Iain Martin: History can teach leaders to avoid schoolboy errors
[Iain Martin writes for the Telegraph.]
The thing about history, Tony Blair might have said, is that it is all in the past. New Labour was founded on the idea that there is virtually nothing our ancestors could possibly teach us.
Consequently, neophilia became the defining characteristic of the Blair era. "We are a young country," he said when heralding the emergence of Cool Britannia. But Britain is very old, with an extraordinary history and an ageing population. We're not a young country, by any measure.
Did the Civil Service, with its decades of experience, have anything to teach New Labour on its arrival in office? Don't be silly: it was disregarded. The House of Lords was also dragged into the 21st century in the name of modernity. The events of the last week prove what an enormously successful experiment that has been.
Next, the New Labour impulse infected foreign policy. In the days after 9/11, Blair made one of his most unintentionally revealing statements . "My father's generation lived through the Blitz," he said. "There was one country which stood by us at that time. That was America. As you stood by us in those days, we stand side by side with you now."
You know what he was getting at in his search for a suitably Atlanticist soundbite – and I share the sentiment – but there is a problem with accuracy. The Blitz started in September 1940 and the last major raid of that period was in May 1941. America did not enter the war until six months later.
President Roosevelt was certainly highly sympathetic to Britain's plight, and helped to introduce Lend Lease in March 1941 to supply Britain with war materials. But US public opinion was deeply divided during the Blitz. The countries that actually did stand side by side with us were Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa.
This demonstrates how simplistic was Blair's understanding of the "special relationship". As a result he failed to exploit his position of strength with an ally. Perhaps Margaret Thatcher would have backed the invasion of Iraq. But first she would have banged the table, demanded an adequate number of troops on the ground and ordered the production of a coherent plan for the aftermath.
A disregard for history's lessons is there most of all in Labour's mismanagement of the economy. One could only believe that boom and bust had been abolished if you were as completely ahistorical as Blair. Implicit in the statement is the idea that we are innately superior to our predecessors. Hadn't we discovered magical ways to make money work that our ancestors were too small-brained to imagine? Surely it is different this time? No: if you borrow and spend too much, the outcome will eventually be the same. While history cannot provide a precise template for action, it should teach leaders to avoid schoolboy errors – and to remain vigilant.
Gordon Brown, in contrast to Blair, is supposed to be extremely hot on history...
Read entire article at Telegraph (UK)
The thing about history, Tony Blair might have said, is that it is all in the past. New Labour was founded on the idea that there is virtually nothing our ancestors could possibly teach us.
Consequently, neophilia became the defining characteristic of the Blair era. "We are a young country," he said when heralding the emergence of Cool Britannia. But Britain is very old, with an extraordinary history and an ageing population. We're not a young country, by any measure.
Did the Civil Service, with its decades of experience, have anything to teach New Labour on its arrival in office? Don't be silly: it was disregarded. The House of Lords was also dragged into the 21st century in the name of modernity. The events of the last week prove what an enormously successful experiment that has been.
Next, the New Labour impulse infected foreign policy. In the days after 9/11, Blair made one of his most unintentionally revealing statements . "My father's generation lived through the Blitz," he said. "There was one country which stood by us at that time. That was America. As you stood by us in those days, we stand side by side with you now."
You know what he was getting at in his search for a suitably Atlanticist soundbite – and I share the sentiment – but there is a problem with accuracy. The Blitz started in September 1940 and the last major raid of that period was in May 1941. America did not enter the war until six months later.
President Roosevelt was certainly highly sympathetic to Britain's plight, and helped to introduce Lend Lease in March 1941 to supply Britain with war materials. But US public opinion was deeply divided during the Blitz. The countries that actually did stand side by side with us were Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa.
This demonstrates how simplistic was Blair's understanding of the "special relationship". As a result he failed to exploit his position of strength with an ally. Perhaps Margaret Thatcher would have backed the invasion of Iraq. But first she would have banged the table, demanded an adequate number of troops on the ground and ordered the production of a coherent plan for the aftermath.
A disregard for history's lessons is there most of all in Labour's mismanagement of the economy. One could only believe that boom and bust had been abolished if you were as completely ahistorical as Blair. Implicit in the statement is the idea that we are innately superior to our predecessors. Hadn't we discovered magical ways to make money work that our ancestors were too small-brained to imagine? Surely it is different this time? No: if you borrow and spend too much, the outcome will eventually be the same. While history cannot provide a precise template for action, it should teach leaders to avoid schoolboy errors – and to remain vigilant.
Gordon Brown, in contrast to Blair, is supposed to be extremely hot on history...