Middle Earth and the PM's imminent demise... posted by Richard Seymour

The papers are awake with jittery rumour about the possibility of the Prime Minister stepping down relatively soon. Blair insists he cannot go until the Iraqis have their own government, so I look forward to voting against him again in 2012. According to yer man at Harry's Place , the reason Blair is surrounded by rumours of his departure from Number Ten is that he has committed a "heresy". The heresy is defined thus:

He has challenged the dominant assumptions of the liberal-left elite, he has exposed the weaknesses in orthodox left thinking and their unwillingness to deal with the new and uncomfortable realities. He stands accused of being too accomodating to the US government by those who had no problem sharing a platform with Neo-Stalinists and Islamists.

To my knowledge, of course, neither the "neo-Stalinists" nor the Islamists who marched and spoke at the anti-war rallies have actually killed anyone, much less tens of thousands of people - but let that go. Harry' case goes further, and had me stunned for a while. Here he is again:

Because Blair, labelled by his critics with much justification as a conservative, now stands accused of being too radical, too much of a risk-taker, too unwilling to accomodate 'Middle England'. The message is clear: "Just deal with jobs, schools and hospitals and forget all that internationalist stuff."

And he refuses to do so.

They hate him because he is a heretic, that much is obvious. But more than that they despise him because he has revealed so starkly their own conservatism.

They will never forgive him for this.

Just who exactly "Middle England" is has always perplexed me. It is an inexact category to say the least. Just why imperialism should be described as "internationalist" is perfectly obvious, and not more convincing for that. But there is a sense in which I could initially see the pull of this argument, and was obliged to wonder. Isn't there indeed a segment of the Tory Right who dislike Tony Blair precisely for being too "radical" (the scare quotes are deserved, for that word has been milked to death by this government for highly reactionary ends), for dabbling in foreign misadventures, for being unwilling to stand up to the vulgar Americans... Peter Hitchens' argument that the war on Iraq was a "left wing" one, and that Bush is by no means a natural conservative, springs to mind.

However. If Middle England is supposed to refer to those who flooded into Central London from the suburbs and villages on February 15th, it is worth noting that these same people were solidly behind the last "internationalist" venture, the centre-left attack on Yugoslavia. Opinion polls on that war, justified primarily in terms of humanitarian rhetoric as the bombs fell, (then later in terms of Nato's "credibility"), maintained a sold two to one majority in favour of the bombing. The demonstrations were appallingly tiny, and Middle England appeared to be at home, washing its car. It seems unlikely that they simply turned off "all that internationalist stuff". Instead, isn't it the case that 9/11 aroused a greater sense of internationalism, the need to form a less parochial perspective and to be alive to the dangers of the world? One of the immediate results of the attacks on America was a steep rise in the purchase of books about Islam and the Middle East. There was an attempt to understand, because it had become glaringly apparent that all the trouble of the world would not remain extramural. Just because such awareness does not automatically conduce to the cause of the neo-imperialists does not mean it can be explained away by petit-bourgeois insularity.

Predictably, however, I'm afraid that Harry's argument is indicative of a general tendency on the pro-war left to reduce the opposition to Empire to the rantings of some deranged "orthodox Left", the soft-headedness of the liberal elite, and the resentment of the middle class. Witness practically everything Christopher Hitchens, David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen have had to say about the anti-war movement. The effluviations about Blair being an "internationalist" who "exposes" the inadequacies of standard leftist thought and is willing to confront uncomfortable realities is also characteristic of the sad decline in liberal critical capacity the second war begins. The Ministry of Defense has good reason to thank saps like these. Noting that "Public support will be vital to the conduct of military interventions", the Ministry of Defense advises that:

We need to be aware of the ways in which public attitudes might shape and constrain military activity. Increasing emotional attachment to the outside world, fuelled by immediate and graphic media coverage, and a public desire to see the UK act as a force for good, is likely to lead to public support, and possibly public demand, for operations prompted by humanitarian motives.

Or, as the Defense Committee approvingly noted following the war on Yugoslavia:

At home, the aim may be to mobilise and sustain support for a particular policy and interpretation of events. In the Kosovo campaign tactical and operational Psyops, including leafleting Yugoslav forces in Kosovo, were mainly undertaken by the USA. The UK's main contribution was in terms of media operations.

This was possible in large part because "Few journalists appear to believe that they were actually lied to by the MoD", (credulous where it's due), and therefore "the campaign directed against home audiences was fairly successful".

Not this time, however. A decade of lies about Iraq and an increasingly aware public made for the largest anti-war movement in history. Hence: "Go now to save Labour, Blair told".