Don't Turn Obama Into Blair

When I decided to fulfill an overdue business trip to the States in the week of the elections, I had one thought in mind: I want to be there when history is made. I swear that on arriving back in London at the end of the week, that I was neurologically altered. I felt lighter, more energetic, more optimistic about the most trivial and the most portentous issues. Yes We Can was no longer a catchy song, it was a national anthem envied by the world.

But it was difficult to share the unproblematic optimism back home. Too many people in the UK remember the hope and subsequent betrayal of New Labour's victory in 1997 when Tony Blair metamorphosed from Bambi to Terminator in his first term.

Although there is much to compare in Obama's victory speech with Tony Blair's early speeches there are also important differences. New Labour itself was an ideological triumph - as much over "Old" Labour as over their rivals, the Conservatives. And when the New succeeded where the Old had failed so many times before, the seeds of internal resentment within the Labour party were sewn.

Both Obama and the early Blair had unprecedented media appeal: but while Obama was a spectacular underdog, tip-toeing between the mine fields of prejudice, always hoping to transcend polarity and include critics, Blair was always simply the privileged kid who was surprisingly likeable.

Most notably - in stark contrast to Obama - Blair's emphasis in his first speech as Prime Minister was almost entirely on his own personal duty to effect change:

"As I stand here before 10 Downing Street I know all too well the huge responsibility that is upon me and the great trust that the British people have placed in me."

The British voters were invited to stand and admire his shiny new team - containing powerful figures like Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell, with their huge emphasis on media management and 'rapid rebuttal' - all later to be dismissed by the public as control freaks. Although Blair retains his popularity in the US, his increasingly isolated behaviour - 'ignoring' the popular resistance to the war in Iraq, falling out with his European partners, losing several of his original cabinet to high profile scandals - led to repeated charges of hubris in the British press.

As recent studies by both academics and politicians - suggests, one of the big contributors to the leader's retreat into a bubble is a media culture which focuses unremittingly on his or her power and responsibility. In other words, we think it is up to the leader, at all times, to put things right. And eventually, the leader agrees.

But Obama's victory was historic not simply because of his own uniqueness, but for the unprecedented way his campaign involved the public and made it their campaign. From the methods of donation to the delegation of responsibility for getting the vote out. Remember this quote:

"You proved that change can happen. You built an unprecedented grassroots organization in all 50 states that brought a record number of people into the political process -- many for the first time, many for the first time in a long time"

How is this campaign culture of properly engaging the grass roots going to change the way that Obama behaves as a President in the future? Where is the 'change' in the way the public can experience these early days of Obama's era that might draw on the networked, collectivised nature of the victory? Of course it is natural that most of the media focus is on Obama's activities - his new teams and his broad intentions for office. But is it entirely natural, that before Obama even takes the oath, there are innumerable articles on the disappointment with his choices and his lack of radical policy announcements. He's not even in government yet!

What effect does that insistent scepticism have on public confidence and morale - crucial factors in turning the economy around in the year ahead? From my perch in London I can feel it: I'm having to work just a bit harder at maintaining that American optimism.

Wouldn't it be better to go widescreen and look for stories of continuing change away from Washington? Arianna's report of how Change.org was calling to extend the campaign activism into civic life is a great example of this. But where are those stories now of people taking action in their local communities, people perceiving new attitudes, people taking on new projects? Or has Yes We Can already shrunk into Yes He Can?

If we are going to avoid a similar fate for President Obama that befell PM Blair, then I propose we broaden the focus in our search for optimism about the future.

Comments

[BlairSupporter]

Obama, in my humble opinion, will be lucky to turn out to be half the man Blair was. Rather "is". He's not dead yet.

I wasn't a Labour supporter, but smiled when his party won in 1997 under his leadership. And in 2001 and 2005 he again proved himself a winner. But only towards the end of his time in office did I start to "judge" him, and ONLY on his RECORD. I do not believe in ascribing heroic, superman, even Messiah-like qualities to ANYONE, especially before they have done anything. Blair had been a member of parliament for 14 years before becoming PM. I think Obama has had 2 years experience.

Since I have been studying Blair, I have discovered an amazing politician, with great successes to his name and qualities most politicians envy.

It helps that I do not start from the assumption that I KNOW that he lied over Iraq. I know no such thing. I also believe he was right in his decisions over Iraq and in supporting America, and that conclusion has grown on me, rather than having always been there.

