Tony Blair – The UK’s Obama.
He is not the villain of this story either. He is its most elegant European expression – the long march rebranded as modernization, delivered by a man so gifted at the aesthetics of the new that nobody noticed how old the project was.
1. He arrived in 1994 as the leader of a Labour Party that had lost four consecutive elections. What he offered was not socialism – he was too clever for that. He offered the third way: the progressive project stripped of its rough edges, repackaged for the professional class, delivered in the language of competence and modernity. New Labour. The name was the program. Everything that had made Labour unelectable was old. Everything Blair offered was new. The content was largely the same. The packaging was revolutionary.
2. The rhetorical genius was real. He could make the correct position feel like common sense, make the opposition feel not just wrong but somehow embarrassing, make voting Labour feel like joining the future rather than the past. "Things can only get better" was the campaign song. It was also the complete statement of the cultural hegemony achieved: the existing order was not just wrong, it was over. History was moving. The question was whether you were on the right side of it.
3. The institutional transformation was thorough and deliberate. Thirteen years produced: the Human Rights Act embedding European legal frameworks into British law, the devolution settlements fragmenting British sovereignty, the Supreme Court replacing the Law Lords, the civil service transformed, the BBC consolidated as the cultural apparatus of the new consensus, the public sector unions embedded as a permanent political constituency. The ratchet, applied with more sophistication than any previous British government.
4. The conservatives who followed spent a decade trying to reverse it. Cameron, May, Johnson – three prime ministers, three different styles, one shared achievement: they maintained what Blair had built while pretending to oppose it. This is what the ratchet looks like from the other side. You win the election. You do not win the institutions. The civil service thinks differently. The courts think differently. The BBC thinks differently. The universities think differently. You govern inside a framework designed by your opponents – and slowly, without noticing, you begin to think inside it too.
5. He left office in 2007 significantly richer than he entered it, which he achieved with a speed and comprehensiveness that impressed even people who disliked him. The lecture circuit, the consultancies, the memoir, the foundation. The man of the people became a remarkably successful business. The standard trajectory of the long march’s most successful products – who discover upon leaving office that the network they spent their careers building is also an extremely effective commercial infrastructure.
6. British politics runs approximately ten years ahead of American politics. Blair was Obama before Obama – the gifted communicator, the third way branding, the institutional transformation beneath the aesthetic, the network that outlasted the administration.
After Blair came Brown – the placeholder who discovered the machine was harder to run than to inherit. Like Biden, he was in the room. That was no longer enough.
After Brown came the conservatives – who couldn’t reverse the ratchet and didn’t really try.
And then came Starmer.
Keir Starmer is what the long march looks like when it no longer needs the gifted communicator. When the institutions are sufficiently captured, the inspiring leader is optional. You need someone who will maintain what was won – and take it further, quietly, without the poetry, without the charm, and without the need to persuade anyone of anything.
The Red Brigades with a budget and a parliamentary majority.
British politics is ten years ahead of the U.S.
That is, if you do not ACTIVELY choose to change the course of history…
Barack Obama – The Most Complete Product of the Long March – The Community Organizer Who Became President.
He is not the villain of this story either. He is its most gifted protagonist.
The son of a Kenyan economist and a Kansas anthropologist, raised partly in Indonesia and partly in Hawaii; community organizer in Chicago; president of the Harvard Law Review; Illinois state senator; U.S. senator; President of the United States at 47.
The American story working exactly as advertised – and simultaneously the most complete illustration of the Gramscian pipeline ever produced.
Not a contradiction.
The same thing.
1. He studied and taught the Alinsky method. Not metaphorically – literally.
In Chicago in the 1980s, Obama worked as a community organizer in an environment deeply shaped by Saul Alinsky’s organizing tradition. He taught workshops on the Alinsky method and learned the mechanics of organizing: identify interests, build relationships, develop leaders, acquire power, and use organization to turn local grievances into political force. He knew the manual. He taught the manual. He then applied it at national scale – which is either the most remarkable career progression in American political history or the most complete proof of concept the Long March ever produced. Probably both.
2. The rhetorical genius was real.
"Yes We Can." "Hope and Change." "We are the ones we have been waiting for."
The ability to speak the language of unity while practicing the politics of organization – Alinsky’s politics of conflict and organization wrapped in the aesthetics of reconciliation. The form was post-partisan. The content was the most disciplined ideological project since Reagan – except Reagan was trying to dismantle the administrative state and Obama was building it. The speeches made you feel the argument was over. The argument was just beginning.
3. The Nobel Prize, awarded eight months into his first term – for nothing yet done – is the most complete illustration of cultural hegemony in modern political history. The performance of the correct identity, the correct values, and the correct aesthetic was sufficient, before any policy, to generate the highest international recognition available. The prize was not for what he had done. It was for what he represented. Which is precisely the point – and precisely what Gramsci had theorized seventy years earlier.
4. The institutional transformation was the substance beneath the aesthetics. Eight years produced the expansion of the administrative state into every corner of American life, the installation of a generation of ideologically aligned officials throughout the federal bureaucracy, the transformation of the regulatory apparatus, the use of executive action to achieve what legislation could not. The ratchet, applied at presidential scale. A subsequent administration could change the direction but not undo the installation – because the people installed remained, in the civil service, the judiciary, the regulatory agencies, doing what they had been placed there to do.
5. He understood, better than any politician since Reagan, that politics is culture before it is policy. The campaign was a cultural event – the logo, the fonts, the rallies, the language, the sense that something larger than politics was happening. He didn’t win because of policy positions. He won because he had changed what felt possible – and what felt possible changed what people were willing to vote for. This is Gramsci applied to electoral politics: shift the cultural assumptions first, and the political victories follow as confirmation rather than cause.
6. The luxury beliefs were structural. Harvard Law. University of Chicago. Net worth approximately seventy million dollars after leaving office. Homes in Washington, Martha’s Vineyard, and Hawaii. The man of the people who became the establishment – whose policies on immigration, criminal justice, and education were most costly for the working-class communities he had organized in Chicago. And then there is the habit of describing yourself as the challenger long after you have become the establishment. The outsider rhetoric maintained from the most powerful office in the world. It is not hypocrisy exactly – it is the organizer’s grammar surviving the organizer’s promotion. The language was learned in Chicago in the 1980s and never updated, because it still worked, and because the audience it worked on never noticed the distance between the speech and the address.
7. The honest assessment: he was extraordinarily good at what he did. The question is what he did. He took the Alinsky manual, the Gramscian strategy, the Frankfurt School’s cultural framework, and synthesized them into the most electorally successful progressive project in American history. He didn’t design the long march. He was its most gifted product – and its most effective accelerant. The institutions he found captured, he left more captured. The Overton Window he found shifted, he left shifted further.
What he built – or rather, what he accelerated and consolidated – did not depend on him personally. The officials installed remain. The regulatory architecture expanded. The cultural assumptions shifted. The pipeline filled with people who wanted to be him and learned, from watching him, exactly how it was done.
The most complete product of the long march became its most effective teacher.