HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The
Fall and Rise of Liberal England
by
John Pilger
October
13, 2003
An
epic shame and silence covers much of liberal England. Shame and silence are present
in a political theatre of frenetic activity, with actors running on and off the
national stage, uttering their fables and denials and minor revelations, as in
Ibsen's Enemy of the People. From the media gallery, there is a cryptic
gesturing at the truth, so that official culpability is minimised; this is
known at the BBC as objectivity.
Shame
and silence reached a sort of crescendo during the recent conference of the
Labour Party. Hundreds of liberal people stood and clapped for the Prime
Minister, it was reported, for seven and a half minutes. Choreographed in their
pretence, like the surviving stoics of a sect, they applauded his unctuous
abuse of the only truth that mattered: that he had committed a huge and bloody
crime, in their and our name. It was a shocking spectacle.
For
those who cling to Blair, the last resort is to make him seem Shakespearean: to
invest him with tragedy and the humanity of "blunders" and "cock
ups" that might divert the trail of blood and conceal the responsibility
he shares for the slaughter and suffering of thousands of men, women and
children, whose fate he sealed secretly and mendaciously with the rampant
American warlord.
We
know the fine print of this truth now: and we are a majority. I use
"we" here as the Chartist James Bronterre O'Brien used it in 1838, to
separate the ordinary people of England from "the vagabonds" who
oppress "what are called our colonies and [which really] belong to our
enemies". The criminality of Blair and his diminishing court is felt across
this country. It is sweeping aside those in the Labour Party who still plead,
"Listen to us, Tony" and "Please have more humility, Tony."
The
silence of famous liberals is understandable. Remember the division they
skilfully drew in 1997 between "new" and "old". New was
unquestionably good for "us". New was a "modernised" system
called neoliberalism, as old and rapacious as its Thatcherite model. Their
propaganda suppressed every reliable indication (such as the venerable British
Social Attitudes survey), which left no doubt that most of the British people
had "old" priorities and rejected Blair's ruthless refusal to
redistribute the national wealth from the rich to the poor and to protect
public services, the premise of so much of British life, just as they rejected
his embrace of the City of London and American dominance and warmongering.
The
Blair myth was that he was "untainted by dogma" (Roy Hattersley). The
opposite was true. For Blair, the issue was always class. When times were more
secure, the liberal wing of the middle class would allot a rung or two of their
ladder to those below. The ladder was hauled up by Margaret Thatcher as her
revolution spread beyond miners and steelworkers and into the suburbs and
gentrified terraces, where middle managers suddenly found themselves
"shed" and "redundant". It was to people like these that
Labour under Neil Kinnock, then John Smith, then Blair, looked in order to win
power. Middle-classness became the political code, as the middle classes
sought, above all else, to restore their status and privileges. An ideological
Scrabble was played in order to justify the Blair project's true aims. The
"stakeholder" theory was briefly promoted, and there was chatter
about "civic" society. Both were new names for old elites. The
archaic word "governance" was used to obfuscate real social
democracy. There was enthusiasm for the ideas of an American
"communitarian" guru who wrote books of psychobabble that impressed
Bill Clinton. A "think tank" called Demos filled up the Guardian
tabloid on slow days with vacuous chic. Out of this was promoted something
called "Middle England", a middle-class idyll similar to that
described by John Major when he yearned for cycling spinsters, cricket and warm
beer. That one in four Britons lived in poverty was unmentionable.
When
Blair was elected with fewer votes than Major received in 1992, liberalism's
principal organs were beside themselves. "Goodbye xenophobia" and
"The Foreign Office says 'Hello world, remember us?'", rejoiced the
Observer. Blair, said the paper, would sign the EU Social Chapter within weeks,
push for "new worldwide rules on human rights and the environment",
ban landmines, implement "tough new limits on all other arms sales"
and end "the country-house tradition of policy-making". Apart from
the landmines ban, which was in effect already in place, all of it was false.
Then
it was "Welfare: the New Deal". The Chancellor, said the Observer,
"is preparing to announce the most radical welfare Budget since the Second
World War". On the contrary, what Gordon Brown announced was a
"welfare-to-work" scheme that was a pale imitation of failed and
reactionary schemes already tried by the Tories and the Clinton administration.
There was no new deal. "A Budget for the people", said the
Independent's front page over a drawing of Brown dressed as Oliver Cromwell.
This was difficult to fathom. Apart from a few crumbs for the health service
and education, and windfall taxes on utilities, which their huge profits easily
absorbed, Brown's first budget was from the extreme right, making his Tory
predecessor look Keynesian. That was unmentionable, and still is.
Most
Labour voters had endured 18 years of cuts in education, social security,
disability and other benefits - yet Brown reversed not a single one of them,
including a tax base that allows the likes of Rupert Murdoch to avoid paying
tens of millions of pounds to the Treasury. Today, nothing essentially has
changed. One in four Britons is still born into poverty - a poverty that has hardened
under Blair and Brown and remains the chief cause of higher rates of ill
health, accidents and deaths in infancy, school exclusion and low educational
performance.
