Growing apart
Sep 2nd 2004
From The Economist print edition
George Bush is cross with Michael Howard about Iraq, but that's not all that divides Republicans and Tories
NO DOUBT the group of 20 Conservative MPs and officials who attended this week's Republican Party convention in Manhattan will feel their trip was worthwhile. British politicians, hungry for new techniques and winning ideas, are used to looking to America to provide them. And the Tories are in urgent need of both.
Tony Blair learned about the third way and triangulation at Bill Clinton's knee. William Hague, the last Tory leader but one, became briefly excited by George Bush's compassionate conservatism. More prosaically, Ronald Reagan introduced Margaret Thatcher to the joys of the autocue. Liam Fox, the Tory co-chairman who led the little delegation to New York, has just splashed a large amount of the party's cash on an American software package that tracks the views of individual voters in swing seats and then bombards them with targeted messages.
There is some scepticism back home whether the system can be adapted to British circumstances. But however tricky it proves to operate, the software is likely to be a good deal more useful than anything else Dr Fox's team brings back from its fraternal visit. The relationship between British Tories and American Republicans has traditionally been warm and mutually regarding; but now it is chilly and mutually uncomprehending.
The immediate cause of the estrangement is the Iraq war. Last weekend, it was revealed that Karl Rove, Mr Bush's closest political adviser, had told Michael Howard's aides that the Tory leader would not be welcome if he turned up to see the president. Mr Rove was reported as saying in a furious telephone call: You can forget about meeting the president. Don't bother coming. You're not meeting him. What had caused such anger in the White House was Mr Howard's apparently equivocal attitude to the war. In particular, his attacks on Mr Blair for having misled the country over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and his suggestion that the prime minister should seriously be considering his position were seen as contemptible opportunism and a direct criticism of Mr Bush himself.
Revealingly, instead of trying to play down this unprecedented snub, Mr Howard opted for escalation, commenting: If some people in the White House, in their desire to protect Mr Blair, think I am too tough on Mr Blair or too critical of him, they are entitled to their opinion. But I will continue to do my job as I see fit. While a few Tory MPs were horrified by the implications of the spatin particular what it said about the White House's view of Mr Howard's chances of becoming prime ministerdislike of Mr Bush is so widespread and deep-seated among British voters, including Tory supporters, that most thought it would do Mr Howard nothing but good.
Some of the Tory distaste for Mr Bush stems from his lavish praise for Mr Blair, but it goes far deeper than that. While Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan might have been kindred spirits bound together by a sense of shared mission, both the world and their respective parties have changed greatly over the past 20 years. The cold war was won and so, too, was the battle for market economics. But while the American right, despite the Clinton interregnum, has grown in strength and confidence, British conservatism, demoralised by defeat, is no longer certain what it stands for.
Tory MPs to whom Bagehot has spoken estimate that at least half their number would rather see a John Kerry presidency than Mr Bush re-elected. Even one of Mr Howard's frontbench team, Alan Duncan, has expressed a preference for Mr Kerry. So too has Michael Portillo, a former leadership candidate. In a recent interview, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a foreign secretary in the Major government and a likely leadership front-runner should Mr Howard depart after the election expected next year, argued that the Tories should run on an anti-war, anti-Bush, pro-UN platform. Sir Malcolmand many liberal Tories agree with himalso thinks that his party should stand up for civil liberties against the creeping authoritarianism of a Labour government preoccupied with violent crime and the threat of terrorism.
The Tories' confusion about who and what they are is largely the result of Mr Blair's ruthless ability to steal their ideas and occupy their traditional ground. Defining themselves against Mr Blair without looking silly or extreme is not easy. But even without the phenomenon of Mr Blair, today's Conservative Party would still look at Mr Bush's Republicans with a mixture of disbelief and horror. In Britain, there is no equivalent of the religious right, which dominates the social agenda of the Republican Party. The social conservatism that is the bedrock of today's Republican Party hardly exists in Britain.
Glad to be gay
In common with the rest of western Europe, Britain is essentially a post-Christian society. Religion, for the few who practise it, is a private matter. Churches here are unassuming, polite and a bit lefty. There is a small anti-abortion movement, but it is nothing like the American pro-life groups that terrorise politicians of the centre and right. There is almost no debate about stem-cell research and very little about gay marriage. The Conservatives, desperate these days to convince voters of their socially liberal credentials, are busily selecting as many homosexuals and single mothers as they can muster to contest winnable seats. Mr Rove would not know where to begin if he sought to build a successful conservative coalition in Britain.
Moderate Republicans, such as Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger, have been to the fore in New York this week, and Republicans and Tories still share the same sentiments (often more honoured in the breach) in favour of smaller government and lower taxation. But nothing can disguise the fact that these are two parties heading at speed in opposite directions.
