State of the Cousins: What the British elections mean for the U.S. (Is Mother Britain going wobbly?)

Nationl Review ^ | May 06, 2005, 7:10 p.m. | John O'Sullivan

[NZerFromHK]

Americans are accustomed to thinking of Britain as their most reliable ally, always there in a crisis. Broadly speaking that has been true since 1941 — and mutual. With the exception of a few wobbles like Suez and Edward Heath's refusal of landing rights to U.S. planes supplying arms to Israel in the Yom Kippur war, the Brits have shared a common approach with the U.S. on defense policy, intelligence cooperation, nuclear weapons, trade liberalization, and much else. Margaret Thatcher's backing for Reagan's Libyan raid and Tony Blair's commitment of British forces to the Iraq war strengthened this habitual cooperation. There was even government-to-government agreement for much of the time on the desirability of Britain's joining the European Union to frustrate any tendency the latter might show toward anti-Americanism. By and large this mix of policies worked well.

It is now threatened, however, by three developments: the rise of anti-Americanism in British politics, a growing anti-Americanism in continental Europe, and the EU's moves toward a common foreign policy. It is the first of these that is the main topic of this article.

Traditional anti-Americanism in Britain has been of two kinds: a left-wing political anti-Americanism rooted in anti-capitalism, and a right-wing hostility based on the decline of British power and the resentment at being displaced by the U.S. Neither was politically important; both were easily contained. But a much more dangerous, complicated, and surprising situation developed in the recent election campaign: Tony Blair's handling of the Iraq war midwifed the birth of a powerful anti-Americanism of the center-Left. . .

[NZerFromHK]

It could have some effects as Muslims vote as radical blocs. But my worry are useful idiots among the secular humanist nouvelle rich/middle class. They sprang as the sons and daughters of yesteryears' blue collar working class or middle class who had either stayed comfortable or had become well off due to Margaret Thatcher's policies. Apart from the economy they have become uniformly leftist on all other issues.

This is what I'm worrying - leftism manifesting itself in Middle Britain.

[MikefromOhio]

hehe


Mort would have fit in perfectly with a thread I was on yesterday......

[Calusa]

When I think of Blair I think him as Clinton's *****, but someone posted back saying it was the other around Bubba was Blair's poodle. Nobody on the world scene aided and abetted Bubba like Blair through his travails. Blair did stand with us in Iraq. I think the British wing of England know that they are an anchronisn and only our support can ensure the survival of their way of life, kinda like Israel. Having said that it is also true that Blair's position in International Socialist Circles is more important to him than anything else.

[Calusa]

When I think of Blair I think him as Clinton's *****, but someone posted back saying it was the other around Bubba was Blair's poodle. Nobody on the world scene aided and abetted Bubba like Blair through his travails. Blair did stand with us in Iraq. I think the British wing of England know that they are an anchronisn and only our support can ensure the survival of their way of life, kinda like Israel. Having said that it is also true that Blair's position in International Socialist Circles is more important to him than anything else.

[labard1]

"Americans are accustomed to thinking of Britain as their most reliable ally"

Only if they are geography challenged and don't think of Australia.

[MadIvan]

I can only see three paragraphs. The fact remains that there was only one political party that ran on an overtly anti-war platform, and it got less than a quarter of the votes.

I'm not saying there aren't anti-American elements in British politics - but I would be surprised if pundits were 100% all the time. He is wrong in this instance - I repeat, over 70% of the electorate voted for pro-war parties.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Blair is an interesting case. My opinion of him is this - he is a sincere man, even if he is wrong, he is sincerely wrong. He believes in things - they may not be the right things, but he believes in them nonetheless.

This contrasts favourably to Clinton who believed in nothing except himself, in my view.

Regards, Ivan

[NZerFromHK]

It could be the case. London for all sorts of reasons remains the epicentre of the English-speaking world. If the United Kingdom sneezes, the rest of us Colonials and Americans will catch 'flu. Let's hope the current United Kingdom truly lives up to the numerous great leaders it had had in the past.

[NZerFromHK]

Found this biography of John O'Sullivan at National Review's website. He is a heavyweight in British politics, or perhaps he is a political has-been who views everything through tinted glasses, but certainly no fool.

---

http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos062703.asp

John O’Sullivan is editor-in-chief of United Press International. He was Editor of National Review from 1988 to 1997 and in 1998 was named Editor-at-Large. His previous posts have included special adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, associate editor of the London Times, assistant editor of the London Daily Telegraph, and editor of Policy Review.

O’Sullivan was born in Great Britain in 1942. He was educated at London University where he received a B.A. (Hons.) and a Diploma of Social Studies. He stood for Parliament as a Conservative in the 1970 general election for Gateshead West.

He is the founder and co-chairman of the New Atlantic Initiative, an international bipartisan effort dedicated to reinvigorating and expanding the Atlantic community of democracies. The NAI was formally launched at the Congress of Prague in May 1996.

O’Sullivan has published articles in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Policy Review, The National Interest, The New Criterion, the Times Literary Supplement, The American Spectator, The Spectator (London), Quadrant, and other journals.

