Posted on 09/03/2004 2:25:18 PM PDT by swilhelm73
New York THE REVOLUTIONARY POLITICS of the post-September 11 world have claimed another victim--the ties that bind politically like-minded Anglo-Saxons
A hapless bunch of British Tories made the rounds at the GOP convention this week reassuring just about anyone who would listen that they really, truly, honestly are the Republicans' best friends.
The trouble is that the party that has produced ideological icons for American conservatives from the Duke of Wellington to Winston Churchill to Margaret Thatcher, has been cold-shouldered by the Bush White House. And all because of Iraq.
Michael Howard, the Conservative leader since late last year, has been trying to schedule a brief visit to the White House. Such photo-ops are customarily accorded leaders of the Opposition, even Neil Kinnock, the left wing Labour leader who lost two general elections, got the honor from Ronald Reagan.
But earlier this year, Howard was told in fairly blunt terms by Karl Rove that he was not going to get his ticket to the Oval office. "You can forget about meeting the president full stop," Rove was reported by the Sun newspaper last weekend as saying. "Don't bother coming , you are not meeting him." According to the Sun, the White House was furious that Howard had attacked Tony Blair, their staunch ally, over Iraq, calling on the prime minister to resign over his conduct.
It is impossible not to feel a twinge of sympathy for Britain's top Tory. There are few greater Americophiles in the House of Commons. As Home secretary in the last Conservative government, he eagerly emulated innovative anti-crime measures pioneered in American cities. As shadow chancellor of the Exchequer for the last few years, he liked nothing better than to sit at the feet of Alan Greenspan while the Great One explained the benefits of American capitalism. An avid baseball fan, he is probably one of only a handful of MPS who could tell you what "RBI" stands for.
So the Rove snub has been greeted with indignation by some of the Tories' friends. In two identically-titled op-eds in Wednesday's press "Why snub the Tories?", Peter Stothard, a former editor of the London Times, and Anne Applebaum, in the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post respectively, chided the Bushies for behaving like petulant teenagers.
It is true that the Tories have a lot more in common with the Republican party than Labour. Bush's sometimes overly personal approach to diplomacy might occasionally lead to political misjudgments. Bush is, viscerally, hated by about 80 percent of the Labour party and at least half of Tony Blair's cabinet, most of whose members offer nightly prayers for a John Kerry victory in November.
Even so, the Bushies surely have a point.
Trailing in British public opinion polls, Howard has been behaving in ways that look at best cynical, at worst, Kerryesque. When the House of Commons voted to authorize the Iraq war in March 2003, the then Tory number two was an enthusiastic backer. As the British public soured on the war in the ensuing months, Howard backpedaled furiously.
When a storm erupted over whether Blair misused intelligence on Iraqi WMDs to justify the war, Howard went into overdrive, accusing the prime minister (and by implication, the president) of lying.
When Blair was cleared of the charge of lying by no fewer than four inquiries, Howard refused to back down, and instead switched tactics, telling a British newspaper in July that if he had known then what he knows now he would not have voted for the use of force. He quickly went on to say, however, that he still thought the war was justified. Sound familiar? John Kerry couldn't have put it better.
The truth is the Tories have been opportunists about Iraq. They backed the war and lauded the efforts of British and American troops when it was going well, but since then have exploited every opportunity to undermine Bush's and Blair's defense of the war.
And there was something slightly unsettling about the way the Tories handled the Bush snub story. Howard seemed only too pleased to confirm it and issue a somber and courageous warning that no foreign power would stop him telling the truth.
"A Conservative government would work very closely with President Bush or President Kerry, but my job as leader of the opposition is to say things as I see them in the interests of our country and to hold our government to account, " he said this week. "If some people in the White House, in their desire to protect Mr. Blair, think I am
too tough on Mr. Blair or too critical of him, they are entitled to their opinion. But I shall continue to do my job as I see fit."
All this raises the natural suspicion that the Tories may be stooping to an even deeper cynicism--that Howard is actually trying to shore up his own party's flagging prospects by trading on anti-Bush sentiment in Britain.
Not the kind of thing Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher would have done.
Gerard Baker is U.S. Editor of the London Times and a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard.
Sorry, but I agree with Rove and Bush. Blair has been a rock for us. Bush shouldn't embarass him
Tacky. Just downright tacky.
Historical ties are fine, but Howard is not our friend. Other than the Tories under Churchill and Thatcher (and maybe Macmillan), the last British political party to really be consonant with any American party were the late 19th century Liberals (Whigs) who favored free trade, freedom of the seas and the balance of power in Europe. (Remember Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty under a Liberal government in 1914!)
The Iraq war has displayed the Character of nations, and those that rule her.
I, for one, am happy to know the character of the current Tory party as led by Howard.
I side with Tony Blair. A man proven himself to be of solid character. He has chosen to place his nation's security above popularity. I respect him, as he has earned our admiration.
Let the Tories visit with Kerry. Howard's their soul mate.
There hasn't been a decent Tory leader since John Major heaved Maggie Thatcher over the side. They are nothing but lightweight political opportunists.
Blair lost his popularity long before the Iraq war. But the Tories have simply been unable to present the voters with a credible alternative. The situation is much the same as in Canada, where the conservatives have also been unable to pull up their socks and present themselves as people of real strength and principle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.