As for his not having charisma - Blair has it in bucketloads. And we certainly miss his ability to articulate now that Brown has replaced him. The only 'tragedy' of Blair is that he is no longer our Prime Minister. And that will be Labour's tragedy too, when, without their winner, they lose the next election to a weak Conservative party.

[PATina]

I'm going to a Change is Coming meeting this weekend. One of the things that does bother me is not w/ President Obama as much as it is w/ a lot of his supporters. While listening to him speak this entire campaign season he has always stressed how much he wanted (and needed) our input... and yet so many of us have adopted this "wait and see" attitude when it comes to criticism. They have no problem praising him for being the "Best President Ever" even though he hasn't taken office yet... however, if someone criticizes one of his cabinet picks... or something he says... somehow we aren't giving him a chance or are being unfair because he hasn't taken office yet.

I personally think that we should take President Obama at his word and give him our input... good or bad. If you REALLY believe this man will listen to ALL sides (which includes us the people) and make the best decisions for this nation... it shouldn't bother you that someone doesn't agree with him (or you).

[indraadnan]

Patina - I hope you return to this blog after the weekend and pass on some of the stories of change. Not only the successful initiatives but also the different ways people might be trying to take things on. it would be a pity if the news of change were to be confined to the Change.org website, speaking only to the loyal and committed.

[ManWithGoldShoes]

Of course we wouldn't go it alone. Bush senior is indebted to the crown and now we have our SECRETARY OF STATE playing piano and entertaining the queen.

[TimDanMick]

How could Blair have let the US go into Iraq alone. He sacrificed his reputation so that the US would not become an International bete noir and the Western Alliance destroyed forever. The cultural ties that bind the US and the UK are too important to break.
Who does the US share Intelligence with?- They are all english speaking countries that the US will always be able to trust.
Regardless, Tony Blair can be forgiven everything for the agreement on N. Ireland he pushed through by the force of his personality.

[FearlessFreep]

Obama, don't turn yourself into Blair.

[Petunia39]

here's a story... well, not yet really a story... I'm off to a meeting on Sat. in my community with former volunteers and other interested participants. Never done such a thing before, and I don't know where it will lead yet, but it's a sign that perhaps we can keep the ball rolling, involving communities around the country, encouraging participation and improving our towns and cities.

[indraadnan]

That is a story, thanks. Can you come back with a few more details after the weekend?

[ErikW65]

Count me in with those who are willing to give Obama a chance to work his strategy before drawing any conclusions. But this phenomenon, of Barack choosing individuals who have endorsed policies opposite to his campaign promises, is really getting to be a significant topic. As a strategy, it's explosive- it's split the Right into those who are open-minded and are pleasantly surprised by Obama's pragmatic choices, and those who hate Obama and now are left scrambling, digging for something, anything, to bash him with. But as satisfying as that has been, obviously it's divided the Left as well, and that's been exasperating.

I think that the complaining on the Left is the price Obama has to pay now for what will be a big advantage later (a diverse cabinet,) when he actually has the reigns of power, and will be under the gun to get things done. President Obama will then be able to draw on all that diversity, use the political capital that it represents, in order to push his agenda and get it enacted into law without sufferring from being fillibustered.

[indraadnan]

I imagine that if Obama chose only people that agreed with him, it would be very difficult to keep his promise to transcend differences and defy traditional polarities. These very people will give him the insights he needs address the hugely diverse electorate he now represents. it's brave and ambitious and I'm sure it will cause a bumpy ride.

[sabyog]

Timely reminder, but they are not the same. I was there on the banks of the Thames for the Blair victory. It was exciting and exhilarating, but it didn't seem world-changing even then. He was "one of us" and turned out to be oh-so-much "one of them". The victory of Barack Obama is already changing the world, and America's place in it. There's so much to be scared of "he could be another Blair", "he might be assassinated", etc, etc, but right now, we need this optimism and belief in the potential of change in the midst of world recession and war. Living in the US, I see people really taking his message to heart and standing up. Not everyone of course, but enough to make a difference. I agree with Indra- where are the stories of such people? Optimism may be fragile, but action isn't.

Great work, as usual Indra!

[OneTop]

Obama will be judged by his results and not by his intentions just as Tony Blair was.

