DEAR AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES: You don't know Tony Blair like we do

I was in Washington DC over new year for a British-US wedding. My American host took me to the Capital Grille* to 'see in' 2005. As we went to pay for the champagne, the bartender announced that the drinks had been paid for. A very merry gentleman next to me – wearing an elephant-festooned Republican tie - insisted that no Englishman would be paying for anything. “You come from Tony Blair’s country”, he said. “Blair was a stand-up guy against Saddam. We love him.”

I can’t visit America without conservatives paying tribute to Britain’s Labour Prime Minister. Friends in the White House and Senate all gush over “Tony”. Websites like ThankYouTony.com* capture the conservative adoration for a man who learnt his triangulating strategy from Bill Clinton. I once saw ultra-conservative Fred ‘Beltway Boy’ Barnes* ‘tear up’ when commenting on Blair’s 2003 speech to Congress. Irwin Stelzer’s book* about neoconservatism reprints another Blair oration.

When George Bush wanted to describe Tony Blair to Americans, he used the English name which resonates best with his countrymen: ‘I see the spirit of Churchill in Prime Minister Tony Blair.’ The President sees himself, rightly, in historic succession to FDR and to Ronald Reagan, great leaders who defeated the foes of mankind through strength and determination. Bush likes to imagine that Tony Blair is the successor to Churchill and to Margaret Thatcher. Not so.

It is certainly true that Tony Blair has supported America’s war on terror. He has shown admirable courage in facing down the Labour Party’s peacenik backbenchers. Over Iraq, he has stood by America with impressive fortitude, ignoring the 'Bush's poodle' taunts of the ever-so-sophisticated appeasers of Old Europe.

The welcome fact that Tony Blair became a ’9/11 guy’ is completely at odds with his record, however. After his 1997 election Prime Minister Blair bent over backwards to appease the terrorists of Northern Ireland. During the 1980s he was a vociferous opponent of President Reagan’s no-nonsense approach to the Soviet Union. Young Blair was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament* – an organisation which pressed the West to surrender nuclear weapons unilaterally. He voted against Britain's Prevention of Terrorism Act throughout the '80s and '90s and, John Kerry-style, he consistently supported defence cuts. In fact, Blair is still cutting military numbers today.

Even in supporting the pre-emptive toppling of Saddam, Tony Blair placed too much weight on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. He insisted – in a deliberate exaggeration of the information he received from the intelligence services – that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed a direct threat to the security of the United Kingdom. In so doing, he was motivated by the outdated idea that a war could only be just if practised for the purpose of immediate national defence. President Bush also exaggerated the immediacy of the WMD threat, but he did so as part of a grander, better rationale: the need to rid the world of tyrants and to invite the Arab world into a modern, democratic civilisation.

Mr Blair declined to make this geo-strategic case. Because of his liberal-left party’s misplaced love of the United Nations and the bogus ideals of international law, he lied to the country and to Parliament. As a result the Iraq war, which was prosecuted for the most noble of motives, will never be seen by most Britons as anything other than a shameful episode in our history, evocative not of World War II but of Suez. It has also made it much harder for any politician to contemplate future action.

The greatest misunderstanding that many Americans have of Mr Blair is that he shares President Bush’s biblical Christianity. Tony Blair has consistently used his Christianity to communicate subtle messages about the sort of politician he is. Launching the last general election campaign, in 2001, he posed against a stained glass window in a school chapel. He has claimed that Christianity provides his ‘moral compass’. He also implies that the ultimate judge of his actions is not the electorate, but God. Good for him. But what actions has he actually taken?

His faith is of that variety which sees its proper sphere to be within the conscience of their believer. He is ‘personally’ opposed to abortion, he says, but has persistently voted against Parliamentary attempts to reduce the time limit for abortions, and has led EU efforts to fund UN abortion programs in the developing world. He is also an evangelical advocate of embryonic stem-cell research, openly planning to make Britain the world capital for this hi-tech cannibalism. Tony Blair’s Britain was recently one of very few nations to oppose the UN’s resolution against human cloning. On cloning President Bush stands with Jacques Chirac. Tony Blair stands with Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao and some of the world’s least savoury nations.

