open Democracy News Analysis - Blair again: sincerity versus judgement, Anthony Barnett - Comments

britologywatch on "Blair again: sincerity versus judgement"

britologywatch — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 09:55:19 +0000

Anthony,

I think I was sort of saying what you have just stated: that Blair's project is secular in character, i.e. he seems to believe that (different) faith(s) and rationality can converge in a single set of universal human values, which would then form the basis for a monolithic version of globalisation, as you say. And yet that belief of Blair's itself is the expression of a Western-centric, liberal-Christian perspective, which is what makes it so dangerous and inflammatory; each pole validating the other: (Western, secular) reason and Christian faith united in not in fact being able to engage or dialogue with certain manifestations of Islam, precisely because they're engaged in an ideological war with them. Yes, political but also religious: can you separate the two in the Middle East (or, arguably, anywhere)?

Thanks for the reference to Mike Edward's article, which I read with interest and much of which I agree with. Of course, from the faith perspective - at least the Christian one (I can't speak for other faiths) - love and faith are inseparable: faith is the (rational) understanding and ('emotional') experiencing of love in its divine essence, while lives of dedicated service to others in society and community makes that love human and incarnates the divine - both divine and human facets of love being united in the person of Christ. But interestingly, Tony Blair seems rarely to talk of love, either of God or people.

Anthony Barnett on "Blair again: sincerity versus judgement"

Anthony Barnett — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 09:13:00 +0000

Tks David at britology. Most of what you say is true, but it surely misses the point. To have a Faith Foundation that ignores the utter incompatibility of the various belief systems is itself a secular project. Whatever the rage that may be expressed in religious terms, as you put it, the sources are secular and political (in the deeper sense). Banging on about 'faith' in the face of this is a displacement, an attempt to 'rise above' reality. I didn't say that Blair thinks religion is the "only essential component to getting globalisation right". He is not an idiot. I said that he lures us into assuming that there is only one right form of globalisation. A very different proposition. Whereas in fact there are alternatives. Which forms of globalisation are best for whom demands argument and judgement, rather than paeans to sincerity. On faith itself and the qualities it carries that may be essential to a sustainable globalisation, we need to look at the role of love rather than belief - see Mike Edward's important article.

britologywatch on "Blair again: sincerity versus judgement"

britologywatch — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 00:59:11 +0000

Anthony,

Though it pains me to say so, I think you're unduly dismissive of Blair's avowed beliefs as summarised in Elliott's words that you quote: "For Blair, the goal is to rescue faith from the twin challenges of irrelevance—the idea that religion is no more than an interesting aspect of history—and extremism. Blair and those working with him think religion is key to the global agenda". The fact that Blair thinks religion is an essential factor in getting globalisation right does not mean he thinks it's the only essential component, nor that there is only one means to get different religions working together to advance a more just and sustainable world order: his Foundation. In itself, this point about irrelevance and extremism is worth putting, although I think that both these ways of looking at religion reflect a Western perspective: it's secular, liberal Westerners who tend to regard religion as both irrelevant and potentially extremist if it is aggressively or devoutly put forward as an alternative way of life to modern secularism.

And this is what, for me, is infuriating about Tony Blair and his new religious mission: that actually, he does see the religiously inspired anti-Western positions of many Muslims as extremist, whereas they could perhaps more accurately be described as extreme reactions to a perceived assault on Muslims and the Islamic world by the West, as epitomised by its support for Israel and apparent indifference to the injustices against the Palestinians, and of course the lethal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Characterising one's Muslim adversaries as 'extremist' makes it easier to justify military action against them. An extremist is someone by definition 'beyond the pale': exhibiting unreasonable behaviour and irrational beliefs; certainly beyond the reach of Tony Blair's powers of persuasion. Perceiving himself, as PM, to be pitted against such a 'force for evil', it becomes more understandable how he could have persuaded himself in prayer that military force was his only option, and how the idea of the rightness of the cause overrode considerations of the improbability of actually bringing about a more reasonable, Western-friendly new order in the Middle East.

In fact, the motivation then - which led to such tragic errors of judgement, as you say - appears to have been the same as the motivation now: a rather Western, indeed even English / Anglican (dare I say it), liberal-Christian notion of 'reasoned religion'; the idea that faith(s) and reason are not antinomic opposites but natural partners, nourished from the same source and consequently sharing the same universal values, such as justice, fairness and human solidarity. Whatever the intrinsic merits of this view, the consequence of it in Blair's actions has been a lack of understanding of the religious rage that globalisation has provoked in the Middle East, where many perceive the ideological battle and the spreading of the global culture as just a front for the West's desire to control the Middle East economically and politically, and to relativise and undermine the claims of Islam as the dominant belief system, to which a large proportion of Muslims still have a passionate commitment, unlike secularised Western Christians to their religion.

