Blair more popular than Bush at Texas Rodeo

Fergus Pickering

Come on. All this means is that Americans neither know nor care about anything that happens outside America. Blair a cheating lying toad? Don't know anything about that but he backed our boys, didn't he?

Kent Clayton

As a fifty-seven year old life long Texan I find it absolutely extraordinary that Mr.Forsyth found anyone at a rodeo in Texas who knows who Tony Blair is. Most Texans, and most Americans for that matter, have little interest in politics or politicians.

Ray

It reminds one of the sad spectacle of Mikhail Gorbachev being vastly more popular in Western Europe and the United States than ever he was inside the former Soviet Union.

Chuck Unsworth

I'd agree with Mr Clayton. If it is really the case that some Americans hold Blair in greater esteem (I use that term in its loosest sense) than Bush, then that is a measure of how little they know about the world outside their own shores. One might compare this with the long held and fervent support of Irish Americans for the IRA. Until, that is, they were told the realities by McCain. That speech, in front of Gerry Adams, was pivotal in bringing about peace. Had McCain not had the courage to stand up and tell it like it is the IRA would have continued to obtain support of all kinds from America and the slaughter would have continued unabated. In short, American desires to act as the world's policeman or mediator are driven and directed by people who know very little about the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of intervention - but only if people really know and understand exactly what they are doing and what the effects might be. Just a thought - is there some local hero in Austin with the same name?

salieri

The only rational explanation, CU, and a perfectly plausible one. I learn today that Tracey Emin has an artistic rat called Tony Blair.

Ruddigore Topsider

Chuck: You and Mr Clayton might be correct that his popularity reflects US ignorance of his 'true colours', but I think you're on pretty thin ground with the 'support for Blair' = 'support for the IRA idea'. For a start, anyone trying to 'tell it like it is' to a US audience would be hard put to explain how a supposedly superficial liar could hoodwink the British public for ten years and win three democratic elections in a row, by a substantial margin. There's not really any convincing alternative narrative that could be provided by embittered Brits that outweighs the bigger contribution Blair made. And I cannot think of anyone in the US that could pull such a trick on Blair's legacy, unless Bill Clinton were to say 'He's a deceitful, shameless, money-grubbing phoney, and I should know, because he learned it all from me.' At a more forensic level, I'm far from convinced that the IRA depended on US charity funding to anything like the extent that the media assume. Whereas UK political support for the coalition action in Afghanistan and Iraq was crucial. It's difficult to audit a terrorist group, but I suspect they earned far more from drugs, extortion, prostitution and fuel smuggling than from a few donations in Boston or New York. A few fairweather (Irish) Republicans might have derived moral comfort from US aid, but I doubt that it was of great practical use to the hard core. The IRA in its various guises would have carried on regardless. The pentration by UK security forces was far more influential in fighting the IRA to a standstill.

Verity

Chuck Unsworth - The Texas Prison Rodeo is not held in Austin! Hunstville is where the Federal Penetentiary is. Pulleeeeze! I too am surprised that Mr Forsyth found anyone at the rodeo who knows who Tony Blair is. Knowing who Tony Blair is is for the professional and upper middle classes. Not that they have any greater nous about politics outside the US (including just north of the border) than the fine folks who attend the rodeo. The British are terribly naive in thinking Americans are as interested in us as we are in them. They're just not. Their knowledge of Blair begins and ends with the fact that he supported the US over Iraq. They would not be able to tell you which political party he belongs to. And if you asked them who is the prime minister of Britain, most would say Blair or say they didn't know. They will not have heard of David Cameron.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Verity I quote: "we headed out to the Star of Texas Fair and Rodeo just outside of Austin where the vast majority of attendees were from rural Texas". Maybe you should address your remarks to the lovely Mr Forsyth? @ Ruddigore Topsider. You may be right, but I do not share your faith in the abilities of the security forces. I do not recall suggesting that 'support for Blair' = 'support for the IRA'. For clarity, it was the manifest embarrassment of Adams which led to the sea-change. At that point Adams realised that his moral (and other) support was crumbling. Astute as he is he made the best of it, but it was not long thereafter that things began to change. As to Blair's mendacity, perhaps we might say that there seemed no alternative to him amongst opposition ranks. Given that, maybe the voting public decided to stick with the devil they (thought they) knew. Incidentally the turnout was pitifully small at the last election, which speaks volumes. Brown by contrast is not even a competent liar, so his chances of electoral success are accordingly diminished.

