Blair deja la escena del crimen

Tony se va y en el anuncio de su renuncia lo hizo con lágrimas. Uno de los grandes actores políticos de estos tiempos deja el poder y por ahora, su legado figura ensombrecido por Irak. De hecho, la gran pregunta la puso The Economist en su portada la semama pasada: ¿como lo juzgará la historia?. El semanario apostó por un recuerdo más cercano a la gloria que al olvido o el rechazo. Y si bien su rating actual es un desastre es probable que el "performer" termine siendo un grande.

Hace dos semanas estuve presente en el Question time en Westminster y pude presenciar a un político único en sus especie, de una persuación notable y dominio escénico impecable. También estaba Cameron y al menos en el juego de las preguntas/ respuestas en el parlamento, el lider Torie no le hizo contrapeso.
Mi punto es simple: Tony pasará a la historia por su personalidad y carisma. Sus obras en cambio, quedaran inevitablemente marcadas por la tragedia en Irak.
Blair será recordado también como el rostro de un equipo de estrategas sin igual (Giddnes, Mandelson, Campbell). Un grupo resposable de la renovación intelectual de la izquierza (en UK y en muchos países), generadores del "nuevo" centro político y por supuesto, creadores de una maquinaria de marketing político (con todo el spin imaginable) visto pocas veces. Un lote que aplicó en Blair las 10 reglas electorales de Séguéla a la pata y que les permitió ganar 3 elecciones generales consecutivas.
Aquí las reglas de oro, el anuncio de su renuncia en dos videos y por último, la columna de Richard Sennett sobre el legado de Blair. A mi jucio, lo mejor que se ha publicado sobre el asunto por estos barrios.

1.se vota a un hombre, no a un partido
2.se vota una idea, no una ideología
3.se vota por el futuro, no por el pasado
4.se vota por un espectáculo, no por la banalidad
5.se vota por uno mismo, no por un candidato
6.se vota por la verdad, no por un falso semblante
7.se vota por un destino, una esperanza, no por banalidades
8.se vota un valor, no una función
9.se vota un activo, no un pasivo
10.se vota por un ganador, no por un perdedor.




An inferior Bill Clinton
The force was with Blair when he took power, but ultimately the American was the smarter operator

Richard Sennett
Saturday May 12, 2007
The Guardian

I came to live in Britain just before New Labour took power in 1997. Even many Conservatives were exhausted by the years of Tory rule; the sheer fact that Tony Blair was a fresh face seemed the most promising thing about him. To me, who had spent time in the shambolic netherworld of the first Clinton administration, Blair appeared a better version of Bill Clinton: more reliable and balanced and much more modest.

But for all Clinton's personal upheavals and policy reversals, he never lost a profound, almost visceral, connection with the American public; he was more personally popular when he left office than when he entered it. Clinton hatred had strict social limits: Southern young, white, men; anti-abortion zealots; palaeo-conservatives. Clinton is someone who, in the end, you forgive.

Blair's career has followed a different and perhaps more normal course. He lost the trust of his public. This loss is something he himself caused. In his first three years he spoke in the name of the people; by the end of 2000, he spoke to people, arguing them into submission like a lawyer scoring points; after the Iraq war began, he no longer seemed to care what people thought. He and his minions have in the past five years presented and explained and defended policies, but not much responded to what others think. He leaves a public more disposed to forget than forgive him.

Clinton is an excellent judge of character. Both his administrations were filled with highly qualified individuals, charmed and exasperated by him in equal measure; short-tempered, Clinton nonetheless took in advice he didn't want to hear. Blair has proved a poor judge of character. His most disastrous misjudgment is the faith he placed in George Bush, but he has relied too much on people such as the fixer Lord Levy. His cabinet choices, like David Blunkett at the Home Office, have often put people into jobs they did not command; ministers who gave him dissenting advice (Robin Cook, for example) were sidelined or banished.

The difference that has most struck me is in Clinton's version of the Gordon Brown problem. Neither of Clinton's treasury secretaries, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, were after the president's job, but both commanded empires that frequently countermanded the president's plans. Clinton's response was to deal. Like Blair, Clinton was out of his depth when it came to money; unlike Blair, Clinton accepted that fact. Compared to the Blair-Brown grand opera, there was thus much less briefing against opponents within the administration.

Unlike many who are just glad to see him go, I have real admiration for many of Blair's achievements, such as the easing of child poverty and the plans for dealing with climate change; he has also dealt with the failure of Iraq more honestly than his American partners. But he is a worse case than Clinton for being his own worst enemy.

What struck me when I chaired the American Council on Work was the well-oiled machinery of transition in many big businesses. Moreover, there seemed general agreement about how long the person at the top should rule - seven or eight years the usual figure. The US constitution also sets an eight-year presidential limit to prevent abuse of power (imagine 12 years of George Bush).

The British handover could serve as a business-school study of how to mismanage a transition. The top man announces he will go, but coyly does not say when; work in the Westminster village grinds to a halt as the inhabitants obsess about when, when. No procedures are put in place. And a year is lost.

Is this handover now an abuse of power? It seems to me it is. "It's Gordon's turn" more resembles paying an old debt than running a country democratically. In principle, the prime minister is the leader of a party, and this is a good principle; the leader should be answerable at least to the party. Brown has a stain on his legitimacy, as though he is afraid to submit to public scrutiny.

The business-school brief might not worry too much about entry through the back door. It would focus on business benefits. The New Labour project has some real accomplishments under its belt, but it has run its course; its managers face the same prospect of going stale as any long-serving CEO's team. Unless Brown suddenly discovers the secret of relating personally to voters, or David Cameron falters, the voters will toss out Labour. New Labour will become Tired Labour. I am saddened, therefore, that David Miliband has chosen not to challenge Brown; he's capable, and much more experienced than was Blair when the latter entered office.

As befits my American origin, I have the perfect practical solution for these ills. Having gained power, if through the back door, Brown should announce a snap election. If he wins, he becomes a truly legitimate ruler; if he loses, he will lose with honour. Less long-term damage will be done to the Labour party than two more years of leaden life. Bill Clinton would take the gamble.