Two Blairs

There are two Tony Blairs. That's the message of this post and this remarkable claim:

The PM was wary of taking any view at all: “I’m a liberal kind of guy . . .” he muttered vaguely.

It seems there's a private Blair - tolerant, easy-going, generous-minded towards colleagues. And there's the policy-making Blair - illiberal and censorious.
What's going on here? The obvious answer is that Blair is just a lying hypocrite. But there's a more disturbing possibility - that there really are two Blairs.
This might be an example of how power enslaves rulers as well as ruled, of how politics transforms decent people into bad ones.
Exactly why this should be is a separate issue; I suspect a big part of the problem is that politicians feel overly obliged to pander to the demands of the mob as filtered through the trash media.
What it means, though, is that the "great man" theory of history is often wrong. Political structures stamp on rulers' character, not vice versa.
What's more, there seem to be two moralities co-existing in Blair. There's a private morality which seems rooted in virtue-based ethics. An element of this consists in being great-souled and indulgent towards others' weaknesses - hence his refusal to investigate allegations against Prescott.
But there's the public rule-based morality, which consists in the priggish sanctimoniousness of expecting everyone to snitch upon others on the slightest evidence.
Blair seems quite comfortable with this double identity.   But then, humans have always had a capacity to compartmentalize their lives. The classic demonstration of this is, of course, the Nazi concentration camp guards who could leave work to play innocently with their children. 
I mention this not to suggest any moral equivalence between Blair and the Nazis, but something else - that nothing destroys our humanity more than the belief that we are acting in the national interest.

Comments

[Charlie Whitaker]

I'm sure the lying tit is shaped by circumstance to some extent, but he also pushes back - with the emphasis on attention-getting rather than effectiveness. He doesn't have to do this, so I do blame him for his titted-ness.

I'd summarise Blair's character traits as follows:

1. He likes power: the smell of it, the presence of it.
2. He likes people and organisations who use the right code words: modern, global, connected, partnership, etc., however:
3. Big power beats little power. Americans or French? Americans. RBS board or three Natwest traders? RBS board.
4. Power trumps ideology. Coded language can't hold a candle to cold hard cash: after all, the cash shows that you know what you're talking about.

The fact that Blair's medieval attitudes haven't been educated out of him by our institutions might say something: then again, you're always going to get the occasional son of a bitch.

[chris]

There's no doubt that beautifully describes the public Blair. What is less clear is whether it describes the private Blair, or whether there isn't a spark of humanity left in him.

[Backword Dave]

"Insanity in individuals is something rare -- but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." Nietzsche. Sensible cove, old Fred.

He's used the "I'm a ... kind of guy" gambit before, IIRC. He described himself as a "pretty straight guy" which gave Nick Cohen a brilliant title.

That article is somewhat less than honest in its use of the quote. Consider: Ms Curtis-Thomas's bill would extend what is defined as porn by the law. Tony Blair meets with Rupert Murdoch, and he may feel "obliged to pander to the demands of the mob as filtered through the trash media" or simply ignore the "demands of the mob" part. Now I don't think Rupe is very keen of certain *ahem* newspapers being put on the top shelf is he? Blair liberal? Nah, he's looking after his mates. (And you tell me of any definition of porn which includes the content of say Nuts but excludes the Sun; naked ladies, yes, prurient fascination with others' sex lives, yes, no obvious public interest in celebrity prying, yes, etc etc.) So as Charlie says, principle takes second place to power worship.

"The fact that Blair's medieval attitudes haven't been educated out of him by our institutions..." He went to Fettes -- what do you mean educated *out*?

[dearieme]

Why do you assume that there is a "private Blair"? Maybe he's like Laurence Olivier, there is no private person.