He is on the Executive Advisory Board of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, the Advisory Council of the Social Affairs Unit in London, and the Honorary Board of the Civic Institute in Prague. He was made a Commander of the British Empire (C.B.E.) in the 1991 New Year's Honors List. He lectures on British and American politics.

[ScaniaBoy]

And if the Iraq war really was an important issue then the LibDims certainly missed their chance of an electoral break-through.

In fact if the Tories had been able to neutralize the UKIP/Veritas parties, for instance by including a eurosceptic statement in their program, they may have kept the Libs wins down to two places (instead of elven).

The UKIP probably cost the Tories something like 25 places - Labour's majority could have been cut even further. Hopefully, this is something they will ponder when thinking of who to chose as their new leader.

[Brian Allen]

<< I'm really curious, what is an American Republican's attitude towards Tony Blair.

On one hand he's without any doubts a loyal ally of President Bush. On the other - he's a lefty. >>

Tony Blair is seen by thinking Americans as the awful bloody clone of the Neo-Axis/NATO Gang's co-founding lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering Thuggee, Billy-Bubba Blythe-KKli'toon!

He is not seen as the "loyal ally of President Bush" so much as he is correctly acknowledged to stand on the side of Right on just the single issue of America's War on Terror -- and its Iraq Phase.

On every other issue he is just another duplicitous lying, looting thieving, mass-murdering [Serbia] communist lite with a knee under the table of every Euro-peon scam, complicit in the long-ago-already-acomplished surrender of once-great-britain's sovereignty to Brussells' bureaucrats -- and, to boot, as being complicit in every un-and-anti-American criminal UN scheme -- from Kyoto to the "international criminal 'court.'"

And his ain't nothing compared to the old-Labour Party communism of his shadow, Brown, who -- and this despite the assinine attempts at simpleton spinners to manipulate voting figures to pretend they represent otherwise -- more closely represents the anti-Americanism of the British Electorate at large -- and who will very shortly have the skids under Blair -- and the moving van at number ten's door!

[MadIvan]

I'm not saying he's a fool. But remember that Peggy Noonan had a period when she was getting everything wrong - overall, she's solid, but she had a period of poor analysis. I am suggesting that this happens to many pundits. Mr. O'Sullivan should by no means be considered immune from having that happen to him. His interpretation of events is simply not bourne out of the facts at this time.

Regards, Ivan

[backhoe]

[MadIvan]

It's important to note that the Tories swiped seats off of the Liberals - Guildford, Weston Super Mare and Newbury - the voters finally noticed that voting Liberal was not a "safe" alternative to voting Tory. The Lib Dems made their greatest advances in constituencies which were highly left wing, such as the industrial north - it's worth noting that Tony Benn's (the totally bonkers far left Labour MP) old constituency has gone Lib Dem.

The Telegraph's analysis yesterday also pointed out the Liberals have a lot to worry about as their appeal to Middle England died as soon as they showed their far left colours.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

It's funny you should mention London - the swing to the Tories was stronger there than any other part of the UK. Note how the Tories took Putney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Enfield Southgate and Wimbledon. I go on about Hammersmith and Fulham as that's my home, but the achievement is worth noting - it turned from a Labour marginal seat to a Tory safe seat with a margin of over 5,000 votes.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

One final thing - was it not for UKIP, the Tories would have swiped more seats off of the Liberals. Maybe next time.

Regards, Ivan

[Brian Allen]

<< "Americans are accustomed to thinking of Britain as their most reliable ally"

Only if they are geography challenged and don't think of Australia. >>

Absolutely.

On pretty much every major anti-American international-organizational issue britain is vehemently anti American and its representatives gleefully and gloatingly demonstrate their joy at every anti-American "achievement." [Britain's UN voting record is almost as anti-American (And anti-Semitic/Israel!) as are those of France, China, Germany and Canada]

And Britain -- unlike the Aussies who have been at our side every inch of the way! -- has been on the side of the enemy or at best neutral at pretty much every boots-on-the-ground opportunity to demonstrate its much-vaunted "loyalty" and "special relationship" since we saved it from certain annihilation and its ingrate folks from the gas-chambers in WW-II.

The United States of America has only two True Allies [Used to be three until New Zealand was over-run by whining Limey shop stewards and other layabouts!] -- and once-great britain isn't one of them!

[NZerFromHK]

Some of my old high school classmates and old friends at university live and work in Britain now and most live in London. Add to it the fact I was brought up in British colonial Hong Kong so London and Britain always has a special place in my heart. My parents, elder brother and my sis joined a group of tour to Europe in 1985 (I was only 6 and not allowed to joined them) and they spent 2 days in London and told me tales of British sights, culture (like London's West side, traditional black taxis) when they came back. Always want to visit London sometime in the future and I don't want the leftists wreck the whole country.

[NZerFromHK]

The current Liberal Democratic Party is an extremely unworthy successor to the historically great Liberal Party of Britain (and Whigs prior to that). The likes of Charles Kennedy are dwarfs when compared with figures like Sir Robert Walpole, Lord Melbourne, or Lord Palmerston.

[NZerFromHK]

Thanks - that seems to be the case.