A Rotten Apple in their Orchard: The Jeopardy of Backwards-Facing Political Pessimism

The ‘un-Blairing’, or the death of (domestic) liberalism and (international) liberal interventionism, cemented the failure of the presupposed ‘End of History’. Not only did the Iraq war tear down broad, contemporary ideological unity, but it also tainted the reputation of the leaders who espoused it. George W. Bush Jr. doesn’t deserve much of a defence: he was a woeful President, perhaps saved from the dungeon of history only by today’s sheer absurdity, though that remains to be seen. The same can’t be said for his Anglo-equivalent. 

Tony Blair presided over one of the greatest periods of economic success in UK history. He modernised British democracy and masterminded several successful international operations, particularly through his ‘finest hour’, the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, and in the Balkans, where he stood as the so-called ‘Kosovo Crusader’. Naturally, good things don’t excuse the bad things. These victories don’t excuse the inadequate information deployed to justify the UK’s involvement in Iraq. But this failing equally doesn’t nullify his victories. 

Richard Nixon. Now isn’t that a way to start a paragraph? His name is a real political time-stopper. Watergate probably sprang to the fore of your mind, and it was a dire moment which duly led to his Presidential resignation. This article will not stand by the bugging of political opponents’ offices. But it must be said, Nixon changed the world. 

Détente with Russia, opening relations with China (where only Nixon could go), his attempts to secure peace in the Middle East, unsuccessful but pioneering, as well as his much-forgotten environmentalism (and much more). A rebuttal against Nixon’s most ardent critics isn’t to suggest he was some flawless man – he was quite evidently a flawed paranoid leader – but to argue for his successes not to be forgotten solely as a result of the scandal that ended his presidency. 

Given the fiasco that was Brexit, it’s very easy to forget David Cameron was involved in anything else. ‘Dodgy Dave’, as Dennis Skinner comedically dubbed him, abandoned politics rather swiftly following the referendum in 2016. He hastily departed politics to ‘put his trotters up in Nice’, akin to lighting a fire and watching it burn from a safe distance. It left a sour taste in the mouths of many. 

But there is much to be thankful to Cameron for. Success came in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, which provided much-needed reinforcement to the Union. His modernisation of the Conservative Party was a major achievement, especially for those (like myself) who believe the best democracy is one with several functional parties, as was the Marriage Act 2013, which finally legalised gay marriage. The spend-more in recession dogma isn’t a particularly compelling one, and thus there’s also admiration for his post-2008 economic plans, even if he undoubtedly leaned into the Thatcherite slash-and-burn too hard. 

Again, even adding in his very obvious failings, including arrogantly calling (and then losing) the Brexit referendum and his inability to effectively deal with Libya, it paints a picture that’s hardly one of failure. Cameron shares with Blair and Nixon the similarity of a legacy defined entirely by a particular pinpoint, yielding an assessment that is wholly unfair. A holistic approach is required when we retrospectively discuss a specific statesman. Without it, everyone becomes defined solely by their worst moment. 

Blair wasn’t just the Prime Minister who invaded Iraq, but a stellar leader of Britain; Nixon wasn’t just a paranoid President but a forward-thinking and pioneering one; Cameron didn’t spend six years in 10 Downing Street and only manage to trigger the chaos of Brexit. He provided key landmark legislation and steadied the waters of the UK economy. 

You may not think this sort of historical pessimism matters, but if we collectively dismiss previous leaders as ineffective, we encourage politicians to distance themselves from them entirely. Those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it. Blair exemplified the limits of liberal interventionism when he overstepped in Iraq, and yet Cameron has been criticised for failing to learn from Blair’s blunders during the UK’s intervention in Libya. While an example like Nixon may seem too out-of-date to provide relevancy in this analysis, he is the eminent example of why maintaining public trust is the most vital issue for any democratic leader. Effective policy means little if the people you represent see you as a wolf in sheep's clothing, and yet still, politicians of all stripes view the electorate with dismissive contempt rather than as people whom they are indebted. 

Even the most divisive of political figures, Donald J. Trump, can teach politicians of all stripes a thing or two. Specifically, he’s evidently a brilliant political communicator who has mastered the art of authenticity with working-class voters. Those of the left side of the political spectrum, who claim to speak for such people, ought to take notes and not merely dismiss Trump’s presidential terms. Often, your enemy can provide you with the answers to your own shortcomings. 

The lessons to be learnt here are plentiful. Reviewing past leaders based on one event is a rather ill-guided bout of reductionism that encourages the repetition of past mistakes. Maybe your enemies aren’t always just your problem, but also a source of inspiration. Open-mindedness is a virtue, especially in the tribal political times in which we live, whereas historical pessimism is counterintuitive. Why lament the past, wanting to change the future?

Image: Wikimedia Commons/The White House (Paul Morse)

Licence: public domain.

No image changes made.