Mr Blair is no friend of marriage or family values. He has abolished the married couples’ tax allowance, introduced gay marriage (in all but name) and repealed a law that protected children from very graphic sex education. He has done nothing to stem the tide of family breakdown in Britain, which is now the divorce, teen pregnancy and lone parent capital of Europe. It is also, which can be no surprise, the drug abuse and binge-drinking capital.

Mr Blair supports the ambitions of the European Union to become an economic (and political) superpower to challenge the supremacy of the US. His natural ability to ‘triangulate’ allows him to pose as the bridge between the continents, but the fact is that President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder have no such illusions. The EU is a socialist state in embryo, pressing ahead with plans for tax harmonisation, (code for higher taxes) and all the other job-destroying elements of the ‘European social model’: a vast public sector, strict controls on enterprise and stifling labour laws.

This sits easily with our Prime Minister. It is the European, not the American model that Mr Blair has pushed within Britain. He has raised taxes 66 times. He has passed a law banning fox-hunting and another restricting gun ownership. He has imposed tax of $5 a gallon on petrol/ gas and downgraded the criminality of cannabis/ marijuana. He has presided over a vast expansion in state control over schools, hospitals and police forces, trampling on local democracy and restricting patient and parental choice. He has extended the web of means-tested benefits to over half the population, with the result that social security bills have risen from £90 billion in 1997 to over £120 billion today. Compare that with the Republicans’ record in cutting benefit dependency in America.

American conservatives, perhaps because they don’t have to live in Tony Blair’s Britain, can overlook his record and his determination – declared in 1999* – to “sweep away [the] forces of conservatism”. That certainly seems to be the view of the White House. British Tories shudder when they hear that George W Bush "owes" Tony Blair for his support of the war on terror.

There have been suggestions that Bush has been willing to support Tony Blair’s beloved EU Constitution project. The Constitution is another step towards a fully-integrated Europe with its own foreign and security policies. America should know that France, Germany and Belgium – who already run the Brussels bureaucracy - would be overseeing those policies. Tony Blair would have surrendered a future British Prime Minister’s ability to support a US-led coalition. George W Bush and Tony Blair may be ‘permanent friends’ but America’s ‘permanent interests’ are served by a free and independent Britain. Dick Cheney is reported to understand this and has tempered George W Bush’s misplaced enthusiasm to help his Brit-buddy.

Relations between the White House and Britain’s Tories are not good*. Much of this reflects the unacceptable behaviour of a small number of anti-war 'Michael Moore conservatives'. But the White House should remember that it was Britain’s Tories who ensured parliamentary passage of the Iraq war motion. Without Tory support a rebellion by Tony Blair’s backbench MPs may have scuppered British participation in the liberation of Iraq. The election of Britain’s Euro-sceptical Tories would mean that Britain would retain the freedom to support future stages of the war on terror.

May 5th is the likely date for Britain’s first post-9/11 election. Tony Blair is expected to be re-elected. But if Britain’s over-taxed voters do turf him out of 10 Downing Street, all American conservatives should raise a celebratory glass of champagne.

Thank you for posting this -- been saying this forever that because Blair supported us in Iraq, didn't mean he was "conservative" and in the end he was still a friend of the Clintons. I got bashed by some of the "conservatives" too because I didn't trust Tony Blair as really being a "conservative" -- yeah right -- didn't change my mind one bit!

Conservatives I know all fully understand what Blair is.

That's why we thank him for his wholly unexpected stalwartness concerning the war in Iraq.

For liberal hump, he managed to strap on a set of brass balls for the duration. It has been astonishing and appreciated.

While I agree with much of this article, it does not change the basic fact that Tony Blair has been a staunch friend of the United States since 9/11. That's all we really care about.

Americans shouldn't get involved in domestic UK politics any more than Brits should get involved in ours. Our concern is the UK's foreign policy, which has been supportive of us under Blair, thus our approval of him.

The British right showed itself as cowardly with regards to Iraq, and this dealt a major blow to cross-Atlantic support of what would otherwise be a natural political alliance. When they oppose us in the #1 issue on which the two countries should cooperate, there's no cause to complain when we support the guy who did rise to an historic occasion.

