|
English society is slowly shedding its Empire politics. Thatcher was the sentimentality and economic misere-driven hiatus, Major the drop-off (in many respects). Tony started as a champion of its opposite, then got religion when/as he realize the international realpolitik of almost all European and American and Asian governments being in the hands of the corporation-defined successors to the colonial elites.
It takes a lot of integrity to govern against corporate/colonialist aka neocolonialist interests with that practical reality everywhere domestically and internationally. He lost what he had of it. At the same time this "system"/arrangement has been politically bankrupting itself all over- the Cold War gave it a rationale, it goes chaotic and selfdestructive in absence of such a framing situation.
I haven't watched Blair closely enough to understand where his great weakness is/was, but he's obviously failing. He was a transition figure as English society has begun to move out of the Empire ideology/selfdefinition, much as Clinton and Bush have presided over a final resurgence of the colonialist/corporatist elites in this country. Both Clinton and Blair were hard pressed enough to pay greatly for gratuitous mistakes, victims more of their times than what they really did. (As blame for instigating the Iraq war goes, it's closer to 10% than 50%.)
The difference is that Clinton chose, as I understand it, to be on the winning side of the present domestic conflict in American history. Blair chose the cheap kind of success, vainglory and easy victory at the price of historical obloquy. Clinton chose small but serious increments of progress and eventual full historical vindication.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(99 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