"The
New Special Relationship" was the next good news, with Blair and Clinton looking
into each other's eyes in the garden at No 10 Downing Street. Here was the
torch being passed, said the front page of the Independent, "from a
becalmed and aimless American presidency to the coltish omnipotence of
Blairdom". This was the reverential tone that launched Blair into his
imperial violence. The new prime minister, wrote Hugo Young, "wants to
create a world none of us has known, where the laws of political gravity are
overturned". In the age of Blair, "ideology has surrendered entirely
to values... there are no sacred cows [and] no fossilised limits to the ground
over which the mind might range in search of a better Britain".
By
the time Robin Cook launched his infamous mission statement, putting human
rights at the "heart" of foreign policy and promising to review arms
sales on "ethical" grounds, not a sceptical voice was to be heard
coming from liberalism's powerhouses. On the contrary, the Guardian counselled
Blair not to be too "soft centred". Jeremy Paxman assured his BBC
audience that even if the new "ethical" policy stopped the sale of
Hawk fighter-bombers to Indonesia, their presence in East Timor (where
one-third of the population had perished as result of Indonesia's illegal
occupation) was "not proved". This was the standard Foreign Office
lie, which was eventually admitted by Cook.
Why
did Blair go all the way with Bush? Apart from his own Messianic view of the
world, the Blairite elite are part of the "Atlanticist" tradition of
the party. That means imperialism. All those years of Kennedy scholarships,
trade union fellowships at Harvard and fraternal seminars paid for by the US
government have had their insidious effect. Five members of Blair's first
cabinet, along with his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, were members of the British
American Project for a Successor Generation, a masonry of chosen politicians
and journalists, conceived by the far-right oil baron J Howard Pew and launched
by Ronald Reagan and Rupert Murdoch. Blair's invitation to Thatcher to visit
him in Downing Street might have offered a pointer to what was coming. But no;
dissenters were killjoys. According to Susie Orbach, the psychologist, not
taking pleasure in the rise of Blairdom reflected no less than a troubled
personality. "It's as though there is something safe in
negativity..." she wrote, "you often find [this state of mind] in
someone who... can only fight, who can never rest from battle, may be trying to
defeat inner demons, hopeless feelings, that are far too frightening to touch
directly."
The
dissenters have been proved right, and right again. In six years Blair has
ordered four bloody wars against and in countries that offered the British no
threat, including the longest Anglo-American bombing campaign since the Second
World War, against Iraq; and this was before he ordered a land invasion of a
country he knew was defenceless.
Andrew
Gilligan will probably be pilloried by an establishment tribunal for telling a
version of this truth. Lord Hutton (he who sat on the notorious
"Diplock" court in Belfast) could and should have recalled Blair for
cross-examination, but chose not to. This is a travesty, because the real issue
is the criminality of Blair and his coterie. The truth of this is currency now,
thanks to the millions who have broken an established silence, with thousands
of them going into the streets for the first time and filling the letters pages
and shaming the majority of Labour MPs, who chose Bush and Blair over their
constituents.
They
are the best of this society. They are rescuing noble concepts, such as
democracy and freedom, from Blairite windbags who emptied them of their true
meaning while claiming to be left of centre. Theirs is an "insurrection of
subjugated knowledge", as Vandana Shiva has written. They are the democratic
opposition now, owing nothing to Westminster; and their achievements echo the
American playwright Lillian Hellman who, in a letter in 1952 to the McCarthyite
House Un-American Activities Committee, wrote: "I cannot and will not cut
my conscience to fit this year's fashions." It is this capacity for
conscience that makes us human, and without millions around the world
demonstrating it, Blair and Bush might well have attacked another country by
now. That is still a distinct possibility, as the current fitting-up of Iran
should alert us. Remember, the warmongers go to such lengths to deceive us only
because they fear, as Shelley wrote, the public's awakening:
...like
lions after slumber,
In
unvanquishable number...
Ye
are many - they are few.
John Pilger is a renowned investigative
journalist and documentary filmmaker. His latest documentary film, “Breaking
the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror” was broadcast on the ITV
network in the UK, on September 22.
Earlier this year, Pilger was named the winner of the Sophie Prize, one of the world's most distinguished environmental and
development prizes. He was also named Media
Personality of the Year, at this year's EMMA awards. His latest book is The
New Rulers of the World (Verso, 2002). Visit John Pilger’s website at: http://www.johnpilger.com
* The Big
Lie: WMDs Were Just a Pretext for Planned War on Iraq
* What Good
Friends Left Behind in Afghanistan
* Iraq's
Epic Suffering Is Made Invisible
* How
Britain Exports Weapons of Mass Destruction
* The
Unthinkable is Becoming Normal