There is a lot not to like when it comes to Blair's social stances, but at least he is not spineless opportunists like the Tories have been over the last couple of years.

Many thanks for posting this article.

I have lost count on the number of times that I see high praise for the Prime Minister on F.R. All freepers should read this and see how utterly appalling he is, and how his actions (vis a vis the Military cuts and Europe) could permanently end the British contribution to the trans-Atlantic alliance.

He is bad news, and whilst I'm not a great fan of the current Tory Party, just about anybody would be an improvement on Blair.

Much of this reflects the unacceptable behaviour of a small number of anti-war 'Michael Moore conservatives'

The Tories have really not done much to make them more palatable to the White House. All that we hear about are the 'Michael Moore conservatives'. The Tories are not ideologically similar to American Conservatives, they are simply less liberal than the Labour Party. While I like the stand that most Tories take against the EU, they live-up to the dictionary definition of "conservative"; and fear change. I have not heard from any Torie that has a vision to change the UK back into a vibrant economy, or to take it forward into history. Instead they are Labor light, supporting less socialism, but socialism nonetheless.

Meanwhile the opposition Conservatives had to fire their own spokesman for saying that the party obviously couldn't keep their imminent election promises not to cut services, then Howard [leader] tries to prevent said spokesman from standing in the election, despite the man retaining the support of his local party office.

With regard to the Conservatives in the UK, the British expression 'couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery' comes to mind.

Blair has stood by the US, what does Howard stand for other than a personal ambition not to be the 3rd lame duck Tory leader never to sleep in #10?

I got bashed by some of the "conservatives"

The problem is there are some here who live in a black and white world. Where if you're correct on one issue you must be correct on all. And the reverse is also true.

Blair misread the British public.

He thought that being on the right side in the Iraqi war would enhance his popularity.

And it probably would have done had he not been caught lying about the intelligence to parliament.

Blairs mistake was not coming clean.

"We should support our allie the USA in this endevour" would have been fine

"The Iraqi regime is a terrible tyranny, creates unstability in the region and ultimately threatens world peace", would have done too.

But what he said was,

"I know things that I can't tell you but Saddam Hussain can launch WOMD against us in 45 minutes",

was a load of old crap which shows him up as the lier that he is.

Our concern is the UK's foreign policy, which has been supportive of us under Blair, thus our approval of him.

So as long as he sends troops to Iraq he's fine? No matter that his European policy would give the French a veto over British military action in the future. No matter that his military policy would leave H.M. Forces so emasculated that the N.Y.P.D. could probably defeat them in open battle.

Britain and America have to be in together for the long-run if we are to achieve anything of worth. That cannot happen if Blair continues his horrendous policies.

I've been to the UK about 3 dozen times in the last four years. I was there in October 2001.

Compared to my other travels around Europe, the Brits are by far the best friends we have in the region. Whilst I do not care to live there due to financial and political reasons, I do appreciate their stance.

Even though mosts americans' view of Britain is through the press, I truly believe that we know, deep down, the Brits will stand with us in matters of life and death.

Tony Blair is fine. He's a liberal no doubt, but fine!

There is a lot not to like when it comes to Blair's social stances, but at least he is not spineless opportunists like the Tories have been over the last couple of years.

What the Tories have been doing is an irrelevance. They are the party of opposition, look at their record in government - also would you care to peruse the House of Commons votes where the Tories have consistently supported British participation in the W.o.T. (including Iraq).

Then you guys should do something about it, instead of complaining about us over here. We take great offense to foreigners interfering in our domestic debate, and it would be hypocritical to do the same to another nation that also elects its own representatives.

but he is still an ally....

Regard him an as ally if you wish, but the sloberring love and affection which flows towards him from American conservatives is truly disturbing from this side of the Atlantic.

If Blair has his way Iraq will be the last time that British and American forces fight alongside each other. Now try and call him an ally.

The Tories are not ideologically similar to American Conservatives

Is there any (conservative parties) in Europe that are? What Europe needs is a WF Buckley jr. type. Remember there was a time when the right here was the home of john Birchers...etc.

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.