My Opinion about the Legacy of Tony Blair

He is definitively one of the greatest Labour leaders in British history, given that he is the first to win three successive terms, and one of the most charismatic leaders England has ever produced. Harold Wilson won three out of four elections as Labour leader in the 1960s and 1970s. Blair came into office after 18 years of Conservative rule as the new bright, dynamic leaders of the modern age in contrast to the dullness and stiffness of John Major and his Conservative predecessors like Edward Heath. Blair proved to be a very bright, very dynamic leader at the beginning; one that mirrors US President Bill Clinton, but ultimately a premiership that resembles the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson.

I fear that British historians would defend Blair as one of the great leaders instead of rebuking him as an intellect and thoughtful leader who blundered in the decision to invade Iraq to satisfy his personal moral ego. I say this based on my memory of A level history, which I took more than 10 years ago. At that time, British historians expect history students at all levels, as the old adage goes, to tow the line. I still remember quite vividly that my expected answer any questions relating to the 1959 general election was, if I wish to obtain a good grade, that the economic prosperity was the driving force behind the Conservative victory at the polls. I firmly believe to this day that type of answer reflects the unwillingness of British historians to issue scathing review of his leadership. I believe that the Conservative victory in the 1959 general election was the result of Labour's unconscionable and unforgivable blunder by not raising and making the failure of the Suez Crisis and the subsequent national embarrassment the issue and asking the voters whether England deserves a government of such incompetence like that under Eden and Macmillian. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to suggest that raising the Suez Crisis would result in a greater catastrophe for Labour than the one that was handed to them.

However, British historians, like those that teach at just about any British university, will tell anyone that Suez was not an issue in 1959 and Iraq was not an issue in 2005, even though political analysts will tell you Iraq was the verbally 800 pound guerrilla in the room in the 2005 election. Perhaps, historians in the future may wish to reflect on the standard by which history should judge a statesman as laid out by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the last paragraph of his book, Diplomacy: "The statesman... will be judged by history on the basis of how wisely he managed the inevitable change and, above all, how well he preserves the peace." (Kissinger, Henry - Diplomacy pg. 28)

British historians will invariably point to the successful elections and the boom in Labour's political fortunes. I have my interpretation of each of the three victorious elections, which will be vastly different from British historians. In 1997, Blair rode the wave of public discontent with John Major's Conservative government with a landslide victory of historic proportions. The general election of June 2001 was the public's support for more of the same or, more bluntly said let the good times roll. After all, the economy was prospering; world peace seemed more secure than ever, the tech boom has yet to end. Even though the dot-com bubble has burst, the tech boom was still humming, in the minds of many, to some degree and the thought of a global recession was some way off. After all, I managed to sell one of my stocks at a very good price and a price I have yet to see it return to. So, what was there not to like? The general election of 2005 was another story. Blair had joined Bush to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. The British public was, well, not exactly gung ho about the war from the beginning and support was eroding faster than speed of sound. Amazingly, the Conservatives seemed to ignore there was an 800 pound guerrilla, namely the war in Iraq, that was ready to help them to victory. Instead, the Conservatives decided to let Blair write the rules of election and decide what was a legitimate topic for debate. So what was the Conservatives thinking exactly, that Blair want a debate on the war and let every party leader of the opposition rip him into a thousand bits. For the life of British historians, they will never admit that foreign policy failures play a critical role in determining the outcome of an election. If that was the case, could they explain was other factors drove the voters to return Blair to Downing Street with a significantly smaller majority? Gee whiz, this is not rocket science to figure out that the Conservatives clearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, despite winning a great many seats in the House of Commons. Had the Conservatives chose to capitalize on the unpopularity of the war, they would be in power right now and Blair would be at home looking through the classifieds.

Tony Blair entered office at a time of generally relative peace around the world. By that I mean there may be conflicts of various natures around the world, but none of these conflicts alone or cumulatively would endanger world peace to the point that we would be on the brink of World War Three. I fear that Blair leaves office under a cloud of question marks concerning regional stability, namely in Iraq and in the Middle East, and prospects for world peace. If I had to render a verdict on the premiership of Blair, I would say that, like Johnson, Blair will be remembered for dragging Britain into an unpopular war in Iraq and the subsequent quagmire; in Johnson's case, it was Vietnam. Blair's greatest achievement - peace in Northern Ireland - will be largely forgotten like what happened to Johnson's efforts to advance civil rights for the African American. I will tell you now who the people of Northern Ireland will credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland, it is US President Bill Clinton and his special envoy former Senator George Mitchell. Blair may get the credit for his work in Northern Ireland some day, like Johnson will one day get the acknowledgement Johnson so richly deserve for his role in civil rights.