnings from his advisors not to mix religion and politics. He also plainly said that Christianity and his faith deeply influence his decision making and world view. Below is a great article, I’ll quote a bit, but it’s well worth reading. Bottom line, however, is that I think it’s pointless to bring out minor motivations in explaining Blair as a politician and fail to, as Gavin Evans has, to point to THE most important aspect of Blair’s motivations, and that which got him into Iraq – his religious faith:

    ” Tony Blair has proclaimed that God will judge whether he was right to send British troops to Iraq, echoing statements from his ally George Bush.

    Contradicting warnings from advisers not to mix politics and religion, the Prime Minister said that his interest in politics sprang from his Christianity and its “values and philosophy” had guided him in public life.

    Explaining how he managed to live with the decision to go to war in Iraq, Mr Blair replied: “If you have faith about these things then you realise that judgement is made by other people. If you believe in God,it’s made by God as well.” His remarks, made in an interview to be shown on ITV’s Parkinson show tonight, invite comparison with President Bush, a born-again Christian, who has made a virtue of bringing religion into politics. But they also carry the risk of inflaming opinion in the Arab world, where the term “crusader” is commonly used to condemn Christian leaders who meddle in the Middle East.

    It is also exactly the sort of comment he has been repeatedly urged not to make for domestic purposes, because of the risk that a sceptical British public will react badly to politicians who appear to be “preaching”. Mr Blair was instructed by his former director of communications, Alastair Campbell: “We don’t do God.”

    As well as invoking God as the final judge of the Iraq war, Mr Blair also explained how his religious and political beliefs came to him simultaneously. “There were people at university who got me into politics. I kind of got into religion, politics, at the same time, in a way. And until the age of about 20 I really wasn’t very interested in politics at all,” he told Michael Parkinson. “That’s how I got interested in it.””

  4. Michael says:

    Interesting article. While this is pure speculation on my part, it seemed to me that his religion was not a particularly strong driving force in Blair diving head-first into Iraq.

    The overt references to God have come later, when things have gone so terribly pear-shaped. Like many people, he appears to have turned to religion for comfort in adversity.

  5. Gavin Evans says:

    Response to Alex Morgan: You make some interesting points, and I have no doubt that Blair has some kind of Christian belief and even faith, but I still think you are over-stating it. Bear in mind that the Australian priest mentioned was not some hell-fire preacher, but Peter Thompson, a liberation theology man – distinctly leftwing at the time. Prior to that time Blair had been largely apolitical and if you go back a bit further, to his secondary school days, he was, like his wealthy father, a Tory boy. His father stood as a Conservative Party candidate and when Blair was at Fettes (an elite private boarding school, known as Scotland’s Eton) he too stood as a Conservative in a mock election. Incidentally, biographies of Blair reveal him as a bit of a show-off at school, an actor, who did his best to ‘cultivate a cool image’ as one of his teachers put it. In other words, even then, in his rock-n-roll days, he was out to impress. and eager to be the centre of attention. Thompson was one of the more important influences in shifting him leftwards and. soon after, he was very much on the Labour left – supporting uniltateral disarmament, further nationalisation and so on. Since then he has moved gradually rightwards, but there has been no sign of a Damascas-conversion of any kind. He is comfortable with religious belief, happy to talk about it, but he just doesn’t fit into the same Christian pigeon hole as Bush. The nature of their belief system is very different.

  6. Pat S. says:

    Gavin, I found your analysis to be quite bad-ass, and am also enjoying the back-and-forth between you and Alex. I have to side with you on the religion question, in that I don’t believe Blair, unlike his cross-Atlantic counterpart, is of the sort to believe that “God wants me to (run for President)” or that his actions are infallible because they are guided by the divine. Your LBJ comparison is astute (I say that partially because I wrote the same thing on my own site) as I think both Blair and Johnson believed strongly in the larger mission but were willing to follow an ends-justify-all strategy, even to the point when the very means used made achieving “the end” impossible. This is in contrast to Bush, who I think had no idea that invading and occupying a foreign land was going to have, well, potential problems.

    It’s interesting too to see the shift in international and British views of Blair between Clinton and Bush, despite an underlying consistency in Blair’s behavior with both presidents. When Clinton was in power, Blair’s closeness to Bill was viewed as a great symbol of a transAtlantic new era, a capitalism-with-conscience dynamo symbolized by these two idealistic baby boomers who had gained a sense of economic realism. Then Bush comes to power, and Blair is taunted as Bush’s servile lapdog who’s in awe of the American brass-balls leadership. But as you identified, it’s more that Blair wanted to be friends with the President, no matter who it was. You can’t really have two more differing presidents than Bill and George W., and yet Blair’s “friendship” with both followed a nearly identical pattern.

