Leave the Bush-bashing to Michael Moore, Mr Howard

The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 05/23/04 | Matthew d'Ancona

[Pokey78]

For months, the Conservatives have been rather like the contestants on those grotesque Japanese endurance television shows, who sit in the scorching sun for hours and hours in front of a mouth-watering glass of ice-cold orange juice, desperately trying not to drink it.

In the Tories' case, the glass has been labelled with the words: "Attack Labour over Iraq and Bush - go on, you know you want to!" Iain Duncan Smith, to his credit, though not to his benefit, resisted the temptation. Last week, however, Michael Howard finally yielded and tore into the Prime Minister, demanding that Mr Blair "stand up to President Bush" (the precise words the Conservative website used to summarise an article in Thursday's Independent by the Tory leader).

There is something intrinsically funny about Mr Howard calling on Mr Blair to diss Dubya and bash Bush. Naturally, the Conservative leader's aides insist that his point was much more nuanced, that he was talking about diplomatic practice and the robust use of transatlantic influence. They point out that Mr Howard still believes it was right to go to war and, as he wrote in his article, agrees "with Tony Blair that we must see it through". According to this defence, the Tory leader, to use a constitutional justification to which he has become deeply attached, is only doing "my duty as Leader of the Opposition".

But the more basic political effect of his article, as Mr Howard must have foreseen, has been to make him seem like a Tory version of Michael Moore, yet another populist calling on the Prime Minister to distance himself from the "stupid white men" in the White House. Even as Mr Moore launches his latest cinematic attack on Mr Bush, Fahrenheit 9/11, so the other, slimmer Michael panders - albeit more subtly - to the sentiment that the President is essentially an idiot and that it is high time Mr Blair said as much. What next, I wonder? A Conservative manifesto entitled Dude, Where's My Poll Lead?.

All this is particularly unexpected as Mr Howard's credentials as an Atlanticist are impeccable. He is the founder of the Atlantic Partnership (on whose panel I am proud to sit), which fosters close links between America and Europe, and was its chairman until he became Tory leader. He has often spoken of the influence John F Kennedy had upon him as a young man. He adores baseball and is a passionate supporter of the Boston Red Sox. He wooed his wife with a copy of F Scott Fitzgerald's Tender Is the Night. An intellectual, cultural and emotional affinity for America is seared into his politics and his soul.

This, of course, is one of the reasons why Mr Howard felt able to make his attack last week. Nobody, he reasoned, could plausibly accuse him of anti-Americanism when he demanded that Mr Blair speak openly about his differences with the President. It would have been different if a Euro-enthusiast had succeeded IDS: Edward Heath appalled Nixon in 1970 by telling him that British entry to the EEC was now the Conservatives' priority and that Britain was no longer willing to be "America's Trojan Horse in Europe". But Mr Howard can say, with some justification, that his pro-American record entitles him to be candid.

There is also the broader practical question of how a vigorous, resurgent Opposition such as this one can reasonably be expected to remain unswervingly supportive of the Government on the very issue which has tormented it more than any other. Mr Howard believes that Iraq could yet bring down the Prime Minister, which is certainly feasible. How, the Tory leader asks colleagues, can he possibly ignore this open goal? His strategy, which became overt in last week's Independent article, has been, in the words of one shadow cabinet member, to "turn the tanker bit by bit", probing Mr Blair on the June 30 handover in Iraq, the alleged powerlessness of the UK representative in Baghdad, and the precise role of the UN in managing the liberated country.

With each of these steps, it must be said, Mr Howard has drawn closer to what is already the point of Conservative consensus - a place he always likes to be. Most Tories, with the exception of a few dysfunctional Powellites and cheese-eating Euro-federalists, would call themselves notionally pro-American. But the disillusionment on the Tory benches with President Bush is quite remarkable. They really don't like him (Alan Duncan, the party's talented constitutional affairs spokesman, is even offering his campaigning services to his friend, John Kerry).

In this, Tory backbenchers have taken their cue from Michael Ancram, the shadow foreign secretary, whose attitude to Dubya can be politely described as cool. He and Mr Howard had a meeting with the President at Buckingham Palace during Mr Bush's state visit last November. Those Tories who have compared this encounter to the humiliation of Neil Kinnock by Ronald Reagan in Washington in 1987 are exaggerating, but Mr Bush was certainly brusquely dismissive of the Tory delegation's warnings to him about his friend Tony. The meeting has been forgotten by neither side.

And yet it seems to me that there are two serious objections to the new Howard position on Bush. The first is that he is wrong to claim that Mr Blair has "established a new doctrine" in insisting that the price of private candour with the President is public solidarity. In fact, this doctrine stretches back at least to Harold Macmillan, of whom Henry Kissinger wrote: "He readily conceded the centre stage to Washington while seeking to shape the drama from behind the curtains."

Mr Howard was right to point out that Margaret Thatcher was publicly critical of America's invasion of Grenada in 1983. But that episode - the surprise invasion of a sovereign nation - is scarcely comparable to the work of a coalition in an occupied country struggling with the after-effects of liberation. And even in the case of Grenada, Mrs Thatcher recognised the fundamental need for public unity. "Whatever our private feelings," she recalls in her memoirs, "we would also have to defend the United States' reputation in the face of widespread condemnation."

Second, I doubt that Mr Howard's manoeuvre will yield political fruit. For reasons which reflect my admiration of his character, I do not think his new stance on the President smells authentic. As a Cabinet Minister, he was notorious - to the frustration of journalists - for his adamantine loyalty, even in private gatherings. As much as his intellect, Mr Howard's discretion is one of his defining traits: a rare ability to combine ruthlessness with honour. His insistence that Mr Blair should now "stand up to" Mr Bush simply does not chime with what we know of his own principles. I doubt the Tory leader would respond with good humour to a shadow cabinet member who decided to attack one of his decisions publicly on the Today programme or in the Commons on the grounds that he was being a "candid friend".

The public has a keen nose for inauthenticity, for phoniness: it is what it likes the least about the Prime Minister. It is true that there are many points to be scored off Mr Blair over Iraq in the months ahead; the issue may well help the Lib Dems and will certainly inspire Labour abstention in the local and European elections on June 10. But does Mr Howard really think that a single voter, informed that the Tory leader is now suddenly shaking his fist at the White House, will say to himself: "Oh, now I see. The Tories don't like Bush after all! How wrong I was to think that they supported the war to the hilt. I really must vote for them"?

Will a single voter, in fact, be persuaded that Prime Minister Howard would lift the veil on his own disagreements with the US President, displaying public insolence towards Britain's greatest ally at a time of maximum strategic danger? As Mr Bush himself might put it, never misunderestimate the electorate.

[dr_who_2]

The Conservatives in Britain seem to be more opportunistic than believable. How can you build a following that way? Maybe their particular political leaning (whatever it may be) isn't in fashion now, but remember the saying that "a stopped clock is right two times a day." That's better than being several hours too slow every second of the day, not that the truth changes by the hour to begin with.