It’s not that complimentary to be known as a “good politician” (cf the phrase “he got off bcz he had a good lawyer”) – but is the victor in an election simply by DEFINITION the better politician? process-heads would i imagine argue – as they do in fact in re the evils of cynical legalistic gamesplaying – that the value of the system we have is that it works pretty well not DESPITE the gamesplaying but in fact through and out of the gamesplaying (ie a pol’s own ambitions, self-love, “technique” etc, combine w.all the other forces present to produce the NEEDED result, even or especially when this is distinct from the DESIRED or WILLED result). also “honest conviction” is NOT in itself enough, as any fule kno: better that a rogue get a good policy enacted than a saint fail*.
On the other hand, ppl call eg churchill a GREAT politician bcz – apparently in the service of the Greater Anti-Tyranny Good of Humanity as a Whole blah blah – he oversaw the effective dismantlement of some of his own personal deepest commitments (viz to the continued health of the brit emp: he chose a course which saw the shut-down of the BE, yet stuck w.this the clearer it became) (and interestingly WSC skipped straight from “failed” to “great” w/o ever passing through “good”): eg churchill’s grebtness lies somewhat in the gritty selflessness (aka colossal vanity if you like) of his opportunism.
I’m asking this i think cz i feel that:
i. Blair is the most cannily intuitively gifted politician of our times (by some way) , but
ii. if he wins BECAUSE of this, this may actually be a bad thing (it will demonstrate the effectiveness of all manner of dodgy shifts in process), and
iii. he may actually LOSE bcz of this (which makes no sense i know)
*(this is ps the second but more important weakness in the verit4s platform: rks = a villain who thinks himself a hero, but the constituency for the kind of hero he thinks he is is SMALL)