Blair again: sincerity versus judgement, Anthony Barnett

Anthony Barnett — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:04:10 +0000

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Jon Bright, now enjoying a New Labour Free stay in Madrid, wrote a hilarious post about the many roles of Tony Blair, for whom the illusion of grandeur is a mere ante-chamber to his ambition. Jon called it He'll Save Every One of Us. It followed my own predictable reaction to the announcement that Blair was going to teach faith and globalisation at Yale. Now we have a quick summary of his university course by Michael Elliot in Time Magazine as Blair launches his Faith Foundation in New York having just belted back from Bethlehem, doubtless via the grand country house he has just acquired outside London.

It is so easy to mock. It is so hard to take seriously. Poor Michael Elliot does his best while nervously looking over his shoulder to make sure that he doesn't lose standing with his fellow Brits. Don't worry Michael! There are some serious issues here. And Elliot is right to attack the casual cynicism that so often passes for common sense and even intelligence in the UK when it is really an expression of the mental subservience that has kept British rulers safe from democracy. So, let's think about what Blair is saying. Elliot reports: "For Blair, the goal is to rescue faith from the twin challenges of irrelevance—the idea that religion is no more than an interesting aspect of history—and extremism. Blair and those working with him think religion is key to the global agenda. "Faith is part of our future," Blair says, "and faith and the values it brings with it are an essential part of making globalization
work"."

It looks banal, but it isn't, it is a con-trick. One similar to 'The Third Way' that Blair propagated when he became premier. Behind both clichés there is an insidious presumption: in "the third way" it was the word "the" - the idea that there was only one way (and Blair was its prophet). Here the same manoeuvre is cast on a larger canvass. It assumes there is only one model of 'globalisation'; only a single way that it can "work" (and only one Blair to interpret this for us). If, however, there is more than one way for globalisation to 'work' as there clearly is, then there needs to be an argument about the best way and judgements have to be taken. Blair implies by slight of hand that, really, there is only a single good form of globalisation - otherwise all is lost. But how do we know what this is, except by following the one who knows? And how can we know whether to trust him? Through the depth of his sincerity.

This is Blair's game, if I may be allowed to decode it. He wants us to attach ourselves to his sincerity and evaporate arguments over judgement. I don't doubt that he is a sincere believer. But so what? In politicians it is judgements that matter. Blair tries to get us to feel differently: "The worst thing in politics," he tells Elliot, "is when you're so scared of losing support that you don't do what you think is the right thing. What faith can do is not tell you what is right but give you the strength to do it."

Michael Elliot suggests that "in a nation like Britain, where cynicism is a way of life, that distinction—between faith as a guide to action and faith as an aid to decision—is almost bound to be lost". But at this point it isn't just cynicism to object to the use the distinction is being put to. For what Blair is saying is that "faith" permits him to do the wrong thing well. It does not matter so much if the decison itself could have been better or different, provided it is sincerely done and the sincerity is drawn from a true spirit of belief. But isn't this just what the fundamentalists argue in their own way? Maybe innocents do die in an indiscrimate terrorist attack, but if the faith of the believer is pure... the virgins await.

Blair, Elliot reports, "understands that faith is what gives meaning to the lives of millions". But he is hardly alone in this insight. Now he tells us that he wants to make his living out of it, bringing faiths of all kinds together, so that their competition does not lead to ignorance and fear. He tells Time Magazine that the Foundation "is how I want to spend the rest of my life". Hang on! At this point one does also begin to doubt his sincerity. This sounds to me like a funding pitch. After all, it was only a few weeks ago that he was running flat out for the presidency of the EU.

There is one final point. Where does all this come from? Blair is recognisably British in his mixture of self-depreciation and grandiosity although as elliot observes he is not like most Brits. Nor is he like the regular professionals, or pragmatic and businesslike, in the manner of many politicians. Thinking about the Time Magazine profile I came up with an answer. All this stuff about combining many faiths while doing good deeds is a global projection of what Prince Charles pioneered. He, of course, believes in divine right and expects to become King. As such he will be head of the Church of England and "Defender of the Faith". Early on he told an interviewer that at his coronation he wanted to be proclaimed as "defender of the faiths". Theologically ridiculous, but eminating from his total sincerity, and his recognition that what matters is that believers are sincere. To put it another way, Charles wants to become 'Defender of Sincerity'. Because he is seen as clumsy and uncharismatic he is too lightly dismissed. True, he didn't manage to hack it with Diana, whom Blair famously declaraed on her death to be the "People's Princess". But might this not mean there is a vacency? Doesn't the world need a Peoples' Prince? Looking at the short video interview you can find on the Time Magazine link you can see how much Blair has learnt from Diana. As for the small matter of divine right... what better way to achieve it than through a Faith Foundation.

Declaration of interest. I live with a historian whose first great book was, as she put it, "a study of the development of the Christian faith... the capacity of faith to mobilise... is indicative of a force that may determine other factors, particularly at a time of political failure and economic crisis... the history of faith is far too important to be left to adherents alone."