Vision

(For comments on previous posts, click here for 'To Simply Be' and here for 'Let's Pretend'.)

I read a newspaper report the other day that interpreted the motivations in office of George W Bush as an attempt to better his father: not raising taxes (as his father had done), serving a second term (where his father had failed) and - crucially - going all the way in Iraq (where his father had stopped short of ousting Saddam). This brought to mind an observation by the late Robin Cook (the former British foreign secretary who resigned from Tony Blair's government over the Iraq war). Cook believed that Tony Blair's determination to go to war derived from an early experience in politics. Apparently Blair had first stood - unsuccessfully - in opposition to Margaret Thatcher's Conservative party at the time of the Falklands war. He had been acutely aware that Thatcher's popularity in the wake of the war had been instrumental in his defeat and had taken to heart what he saw as the lesson in this: that a war can help to boost a prime minister's image.

And so, twenty years later...

We can easily lose sight of the fact that world events are often dictated by the egos and ambitions of solitary politicians. We tend to interpret things in terms of factions and hidden agendas and forget about the all too simplistic importance of an individual's thirst for power.

We accept that this was the case in olden times. Few would doubt, for instance, that Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun had an eye for the main chance. These days, however, we tend to think that we, the ordinary people, have some influence over what happens and that events are determined to some extent by the ballot box - and failing that at least by government consensus. It's easy to forget that - at least while his shelf life lasts - it's the leader himself who really has the power.

I met Tony Blair once.

It was during the 2001 election campaign. My wife Chris and I just happened to be walking along the street when his cavalcade pulled up. A stranger next to us shouted "Hi Tony!" or something like that, and the next thing we knew, Blair was striding towards us, handshake and grin at the ready.

It was a very strange moment. I know I've written about this in the blog but it's very weird when it comes upon you spontaneously. As he stood before me, arm outstretched, it seemed as though I was looking at myself.

Certainly only one of us was present in that moment. I was standing there in shocked surprise, feeling as though someone had swiped me across the face with a wet fish, while Tony Blair was kind of gazing past me. All he could see, I presume, was one more voter with a hand to be shaken: one more punter in a very long row which would eventually lead to election.

I'm not sure how long we stood in that impasse: me gaping stupidly and him with his hand held out. But then he did what had to be done. A glimmer of life appeared in his eyes and he smiled at me beseechingly. "Please like me," he seemed to be saying. "Please shake my hand!" It was hard to resist - like being pleaded with by a teddy bear - and I realised then how he'd got to be prime minster.

Even then, pre-Iraq, I had no liking for Tony Blair or his policies, and would just as soon have told him where to go as to shake his hand. But it was as though I didn't have any choice. Now our roles had reversed. He was fully there in the moment and I was the automaton. I reached out and shook his hand. How could I not?

Mission accomplished, Blair moved on, his eyes focussed once again not on the crowd before him but upon History.

So why had I felt I was looking at myself?

There were things I had wanted to say to Blair, things I should have said: political issues I won't go into here. Was I given a glimpse of oneness, then, to encourage me to do so, to show me I'd only be talking to myself? If so, then it didn't work. The shock of it just stunned me into silence.

These days, I find it hard not to reach over and switch off when Blair is on the radio or the TV. I feel that the decision to invade Iraq was the most tragic and misguided political decision of my lifetime, but what annoys me most is that Robin Cook, in my opinion, was right. Blair decided to join the invasion because he thought it would improve his own political standing, his own place in history, and I find that unforgiveable.

But you know what they say, don't you? What we hate most in others is what we really hate in ourselves. And as long as we all go on acting as though our standing in the eyes of ourselves and the world is all that's important, the world's going to stay in the state it is.

Keep reading this blog though. I need the boost.

(One of my readers who shall remain nameless - though she does share this house with me - was wondering how to leave a comment when you recieve one of my posts by email subscription. The easiest way is to click on the title at the top of the email (in this case 'Vision'). If you're reading this on the site, of course, just click on 'Comments' at the foot of the post. But then you knew that already, didn't you?)

 

These may also be of interest:

To Simply Be

The Image Within

The Need To Be Right

Comments

[Lori]

This is an interesting analysis, and I do believe you're right about the motivations of Blair and of Bush. Scary really.

[Nicola]

Fascinating story and quite scary.

I tend to avoid people like that who *scream* "feed me" when you meet them - and shut down quick.

[Navillus]

It's strange isn't it how we react to people.

I think some folks, especially famous ones tend to have some sort of large presence that envelops you - which is how they became famous in the first place.

It's remarkable that there are these poeple whose currency is favor. Almost like mini-deities looking for worshipers and becoming more powerful based on how many people pray to them.

Interesting experience.

[Kren]

Ah, the father/son experience... I'll show dad I'm better.

