The Path To Conservatism Is Paved With Experience

Tony Blair's letter to Michael Foot (linked below), makes for a truly fascinating read. It' s obvious to see the man's ambition and head for leadership even in 1982.

I don't think there's a great deal I can say about it, however, it seems interesting to note Blair's transposition from his ``irreversibly altered`` Marxist following to his current (apparent) right wing disposition. The writer of this article seems to think Blair was just trying to impress the then party leader by saying the right things (and to be honest, if it was me, if it meant getting a finger in the pie of one of my managers, I'd probably follow suit). However, I pose a different explination to that.

It seems every student, every young and naïve co-worker who's compus-mentus enough for a coherent political stance (with whom I've ever worked), every blissfully self-fooling humanitarian idealist; all seem to have a vision of some socialist utopia. However, every real world petty bourgeoisie, every experienced pensioner, every person whose lived long enough to understand the world and seen enough changes to make a conscious decision; seem to all tend to the right.

Perhaps that's an unfair generalisation, but my two cents is it's the naïve of the world who aspire to the Marxist shangri-la* and its the more matured or experienced who echo Sir Winston Churchill's quote: ``[conservative] Democracy doesn't work – but it's the best idea we've tried``.

This leads us to another question: Do people's political orientation change because they become pessimistic over ill demonstrated (but frequently attempted) mutual equality, or because their careers and/or induced worship of money are mutually conducive to the mindset of the petty bourgeoisies who define the contours of the terra firma that is: the right?

All I know is that in much the same way the aging process entices people rightwards: my Marxist armour is slowly being displaced by my ISA and my career steps. And, as Mister Blair has inadvertently illustrated in his political meander: perhaps the ``best idea we've tried`` is the most pragmatic approach to society. His letter says this:

``The trouble with Marxism is that it is fine if you make it your political servant but terrible if it becomes your political master``

I should argue the line between a system being your master and you mastering it is a line drawn in futility as; for any political system to be practical or viable, you must first sub serve to its dictum and make yourself its subject – yet you must simultaneously control it and embody its values in yourself in such a way that the system works to the furtherance of its partakers and followers,( ie, yourself). That is to say, a political school or epoch can only be thus; based on the integrity its shown by enactors. (The same can be said for the church)

Blair furthers the issue of constitutional and institutional integrity by saying: ``there should not be a party within a party. That is a correct and necessary rule, not a constitutional accident.``

So in a Mallet's Mallet move back to the first question: `was Blair just a yes man to please his boss?` - I don't think he was, and I should also say if Michael Foot's political standing was anything other than to represent the ousted working force (who were left unemployed by the then Thatcherist regime), he too would have followed suit and governed the society with a conservative glove.


* The ones, perhaps brainwashed by the educational or family institutions in which they've grown up and from which they've only just been emancipated.

copy of letter