Friedman on Blair
Cast this American columnist's vote for Britain's Blair - Thomas Friedman
Solid gold ...
In deciding to throw in Britain's lot with President Bush on the Iraq war, Blair not only defied the overwhelming anti-war sentiment of his own party, but public opinion in Britain generally. "Blair risked complete self-immolation on a principle," noted Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a pro-Democratic U.S. think tank.Remember, in the darkest hours of the Iraq drama, when things were looking disastrous (and there have been many such hours), Bush could always count on the embrace of his own party and the U.S. conservative media machine and think tanks. Tony Blair, by contrast, dined alone. He had no real support group to fall back on. I'm not even sure his wife supported him on the Iraq war.
Nevertheless, Blair took a principled position to depose Saddam Hussein and keep Britain tightly aligned with America. He did so, among other reasons, because he believed that the advance of freedom and the defeat of fascism ? whether Islamo-fascism or Nazi fascism ? were quintessential and indispensable "liberal" foreign policy goals.
The other very real thing that Blair has done is to get the Labor Party in Britain to firmly embrace the free market and globalization ? sometimes kicking and screaming. He has reconfigured Labor politics around a set of policies designed to get the most out of globalization and privatization for British workers, while cushioning the harshest side effects, rather than trying to hold onto bankrupt Socialist ideas or wallowing in the knee-jerk anti-globalism of the reactionary left.
...
In sum, Tony Blair has redefined British liberalism. He has made liberalism about embracing, managing and cushioning globalization, about embracing and expanding freedom ? through muscular diplomacy where possible and force where necessary ? and about embracing fiscal discipline. Along the way, he has deftly eviscerated the Conservatives, leaving them with only their most fringe policies.
I agree that liberals have to be willing to use force, if necessary, to achieve freedom. But Friedman's logic here seems a little muddled, claiming that Blair has redefined liberalism and that this has left the Conservatives on the fringe. He's benefitting from conservatives unwilling to challenge the legality of the Iraq war, a challenge coming from within his party to some extent and from the Liberal Democrats and a challenge that could result in problems for re-election.
So, yes, Blair's position on the Iraq war has left the conservatives without a real power position on that issue, but at what cost? In general, yes, force for freedom is good. But the details--issues of legality, of reliable intelligence, of risk vs reward--have hardly made this a strong position for Blair and the Labor Party.
In general, I agree with Friedman. He describes many of the things that Clinton did well: embracing globalism, using sound fiscal policies, and even using force when necessary.