How those in power take the Almighty's name in vain
Blair’s religious convictions were downplayed (in case we thought him a ‘nutter’, remember, rather than merely incompetent) while he was in office; but they were noticed, on plenty of occasions, and commented upon. In his otherwise equivocal memoirs, Dr Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector who pleaded with both Bush and Blair to wait a while before wreaking military havoc in Iraq, blamed the two leaders’ shared religious fervour for their single-minded commitment to the invasion; their unshakeable conviction that they were doing the ‘right thing’. The year before Tony Blair left office, Richard D. North devoted an acute and entertaining book to what he called Mr Blair’s Messiah Politics. North concluded: ‘Tony Blair thought the good he could do — his ends — was so great as to merit nearly any means. The British people were weak and self-deluding in falling for much of his guff....’ By ‘messianic’, North did not mean simply marching into Iraq with crusading zeal, but the other stuff — the implacable belief that he could obliterate world poverty and global warming, the absolutist rhetoric, the championing of incoherent, economically illiterate but similarly messianic campaigners such as Bono and Bob Geldof. A little later both the philosopher John Gray and the journalist Dan Hind addressed Blair’s millennialist religious convictions and his crass misunderstanding of the Enlightenment, arguing in effect that Blair’s faith was grounded not in a commitment to plurality of belief systems, but that it had led him to a position no less absolutist than the very people against whom he was waging war. As Hind put it: ‘Worship anyone you like, Blair seems to be saying, as long as you believe in the existence [sic] of the Anglo-American “War on Terror”.’
More articles from: Rod Liddle | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Martin Vander Weyer looks ahead to next week’s Pre-Budget Report and reflects on George Osborne’s contentious remarks about the devaluation of sterling. It looks like Gordon Brown is getting away with his borrowing binge — leaving the Tories isolated
The movie W. did not provide the crude anti-Bush agitprop that the reviewers craved, says Rod Liddle. This was precisely its strength: we need to get inside the minds even of those we most deplore
In the wake of Cameron’s decision to drop his pledge to match Labour spending, Fraser Nelson and Daniel Fin kelstein of the Times trade rhetorical blows over the issue that is gripping and troubling the Conservative party as it adjusts to the transformed economic context
Bryan Forbes remembers listening to Churchill as a 14-year-old evacuee and now looks with envy at Obama’s capacity to galvanise hope. Where are his UK counterparts?
The first takeaways originated about 150 million years ago, says Christopher Lloyd; global travel is pretty ancient, too. And as for democracy...
James Forsyth says that the Tory leader is more immersed in foreign policy than first seemed probable. Unlike Brown, he has ambitions as an international leader
Reihan Salam says that most Republicans have no idea how much the American social landscape has changed. They should learn from Obama’s Google-like appeal
Rod Liddle says it is no surprise that Gordon Brown has ended up as surly and suspicious as he has: the memoirs of John Prescott, Lord Levy and Cherie Blair are appalling acts of treachery and avarice
Theo Hobson meets Gene Robinson, the only openly gay Anglican bishop, who says that homosexuals are more open to the Christian ‘message of radical change’
David Cameron talks to Fraser Nelson about his local election triumphs, admits that he is not going to ‘agree on everything’ with the new Mayor of London, and says Boris should join the queue to become PM after him
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be amongst the first to have it - order now.
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be...
PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique
ROME and PARIS: over 350 holiday rentals apartments listed: visit www.romanreference.com and www.parisreference.com or call +39 0648 903612.
Goldsmiths by Design Welcome to Ruffs! You have found a company of Goldsmiths that specialises in the manufacture, amongst other
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
ed fisjer
December 13th, 2007 8:49amAfter last weeks drivel it'll be a long time before I take anything that Liddle has to say seriously.
Richard Bale
December 13th, 2007 2:55pmSpot on Rod as almost always
Jay Collins
December 13th, 2007 3:18pmWhy is there a "sic" in the following sentence, from the article? ‘Worship anyone you like, Blair seems to be saying, as long as you believe in the existence [sic] of the Anglo-American “War on Terror”.’ Is there something wrong with the word "existence" here?
Cogito Ergosum
December 13th, 2007 3:56pmIt reminds me of the time I asked a horse if it had any problems.
"Nay", it replied.
Such is religious certitude.
tom
December 13th, 2007 6:51pm"...a commitment to plurality of belief systems"? What that?
Herbert Thornton
December 13th, 2007 9:14pmVery interesting - Ron Liddle now knows what went on in Tony Blair's mind over several years, and sneers at Blair for being insincere.
Then he tells us that Inayat Bunglawala and The Muslim Council of Britain have suddenly modified their relationships with Allah and have become secular. In their case however, his mind-resading ability prevents him from sneering. He wants us to believe that they, unlike Tony Blair, are completely sincere.
Pull the other one, Ron.
Nigel Ford
December 13th, 2007 9:57pmBut rather than down playing his religous convictions, Blair did make great play of his supposed Christian beliefs as Leader of the Opposition back in the mid 90's which helped him successfully win over Middle England. When he reached No 10, the press kept telling us he was the most devout PM since Gladstone so his faith was hardly a secret. Unlike Bush however, I could however never square his stance on social issues like abortion, homosexuality and divorce where his voting record could be mistaken for a libertarian or militant atheist and ran counter to most people's interpretation of biblical teaching. Still unlike many others I knew he was a phoney all along.
