In response to Colin...

I hope that the P Club will always be a home to open debate, and that voices of dissent are always heard. It is in that spirit that I feel that I have to respond Colin's post from a few days ago. (Apologies for the enormous length, I had a lot to say. I know, Mr. Ed had a lot to say - shocker.)

At first glance, I simply took issue with the suggestion that we should tame some of our enthusiasm for such a momentous occasion. After all, the election of the first African-American president is a milestone, which seemed highly unlikely even at the start of this year. Furthermore, I would argue that the end of the George Bush's disastrous tenure as President is an event well worth up-ending a few beers over too. After thinking more about how I might reply to Colin's post, however, it occurred to me that I also take issue with his premise that the election of Tony Blair and New Labour achieved nothing, and moreover, I feel that such a cynical view of politics is both intellectually lazy and ill-advised.

The issue of race is one that has divided the US since its inception. The second paragraph of the declaration of independence begins: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Yet, the authors of this noble document were almost all slave-owners. The civil war remains the bloodiest conflict in US history - it claimed more American lives than all the wars the US has fought in the 20th century combined - and despite the crowing of a few 'Southern' historians, the root cause was slavery. Although at the end of the war slavery was abolished, blacks were forced to live as second-class citizens for another 100 years.

It's easy for us foals to view early 60s as a far distant time, but it is also important to remember that at the time of Barack Obama's birth, inter-racial marriage was illegal in many US states. During that time we've come a long way in the US, over the past 40-odd years, but it hasn't been easy. There have been tremendous set-backs and devastating losses; there have also been great triumphs, such as the victory on Tuesday night. Celebrating such a pivotal moment in history is important, not only to recognise Barack Obama's remarkable achievement, but also to recall the tireless work of so many who laid the groundwork for his victory, and most of all, to remember the terrible price so many have paid in the struggle for racial equality.

With that said, the effusive joy that accompanied Obama's win this past week has another side to it. This election marks the ouster of one of the most unpopular US presidents in history, and the end of a truly dark time for the world as a whole. Bush launched a dreadful and unnecessary war. He illegally spied on US citizens, intercepting their letters and phone calls. He suspended civil rights, held US citizens with hearing or trial, and abducted innocent people and sent them to distant countries to be brutalised. He authorised the use of torture by US soldiers and spies, and started a concentration camp, conveniently outside of the jurisdiction of US courts. Furthermore, George Bush was a lousy domestic leader; from Katrina and Terri Schiavo to the co-opting of the Justice Department as a wing of the Republican Party, his record has been one of incompetence, over-reach and corruption. The end of Bush's disastrous foreign policy, his illegal and immoral practices in the war on terror and his abysmal domestic governance are surely something to celebrate.

I think the paragraphs above go some way to explaining why I think Colin's analogy linking 1997 in the UK and 2008 in the US is flawed: Tony Blair was never, and could never be, a cultural or historical figure on par with Barack Obama. Not to mention that John Major and the Tories, for all their flaws, were never anywhere near as malign as the Bush-Rove Republican Party. However, even glossing over these imperfections, I would take issue with what is implied by the analogy: that Tony Blair and the Labour government elected in 1997 ultimately failed to achieve the "great things" their supporters (and detractors) thought they might achieve.

On a narrow political angle, Tony Blair led the Labour party, for the first time ever, to three consecutive electoral victories. Moreover, with hindsight it is clear that the 1997 election marked a watershed, the point at which mainstream British politics shifted to the centre or even centre-left. For evidence of this, one need only look at the opposition party. After the 1997 election, the first instinct of the Tories was to move even further to the right, albeit with a younger face: William Hague suffered a devastating defeat. After another election defeat and several more years in the wilderness - and several more leaders - the Conservative party has finally returned to some semblance of a viable political force. How did David Cameron achieve this? The new Conservative party represents a softer conservatism, one that embraces the NHS. There's a focus on conservation, the environment and public transport initiatives. There are even stirrings of a less hostile approach to Europe. In short, these policy positions represent a profound movement to the centre for the Tories - a move they had to make to be viable in the political climate of Britain today. A political climate, that Tony Blair was instrumental in creating.

In the final analysis Blair's legacy will be inextricably tied to the Iraq war, and rightly so. Like many Britons, I still feel betrayed by his mendacity in the lead-up to the war, and history has rendered its judgment on his decision to support Bush. However, to measure the successes (or failures) of the New Labour movement as a whole by this metric is myopic.

Finally, I would take issue with Colin's tone. Enthusiasm for a candidate or party running with on a mantra of "change" can always be written-off as mawkish naiveté. I would counter though, that knee-jerk cynicism is no better; at it's best it is intellectual laziness, at worst, a fool's substitute for wisdom. Of course Obama will make mistakes, as he himself acknowledged in his speech on Tuesday, and he will make decisions that I disagree with - this is par for the course in politics. However, feeling confidence, pride even, in a prospective leader of a country should not be construed as naive or shameful.

It's all to easy to say all politicians are crooks and liars, the parties are just modern tribalism, and that regardless of the outcome of an election, the end result will always be the same. There are many examples that prove this thesis wrong, but none so fresh in my mind, nor so stark, as the 2000 election here in the US. After 8 years of economic growth and prosperity, Americans were complacent. Conventional wisdom held that the outcome of the election wouldn't have any lasting impact on the country; and yet, imagine where we might be on issues such as climate change or the War on Terror if Gore had been in the White House instead of Bush. Perhaps the most striking, not to mention ironic, effect of the 2000 election is this: if Al Gore had won, it is almost certain that Barack Obama would not have just won the 2008 election.

All decisions have consequences, all choices matter, and few are more important than those made at the ballot box. The outcome of every election has both long- and short-term effects, many of which are unknowable. We can choose to vote according to our aspirations and our ideals, or we can let fear, prejudice and cynicism guide our electoral choices. Call me naive, but I know which I prefer.

- Mr. Ed