Foreign leaders for Bush (poodle edition)

This article by Times of London columnist Alice Miles cotinues the sad story of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and how he fell into bad company: Blair needs to distance himself from Bush but his obsession won't let him 10/26/04.

So divorced has Mr Blair become from the Labour Party that his closest aides believe that he wants George W. Bush to win the US election a week today. Never mind that the Prime Minister has not publicly spoken his mind on the issue, and bats it away when raised, even in private; the perception is enough.

This is astonishing. President Bush is too much even for many Tories, let alone real Labour people. Never mind all that stuff about the only thing that matters being the President’s backbone in the War on Terror; no true British social democrat would say that. Here is a man with a narrow agenda of swingeing tax cuts for the very rich (nearly half the benefit of the President’s tax cuts has gone to the top 1 per cent of Americans) and, with little discernible social or domestic policy, who has taken refuge instead in cultural conservatism on issues such as gay marriage, abortion and gun control. Never have the political agendas of the UK and the US — think Reagan and Thatcher, Clinton and Blair — been so disparate.

In Britain, most of the opposition to the Iraq War comes from those who tend to support the Labour Party, which is also the ruling party that put Britain into the "coalition."  The Conservatives tended to support the war.  That's a different situation than in the US, where most Republicans are solidly behind Bush's policies on the Iraq War, while the Democrats have generally become very critical.

In this interview with a newspaper from his native Canada, John Kenneth Galbraith, having just celebrated his 96th birthday on October 15, questions the interviewer repeatedly about why he thinks Blair backed Bush on the Iraq War so completely:  America: 'This is a Crude Government' by William Keegan Toronto Star 10/17/04 (link is to CommonDreams.org).

Galbraith makes an interesting point that had not occurred to me in this way before:

InGalbraith's view, the French are more in tune with reality [than the British on this issue].

"Politics must take account not only of the position of the government but also of the forces behind it, and Blair does not have the support of the articulate in the U.S."

He added: "And that is the group which has always thought well of a certain allied relationship with Britain."

Since before the Second World War, it has been American liberals and Democrats who were particularly supportive of close relations between the US and Britain.  Hardcore isolationists before the Second World War leaned pro-German in foreign policy and were generally deeply suspicious if not hostile to Britain.

Though that group was relatively isolated in the postwar period, it was still the Democrats and liberals who tended to favor a strong alliance with the NATO countries, of which Britain was a key member.  Whatever the merits of the particular case, it was Eisenhower's Republican administration that insisted that Britain, France and Israel pull back from the Suez Canal after their joint invasion.

During later years, Republicans tended to emphasize Pacific Rim concerns more than did Democrats, though until the Bush administration the Republicans of course were generally Europe-friendly.  It was the Democrats who emphasized Atlantic concerns and therefore the importance of Britain more.

Today, the Republicans are so anti-Europe that as soon as Britain breaks with the US on a major foreign policy issue, they will treat Britain with the same scorn now directed at France.  Maybe more.  And their loyal support for the Iraq War "coalition" will count for next to nothing.

But the Democrats have been far more disturbed by Blair's unquestioning support of Bush, and his willingness to add credibility to the WMD fraud.  Blair's short-term pro-American tilt may wind up doing far more damage in the longer run to Britain's "special relationship" to America than a more cautious and pro-European stance would have.

But my favorite part of the Galbraith interview was this part:

Galbraith gave a dire warning of what would happen if George W. Bush were re-elected:

"Under the thrust of power of present forces, including the money-making powers, there's going to be a continuing and disastrous decline" in America.

"The Rumsfelds and the Cheneys will still be there, and anyone with a grasp of world history should be here to report it." [my emphasis]

He smiled and added: "Why don't you do that?"

The great man feels passionately.

Before seeing this, I had not thought of "Rumsfeld" as a generic noun for arrogant, sneering, anti-social incompetents.  But it works, it works.