Nigel Ford
December 13th, 2007 9:58pmBut rather than down playing his religous convictions, Blair did make great play of his supposed Christian beliefs as Leader of the Opposition back in the mid 90's which helped him successfully win over Middle England. When he reached No 10, the press kept telling us he was the most devout PM since Gladstone so his faith was hardly a secret. Unlike Bush however, I could however never square his stance on social issues like abortion, homosexuality and divorce where his voting record could be mistaken for a libertarian or militant atheist and ran counter to most people's interpretation of biblical teaching. Still unlike many others I knew he was a phoney all along.
Dwight Vandryver
December 14th, 2007 3:54amAnother disjointed and rambling article from our Rod. If UK society were simply a post-Christian one, things would be simpler. Unfortunately, Islam introduces an alien set of values into an indigenous population who, historically, have learnt the hard way that it is better to keep God as a personal belief, while allowing the practicalities of life to be determined by non-religious political discourse. The Blair years were a disgrace. As a Briton, it is difficult to associate oneself with pre-emptive war. Yet, these are the facts: if 9/11 had not happened, Iraq War 2 would not have happened, neither would 7/7. Let us remember that the aftermath of Iraq War 1 left Saddam in power and with good reason. The Irish troubles and the post-Yugoslavian split were indicators that religious factionalism would keep the peacekeepers embroiled for years or decades. The West understood it then, but failed to understand it after 9/11. History was thrown to the wind and the need to satisfy the American electorate became paramount, especially as Bin Laden was not to be found. Mr. Blair saw his opportunity to become what history books might call "a knight in shining armour", basking in the reflected light of The President of the one and only superpower. Yes, remember Hans Blix, WMDs delivered to our shores within 15 minutes, "sex-up" dossiers, Andrew Gilligan, Greg Dyke and the taming of the BBC, post-Hutton. And all to satisfy one man's vainglory. A sorry footnote in history, the consequences of which we are yet to rue.
gerry
December 14th, 2007 9:47am"...a commitment to plurality of belief systems"? What that? Tom, to me it suggests an implicit assumption that, being mutually self-contradictory, they're all a load of codswallop.
K.Vijayakumar
December 15th, 2007 6:51amIf there is any role for God in politics, it is to keep the Bushes and Blairs of the political world a wide berth and make them stew in their own juice. God, as of now, seems to be doing just that to Tony and George.W.
Peter Gompertz
December 16th, 2007 10:11pmand as someone once said " only fools are certain, intelligent people always have doubts'
Stephen
December 17th, 2007 2:53pmI still think Blair is essentially a good man. The election of G. Bush was the end of his run of good fortune. Al Gore would have (I hope) avoided the crazy neo con nonesense and TB would have worked closely with him as he did with Bill Clinton.
rod liddle
December 18th, 2007 1:21pmThe "sic" was there because I assume Hind chose the wrong word; we all believe in the existence of the war against terror. It's the questionable rectitude of it which bothers some of us. Commitment to a plurality of belief systems? Simply an acknowledgement that people should be allowed to believe what they like, I suppose, and that there will always be those who disagree with you. Dwight: I'M disjointed and rambling???!!
Gervas Douglas
December 18th, 2007 3:48pmIt is becoming increasingly apparent that Tony "Miranda" Blair is mad as well as bad. How could the British electorate re-elect such a demented psychopath twice?
Andrew
December 19th, 2007 7:56amNot the best article I've read from Rod I'm afraid. Less of this sort of mock polemics and more of your usual genuine wit in 2008 please. Happy Christmas
Russ USA
December 19th, 2007 11:07pmHmmm...God's role in Politics... Let's try this little thought on for political guidance: "Virtue is God’s Law. It is under the patronage and protection of a rewarding and avenging Deity. —By his unalterable will, virtue and happiness are, in the ultimate result, bound together in an indissoluable chain. Think not, short-sighted presumptuous mortal, to make a computation about the possible advantage of doing wrong in a single instance. Never imagine that you have an inducement to attempt to serve or deliver yourself by a departure from right—or any reason to be discouraged from duty by a doubt of final support and reward. Say you that natural religion leaves these truths open to question? we have the articulate voice of God,[ the Bible] an extraordinary light from heaven to dispel every doubt, to make them clear and certain." Pretty clear "God role" here, it should humble every living human being, let alone those who talk "Faith." Incidentally, the quote is from an 1816 Election Discourse to Massachusetts politcians by John Thornton Kirkland, D.D. (b. 1770- d. 1840). He served as President, Harvard University, Nov. 14, 1810 to April 2, 1828. B.A, Harvard, 1789, M.A., Harvard, 1792, also Dartmouth, 1792, Brown, 1794, S.T.D. Princeton, 1802, L.L.D., Brown, 1810.
Brian in South Korea
December 20th, 2007 2:41amA very well written article, Mr. Liddle! Your work is always a pleasure to read, but this article is profound as well. What you write about the lack of humility in Blair's Christianity seems to me true about evangelical Christianity in general.
eliXelx
December 23rd, 2007 10:13pmAh! Yes! The God of public opinion! Is that the God you're appealing to in this article, Rod? 'Cos if you are yo will soon find that this God, unlike Tony's God, is fickle and inconstant. You make God into a bad word, Rod, and you make a rod for your own back! Did your daddy beat you with that rod, Rod?
Demetrios Hadjinicolaou
December 29th, 2007 12:45amThe Lord God-Man, Jesus Christ has been sinless and faultless and has never admitted to any mistake, for He has never made any; don't blashpeme, Mr Liddle.