Anybody of any amount of schooling can understand if thier dad was a cold blooded murderer. (IF of course, he was so) Outdoing that doesn't make them "better".

The media is such a control issue too. But F*** media.
Almost ALL of our feelings of what's right or wrong are inherent to us. We know what's right or wrong without too much discussion in most cases. For example, WAR IS WRONG, isn't too hard for most people to grasp.

In the US, most people were against going to Iraq before we did. I know this, because I'm a regular American who has regular american friends and family, none of which (NOT ONE) were all about controling a country to find a terrorist. (IF of course, that's what it was)

If you want to find a terrorist, take your military professionals, (I'm sure America has tons) and employ them with the task of search and destroy, and watch them come back with the head of the culprit.

Simple.

Yet the media made it different. News broadcasts showed that the culprit was in Iraq, and that Iraq actually SUPPORTED them.
REALLY...(I'm not a bragger, well, yeah I am, but only when it comes to drinking, NOT about anything else) would any smart government launch an attack against the USA? OR support one?

NO. We're crazy, and have lots of nukes, of which we've used in war before.

The American PEOPLE weren't stupid enough to say "YEAH, GO GET 'EM, those CRAZY Iraqi's."

But the media said that's what it was. We were all behind an invasion. "Everybody says Go GET EM."
Bullshit.

When I was in the third grade, and we were asked a question, and everybody else raised their hands in agreance, (example: Who here thinks that blah blah blah) I raised my hand too, even if I didn't know what the f*** people were talking about.

BOOM. There ya go. Media says people are all about it, some people are all about it BECAUSE everyone else is, and you've got yourself enough acceptance to do whatever you want without too many people in the picket line.

[Mr Zip]

I go along with the theory that Bush was trying to outdo his dad. (Having failed, of course, his cabinet is now stuffed with his dad's old cronies). I don't however, subscribe to the idea that Blair might have acted for similar reasons over Iraq. I hold no special brief for Blair - tho I do have an unfashionable regard for the achievements of his government - but it seems to me that he decided to go along with the attack on Iraq for far more complex reasons, not least because he thought, wrongly, that he could exercise a moderating influence on Bush.

But politics and this subject especially has, in another arena, caused fractured friendships, so I'll say no more

[Lorraine]

I think I broadly agree with Mr. Zip's comment here. I think Blair's motives for war in Irag were a mixture of factors - as indeed are the motives of most of us when we do most things. Being leant on by Bush was surely one factor. Perhaps Bush has the same sort paralysingly hypnotic effect on Blair that Blair had on Simon when they encountered each other in the street? Sympathies over that by the way, Simon. I'm sure I would have reacted in just the same way - and then I would have been angry with myself afterwards!

[Sandy]

You're right that the role of ego in contemporary politics is often overlooked. It takes an extraordinary amount of ego to believe one should become the leader of a nation. The ego doesn't disappear after election--or overthrow. How damaging, too.

[Simon]

Thanks for all your comments, and welcome to new visitors Lori, Nicola, Lorraine, and Sandy. It's interesting to reflect that we can be in thrall to other people's egos as well as to our own. At least we can work on ours...

Over here in the UK, we don't have the excuse of having believed that there was any connection between Iraq and 9/11. Not even our media were telling us that. Where we were fooled was in buying in to the existence of WMDs. Even so, my experience was similar to Kren's. I only knew *one* person who supported the war - and that was simply due to a gut reaction to a TV prog he'd seen about the atrocities committed by Saddam.

I think that Lorraine and Mr Zip are right to suggest that Blair's motives for going to war were complex. I still believe, however, that the image of himself as a world statesman - and the plaudits that this would bring - were uppermost in his mind. Yes, I think he *did* believe that he could be a moderating influence on Bush. Indeed, to a modest extent he was right. He may well have persuaded Bush to moderate his *language* - make less use of the word "crusade" for instance, and fewer wild west references. But of course he was wrong to think that he could really have a substantial effect, and it seems to me that he is intelligent enough to have realized this, had he not been dazzled by that glorious image of himself he wished to see in the history books.

[Templar]

In the UK as in the the USA there is a separation of power so that no one individual can do anything they wish.

Although I agree that each individual, Bush and Blair, may have personal agendas, to gain the backing of those that they needed, they required more than just a claim of WMDs. Sure that might work for gullible Joe Public but it wouldn't cut the mustard with fellow politicians and the people who really run the country...the civil servants. No, the real reason we went to war was for oil...Bush knows it, Blair knows it and the other politicians in our governments know it...they just can't admit that to us as panic would ensue. If either were trying to be heroes...saviours of their country and go down in history it was by being known as the men who saved their countries from oil depleted bankruptcy.

If you want to read a more detailed summary of the world's oil situation and the effects that 'Peak Oil' will have on our economies please go here... http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/