Tony Blair's popularity in Britain may have taken a bit of a hit because of the war, but my mother-in-law over there still always refers to him as "our Tony." Over here, my wife and I call him that as well, sometimes jokingly, sometimes even rather sincerely. Sometimes the affectionate name takes on a deliberate or inadvertent ironic tinge, especially in my case. (An American saying "Our Tony" might as well be demonstrating one of the main criticisms against him in certain circles.) I guess it's a family tradition.
Many of my British friends are pretty critical of him and New Labour for domestic reasons, quite apart from anything to do with the war. I can't (and even usually don't pretend to) speak to these with any authority.
He can sure give one hell of a speech, though, can't he?
Two bits stood out for me. First, a simple, perspective-restoring, succinct argument of almost Classical clarity and resonance:
The risk is that terrorism and states developing weapons of mass destruction come together, and when people say that risk is fanciful, I say we know the Taliban supported al Qaeda. We know Iraq, under Saddam, gave haven to and supported terrorists. We know there are states in the Middle East now actively funding and helping people who regard it as God's will in the act of suicide to take as many innocent lives with them on their way to God's judgement. Some of these states are desperately trying to acquire nuclear weapons. We know that companies and individuals with expertise sell it to the highest bidder. And we know that at least one state, North Korea, lets its people starve while spending billions of dollars on developing nuclear weapons and exporting the technology abroad. This isn't fantasy. It is 21st century reality and it confronts us now.And this one, no less persuasive, maybe, but whose appeal is more or less emotional:
Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that, at its least, is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive. But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership.That is something history will not forgive.
As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible, but in fact, it is transient. The question is, what do you leave behind? And what you can bequeath to this anxious world is the light of liberty. That is what this struggle against terrorist groups or states is about. We're not fighting for domination. We're not fighting for an American world, though we want a world in which America is at ease. We're not fighting for Christianity, but against religious fanaticism of all kinds. And this is not a war of civilizations, because each civilization has a unique capacity to enrich the stock of human heritage. We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind -- black or white; Christian or not; left, right or merely indifferent -- to be free -- free to raise a family in love and hope; free to earn a living and be rewarded by your own efforts; free not to bend your knee to any man in fear; free to be you, so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others.My wife frowned a bit and said "a bit purple, there, Tony." She's right about that. Of course, she is. But I'm a sucker for that type of thing. Like any good politician, and in better form and more splendidly than any I can think of, he's telling his audience what they want to hear, in exactly the way they want to hear it. But surely even the most cynical among us cannot fail to be moved by such unabashed talk of Liberty, delivered with such eloquence, passion, and manifest conviction. That's our Tony. Bless him.That's what we're fighting for, and it's a battle worth fighting. And I know it's hard on America. And in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to but always wanted to go -- (laughter) -- I know out there, there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "Why me, and why us, and why America?" And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do. (Sustained applause.)
And our job -- my nation, that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond -- our job is to be there with you. You're not going to be alone. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. (Sustained applause.)
We will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us.
UPDATE: A great post over at Harry's place on how Blair's speech reflects a solid understanding of global problems and represents the best of what leftish or Liberal internationalism can aspire to. "I'm glad we have a radical and progressive leader on the international scene," he says. He's right. But I daresay a large number of those who count themselves leftists (and a fair number of self-identifying "liberals") will fail to notice much common ground there. More's the pity.