Verity

Chuck Unsworth - My mistake and apologies! I thought it was the famous Texas Prison Rodeo, which is held in Huntsville and gets the true rodeo afficionados. They are the ones who wouldn't know who Tony Blair is. People from Austin, if they were upper echelon in the state government, and so on, would have heard of Blair, but I'll bet not one in a hundred of them knows he is no longer prime minister. Actually, I didn't think Blair was a competent liar. He told such whoppers, no one could possibly have believed him. Blair always looked as though he was lying, even when, on the odd occasion, he was telling the truth.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Verity. Don't apologise - even I have been known to make the occasional mistake.... I'll accept your judgement as to Blair's competence - or otherwise - at lying, but my guess is that the Great British Public whilst knowing that Blair was purveying snake oil were so utterly disgusted by 'sleaze' that they were happy to vote the liar into power. Once there, of course, the opposition was so useless that Blair continued. The difference now is that Brown is a) useless, b) has been seen to be so, and c) has not been able to distance himself from his dubious history or - now - from NuLab 'sleaze'. Well, what goes around comes around - as some of my American friends (yes, I do have a few) frequently say.

Ruddigore Topsider

Chuck Unsworth: Sorry - I didn't mean to say that you said that 'support for Blair' was the same as 'support for the IRA'. I meant to make the point that the dynamics of the meltdown of IRA support couldn't be replicated to bring about a similar revision of US opinion of Mr Blair. Because there is no Brit credible enough to make the case against him; and even if they did, if it focused on the 'BLiar' schtick of most UK anti-Blair sentiment, it wouldn't eclipse US gratitude for his support in the War on Terror. You are probably right to be sceptical about the security forces' contribution, which is prone to exaggeration because of its shadiness. But I do think it unwise to attribute decisiveness to single event, as you appear to in the case of Mr McCain's speech, especially in a war as long and complicated as the Irish one!

Chuck Unsworth

@ Ruddigore Topsider: Let's not spend our time apologising for minor (and in my case, unfelt) slights. I don't consider the McCain speech to be the sole reason for diminished Irish American support, quote obviously there were other factors. But I would suggest that the speech was rather different to the prevailing sentiment at that time. As such it took some courage - perhaps opportunism - to stand up and say what he did. It's interesting that perceptions of this 'war' still differ, depending on which side of the Atlantic they are expressed. For many in Britain this was not regarded as a war, it was/is viewed more as a terrorist movement. So, as always, one man's 'freedom fighter' is another's 'terrorist'. The so-called 'War on Terror' is an entirely different matter. One might ask how one could 'defeat' 'Terror'. George Orwell has some very interesting and relevant observations.

Ruddigore Topsider

Chuck Unsworth: All good points, but I still don't see the specific relevance of the McCain-IRA speech to the Blair case. McCain had stature, which enabled that shift in US perception. I can't think of anyone able to achieve a similar shift on 'Blair as great statesman' by attacking his domestic record (Mr Bean?). My US friends are capable of distinguishing 'Blair the PM' from 'Blair the friend of the US'. p.s. I wrote 'Irish war' because 'IRA campaign' leaves out INLA, UVF etc, not out of any desire to elevate IRA terrorists to the status of legitimate combatants; and 'War on Terror' as shorthand, however unsatisfactory, for the Anglosphere's response to 9/11.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Rudigore Topsider There are two distinct threads here. One is the adulation of some Americans for Blair, which in my view is predicated on an image which is largely false but which was fostered by Bush and some of the more vociferous American media. The notion of an 'Anglosphere' response to 9/11 is interesting, but again I'd suggest that not all English-speaking countries were/are so supportive of American actions post 9/11. Those actions have been portrayed by Bush as a means of eliminating danger to America and Americans but, as is clear, have done nothing of the sort. However, Bush is a good operator and his manipulation of a (justifiable) sense of rage after the attacks was supported by Blair - for slightly different motives. In both cases it is clear that these operations have been disastrous. Blair, shrewder than Bush, just about managed his escape from the direct backlash. Bush bears the consequences, but no matter, he was not getting a third term in office anyway. The second thread is Northern Ireland or, as some Americans would see it, the Irish question. (Incidentally, I did not understand your views to denote the status of members of the IRA.) What is clear is that there have been acts of terrorism (warfare if you will) which have been carried out by various groupings. But by far and away the majority of such acts were carried out by the IRA in its various guises. Those evil influences remain today, just beneath the surface. Blair was desperate to leave a legacy of achievement. His actions with regard to Northern Ireland are questionable, but he was able to claim that he had resolved the problem to the benefit of mankind. That, of course, completely ignores the work of John Major in starting the whole process of dialogue. The reality is that Blair will not be remembered for this 'achievement', but will forever be linked with slavish support of Bush in a failed 'War on Terror' which has led to the deaths of many Americans and many Britons in at least two theatres of war. As always, the evil that men do lives on, any good is interred with their bones and is quickly fogotten.