Via the Economist blog, a British think-tank tries to puzzle out why Tony Blair’s term has been such a disaster:
The root failure [of Blair’s diplomacy] has been the inability to influence the Bush administration in any significant way despite the sacrifice–military, political and financial – that the United Kingdom has made. There are two possible explanations: either the accumulated political capital was not spent wisely or the capital was never as great as was supposed. The latter now looks the most probable explanation, although anecdotal evidence also suggests that the prime minister did not make full use of the opportunities that were presented to him. Given the Byzantine complexity of Washington politics, it was always unrealistic to think that outside powers–however loyal–could expect to have much influence on the US decision-making process … Tony Blair has learnt the hard way that loyalty in international politics counts for very little.
Please. Tony Blair didn’t fail to influence America as a single byzantine unit, Tony Blair failed to influence George W. Bush. Other Presidents have listened very carefully to British Prime Ministers for several reasons that distinguish them from our present leader. As skilled statesmen they recognized the value of diplomatic give-and-take. They appreciated the value of our British special relationship with the U.S. And as often as not they generally cared what other people think.
Once again let’s play the game where we pick attributes that Bush followers cherish and show that they can have a downside. Tough, resolute, self-guided and unconcerned with international norms, et cetera ad nauseum. These are synonyms for someone who doesn’t care what other people think, will never change his mind and thinks diplomacy is for losers. These qualities might work pretty well in some Nietzschean uberpresident with an infinite knowledge of world affairs. Excluding the most craven Bush followers I think we can all agree that the President is a pretty ordinary guy at best. So, predictably, the same qualities that his followers used to memorialize in embarrassing prose poems also explain why the President hasn’t yet found a policy that he can’t screw up.
Of course Tony Blair has worked productively with past administrations. So did John Major and Margaret Thatcher and so on. Each leveraged some advantage out of our “special relationship” when the need arose. The idea that America became Byzantium in the last five years, or that Tony Blair suddenly lost England’s mojo, just seems silly. England’s special relationship with the U.S. depends on good-faith partners on both sides of the Atlantic. It is just Blair’s bad luck that American voters temporarily served up a leader whose idea of “special relationship” is a bit more, one could say, special.