[ErikW65]

I agree, and I think the premature judging will be forgotten once the economic recovery is under way, the troops are withdrawing from Iraq, the federal prohibition on needle exchange is lifted, and so on.

[FearlessFreep]

And if the economy doesn't recover, troops stay in Iraq, Robert Gates stays in charge of the Pentagon...

[outnow]

Blair = Clinton = Obama. None of the aforementioned represent "labor." All represented money. History doesn't repeat itself, it's just the same thing over and over again. Pretend to represent working people and then go for power and money, the real masters.

The Temptation of Christ is a good metaphor. I am afraid that Blair, et al. failed in the temptation and ultimately sold out to power and money. I see by Obama's appointments and by his largest campaign donors that he will continue the "Washington Consensus."

I cannot "excuse" Blair because his popularity and power went to his head and overcame his moral character. Without Blair we would not be in Iraq. Bush was too inarticulate to make the case so his "puddle" had to do it as a good barrister would.

[rainbowwarrior]

I was in UK during the 1997 election when blair got elected and the euphoria was identical to Nov. 5 2008.
Yet, Blair left office disgraced as "Bush' s poodle".
Expectations are over the roof and Obama may very well turn out to be a huge disappointment four years from now (with the economy tanking) and don't expect any radical shifts in US foreign policy either.

[anelder]

An ideal world. Well it does take some time. As one of Obama's suporters, and someone who was receiving all the internet communications from his team, I wonder that you imagine that kind of enthusiasm could be sustained and rolled over into an ongoing conversaation. It was a huge undertaking. Howeve, there continues to be an effort to continue and build the same platform for his presidency. Now that's going to be a harder job. People have to be educated to the new plan. That we continue to matter, are important, and are needed to participate in this process will and is the next paart of the 'change' we all want.

I agree that we have to switch from it's us to now it's him to it's always us. I will continue to hold Obama to the standards he so well put forth in his book "The Adaucity of Hope". No way can all things be done in a manner to please all people. I believe in his judgment to decide which has to come first.

[ouroborous]

Interesting. You comment on Blair's change from "Bambi to Terminator" and yet you insist on blaming the populace for the change?

Because, Ms. Adnan, that is exactly what you are doing; in cautioning skeptics, you are implying that if Obama fails or disappoints, then it will be our fault -- the skeptics fault, the critics fault. Nowhere in your piece do you acknowledge that when a man like Blair fails to live up to his promises, *he* must bear the responsibility for his failure. It I break a promise to you, it is not your fault for pointing it out; it is my fault for doing it.

Your message doesn't ring true, Ms. Adnan. You could, instead, caution us to stick to the facts, and that would be a fair response to some of the more outlandish criticism. You could point out that Obama has never claimed to be a progressive or even liberal, and that would be true, and might silence some of the "he's not progressive enough" claims.

But to simply caution against criticism and skepticism because it might puncture your optimism? I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. Optimism by itself is like feeling good when you're drunk; it feels great when it's happening and you don't want it to end, but it will and it must end. And if you don't moderate your optimism with realism, you're in for a heck of a hangover in the morning.

[indraadnan]

Ouroborous: I agree with most of what you say and I hear your warning bells - but blame doesn't come into it. It's central to my point, that nothing has happened yet. Instead we are in a moment of great possibility. It isn't simply optimism that I am calling for, but a different way of being in that moment of possibility. Rather than narrow our focus down to Obama's appointments, which, even now, we can only be curious about, let's fill the vacuum with stories about the revitalised communities or the new initiatives being tested around the country.

[ErikW65]

No, I think she's saying "don't call Obama a Tony Blair before he's done anything to justify it,"

Obama has set the political standard, that there will be no ideological litmus tests- he's concerned exclusively with the technical ability to fulfill the duties of the position. You may have pushed de-regulation before. Guess what, we need re-regulation now, and that's what those people are going to be doing. You got funding for a faith based approach to sunstance abuse before? Well now we're going to try including some different approaches. It's bold. It's controversial. But it need not be doomed to failure before it is tried!

[TwentyCharactersLong]

Honestly, stop comparing Obama to Blair. The most Blair-like figure in American politics is the guy Blair based his own campaign off of--former President Bill Clinton.

[ArchAngel]

Gordon Brown has also turned out to be a fraud.