  7. Gavin Evans says:

    Response to Pat S: Yeah, very good point, although Blair always seemed more comfortable in his skin when he was around Clinton. Perhaps that was because they came from the same ideological place and, in a sense, the same geographical place (for a while), Oxford.

  8. Jorge says:

    “His religious faith seems to have provided bond between him and Bush and more importantly profoundly informs his view of the world.”

    Alex Morgan

    I don’t know about this analysis, either. But I can almost guarantee you that FAITH had nothing to do with the bind between Blair and Bush.

    More likely, it seems Blair has a desire to please. He’d just as happily please Clinton (who had no FAITH until he was caught with his pants down) as Bush (who found his FAITH at the bottom of an empty bottle).

    (NOTE: I don’t condemn either president for finding his FAITH wherever he needed to find it.)

    I am reminded by the ol’ Beatle song. “Please, Please Me,” I think, is the title.

    Blairs support isn’t what is so unfortunate. After 9/11 he could hardly be blamed. But a real leader would have taken a step back and tried to see 9/11 in perspective.

    Was 9/11 a potential death blow from a super power that had some more where that came from? Clearly it was not. It was more akin to a sucker punch the likes of which are seen in every pub and bar from Manchester to San Diego.

    So what is the proper response?

    Find the culprit and deal with him appropriately.

    Instead, Blair agreed to follow Bush and Cheney down the street and to kick the ass of someone who happened to be laughing.

  9. Gavin Evans says:

    Response to Jorge: You’re right that faith probably had nothing to do with it, and I agree with you that Blair’s response to 9/11 was appropriate from his position, as well as on the way you categorised his Iraq response. Basically it boiled down to: ‘George, I’ll follow you to the ends of the earth,’ which, as I said, related in part to the personalities of the two men. By the way, sort of on the faith thing, it’s just emerged that Blair’s cynical thug of a pressman, Alaistair Campbell, had to change his published diary at Tony’s request, removing references to Blair’s fondness for profanity. For example, he would call other Labour notables who wouldn’t go along with his project, ‘cunts’. Nothing wrong with that except that it is so far removed from the image he portrays: a good and even godly man.

  10. Pingback: giochi carte poker gratis

  11. HonestMan67 says:

    This blog is simply smashing. In my humble opinion of course. As this post is rather debatable I don’t think all your blog visitors are going to agree with it.

  12. Random question: I am starting my personal blog to share the experiences. Do you realize its hard or easy to publish consistently?

  13. Electronics says:

    Nice criticism tony karon.

  14. cheap beats by dr dre,beats by dre US,Monster beats by dre,beats by dre sale,Beats By Dr.Dre Solo,Beats By Dr.Dre Solo HD,Beats By Dr.Dre Studio,Beats By Dr.Dre by Dr. Dre studio Red Sox Edition Headphones,Beats By Dr.Dre Lamborghini studio Headphones Limited Edition,Beats By Dr.Dre studio Diamond Headphones Limited Edition – White,Beats By Dr.Dre studio Diamond Headphones Limited Edition -Red,Beats By Dr.Dre studio Orange Limited Edition Headphones,Beats By Dr.Dre studio Pittsburgh Steelers Limited Edition On-Ea,Beats By Dr.Dre studio Spiderman For Justin Bieber Special Editi,Beats By Dre solo black,Beats By Dre studio Diamond White,Beats By Dre studio New York,

  15. The online web stores go to competing pages because of their challengers and additionally the is sold malls. Usually the retail stores for a lot of most of these growth cycles billed high prices used for the cycling jerseys. But then no stress and anxiety and expenditure from the first and even paper goods in conjunction with the online businesses! An ideal way brooding around disorder of purchasing virtually any Pittsburgh steelers New jersey with your an informal always wear and in addition clearly show any sustenance to a personnel, ought to be simply finding the nba jerseys world wide web.

  16. Excellent points entirely, you only gained a different target audience. An amount a person advise regarding submit that you just manufactured at times in the past? Almost any convinced?

  17. Neal says:

    Moved to Tsohost and by no means regretted it.
    They have been quick to help with the SQL server switch and are educated and responsive.

    Feel free to visit my webpage: web hosting
    mysql php (Neal)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *