The right seems to have a tendency to be demonised more than the left, for some strange reason. When I studied Penal Policy at university I was the most right wing person in the class (in fact I was the only one – it was a small class). I was accused of cold heartlessness more than once. And my classmates adamantly refused to even consider the possibility that the right wing ideas of politicians could stem from anything other than blatant populism.

They could not concede that perhaps some politicians are right wing because they believe right wing policies will be more effective, rather than because they are shamelessly trying to court public votes. Nothing stifles a debate more quickly than an absolute refusal to extend a degree of intellectual courtesy to your opponent, and I have no patience with this disturbingly common trend.

No useful purpose can possibly be served in demonising people who are attempting to govern responsibly, and when I hear such remarks made about Tony Blair, George Bush or any other leader, I’m afraid I simply dismiss them out of hand as uninformed, sensationalist, nonsense. If there is to be a debate, then let it be a proper, *interesting* one with actual *facts* rather than the incoherence of emotive reasoning and the inappropriate use of generic trump cards that, depressingly, always go something along the lines of: “I just think e’s a waste of space.”

I am always charmed when I am able to have a civil, reasoned debate about politics with someone who recognizes that my views are shaped by a wealth of reading on the subject and a lot of careful thought, rather than promptly demonizing me as a “evil right wing monster who wants to kill the poor polar bears” when I say that I stand for the 1960s strand of Republicanism in America, exemplified by Barry Goldwater, and for the views espoused by such exemplars as Rockefeller, immortalized in stone at Rockefeller Center. That’s a very rare thing, these days, and I count it a matter of great joy that all the friends I have are able to deal adequately with opposing political viewpoints, and enjoy a rousing debate about such things. Helps that we’re mostly lawyers and philosophers and journalists and the odd academic, though.

I will admit, in passing, that I have nothing but contempt for those people who spout streams of vitriol at a particular leader without being able to articulate, in a reasoned, measured way, arguments for or against their views. If I dislike a leader, it is based on a clear-headed (albeit shaped by certain a priori normative views of what the proper place of individual, society and state should be) evaluation of his policies and whether they are appropriate to the circumstances, taking into account any information limitations that might be present.

As for the Iraq War and the Geneva Convention etc, if actual, qualified lawyers have become entangled in bitter argument as to the legality of the war, then who am I to pronounce it absolutely legal or illegal? I do, however, think there was a legitimate argument for enforcing the will of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441.

Medicine etc – most of what I know about this comes from Boston Legal so I am not really qualified to enter into a debate on the issue. However, I never said the Bush Administration was perfect – only that it should not be demonised – and, indeed, personally I would always rather see a Democrat as President of the US. In the constant search for the “least bad” way of doing things, no administration is ever going to have a spotless record (not even in the West Wing!).

I was aware when I wrote them that my views on this matter would be unpopular but they are my views, nevertheless, and so anyone with an opposing viewpoint will simply have to agree to differ with me on this one. I don’t think it’s a bad thing either. Disagreement is surely one of the most important aspects of any democracy. (A luxury, one might add, that would not have been granted citizens under the old regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Your question, however, requires a blog post all of its own! Perhaps I will do one eventually, so I don’t want to get drawn into an overly long response in this, the lowly comments section, of the blog. But suffice to say that I respect Tony Blair for being an eloquent, charismatic party leader who led Labour to an unprecedented series of electoral victories (must have been doing something right, eh?). He also seems to have a very good sense of humour (although I suppose this is more a reason for my liking him rather than respecting him). In short, I believe him to possess (in spades) wit, integrity and honour, and I think it’s a disgrace that he was pushed out of power as he was. In addition, I could name numerous social and domestic policies in which our political ideologies are exactly in accord.

As for President Bush, there are very few social issues that would find us in agreement because, as a Republican, President Bush was, by very definition, right wing, whereas I am a definite liberal in almost everything (saving, perhaps, penal and fiscal policy, in which I am a little more middle of the road). But a person does not have to be exactly the same as me in order for me to respect them. I think President Bush had the misfortune to become president at an extremely difficult time and, for that reason, people love to demonize him, whilst completely overlooking any aspect of his presidency that does not involve Iraq. I find this narrow minded and unfair. If you do not look at a thing objectively, in its entirety, then how can you possibly comment on it rationally? I think people should be able to discuss other aspects of his presidency irrespective of whether or not they think sending troops to Iraq was justified. And I think he was in an impossible position because if he had advocated a less proactive foreign policy then he would have faced accusations of weakness and appeasement (as, of course, poor old Neville Chamberlain did back in the 1930’s). Indeed, this no win situation is evident in the fact that President Bush has faced contradictory criticisms for his actions in the Middle East. Some have accused him of going to war to benefit Israel (i.e. serving Jewish interests rather than the interests of peace), but then in the same breath he is compared to Hitler who, as we all know, was no friend to the Jews.

I believe there should be some recognition of the political reality of the situation rather than this shrill, hysterical, black and white outlook that condemns him so utterly for a policy decision that was, ultimately, designed to save lives. Whether his decision was right or not, let’s not indulge in this absurd fantasy that it was made with anything other than his country’s best interests at heart. And, not being Spiderman, it must have been extremely difficult for him to know what to do in such a scenario (the similarity between this and the Cuban Missile Crisis faced by President Kennedy in the 1960′s springs to mind – the difference there was that the gamble paid off, and so presidential actions were applauded rather than vilified). At the very, very worst, President Bush’s decision was misguided and wrong, not evil.

I therefore respect him as an extremely intelligent man, and leader, (‘dysverbia’ is not indicative of stupidity, people), who did the best he could when faced with an impossible political situation, and has received a very rough deal indeed. I sincerely hope that, as with President Nixon, history will rectify the injustice of this.