The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Blair and the "narcissist's defence"

Ken Macdonald on why "I did what I thought was right" is not a defence

By George Eaton Published 14 December 2009 10:40

There's something worth quoting in almost every section of Ken Macdonald's remarkable polemic against Tony Blair and the Iraq war in today's Times. But here's my favourite passage:

Since those sorry days we have frequently heard him repeating the self-regarding mantra that "hand on heart, I only did what I thought was right". But this is a narcissist's defence and self-belief is no answer to misjudgement: it is certainly no answer to death.

In what conceivable circumstances, I have always wanted to ask Blair, would you have done what you thought was wrong?

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Iraq Inquiry Tony Blair

More from George Eaton

9 comments

Sun, 2010-01-17 21:08 — youcannotbeserious (not verified)

Extracted from my 2005 Christmas letter:

"Just for a change we shall begin with a Christmas ‘Quiz’.

1. The following are (some of the) items on Hare’s widely used and highly regarded Psychopathy checklist:
• Glibness/superficial charm
• Egocentricity/grandiose sense of self-worth
• Pathological lying and deception
• Conning/lack of sincerity
• Lack of remorse or guilt
• Parasitic lifestyle
• Lack of realistic long-term plans
• Impulsivity
• Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

First, reflect for a few moments (giving prominence to aspects of the Iraq war) and then ask yourself who these personality traits bring to mind. Is it/are they:
a. George Dubya Bush;
b. Tony Charles Lynton Blair;
c. Both a and b;
d. Neither a nor b.
Scoring: a – 8 points; b – 10 points [It’s the parasitic lifestyle item that separates Blair & Bush; Bush holidays on his own ranches; Blair sponges off the dubious Cliff Richard and the odious Berlusconi.]; c – 18 points; d – you cannot be serious: 20 points (includes a 2 point bonus for the sarcasm)."

And from Christmas 2007 letter:

[With apologies to Yeats]
…
Was it needless death after all?
…
I write it out in a verse -
Rumsfeld and Cheney
And Bush and Blair
Now and in time to be,
Wherever red, white, and blue is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible ignominy is born.

[And Brooke] And if He should die think only this of Him: He did what (He thought) was right and only God and History are entitled to judge otherwise. What name shall we give to a personality disorder so monumental in its self-absorption that it renders invisible (what to anybody else would be) overwhelming self-incriminating evidence? Solipsistic narcissism (or Narcissistic solipsism), perhaps? And now, to bring peace, he is returning to the lands where previously he despatched his weapons of mass destruction. Life imitating satire, I’ve seen it written. [Beats Henry Kissinger’s Nobel Peace prize into a cocked hat!]"

Sat, 2010-01-30 03:51 — Joshua Blakeney

I support wholeheartedly all the talk about trying to arrest Blair and Bush. But I am amazed that the mainstream media, including the New Statesman, has censored the story about the man in Calgary, AB, Canada who attempted a citizens' arrest on Bush on March 17th 2009. The gentleman's name is Splitting the Sky. He is a Mohawk activist and veteran of the Attica prison debacle. His lawyer is Ramsay Clark. STS will stand trial in March 2010 for “obstructing” the policeman who was protecting Bush in violation of Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes legislation. Why does the New Statesman censor this story? Isn't STS's action much greater than the symbolic gesture of the shoe thrower Muntadhar al-Zaidi? See these links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62a53enMtA0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIj9wGZyWM8
http://www.splittingthesky.net/

You may also take heed of Anthony J. Hall's pertinent analysis: http://www.voltairenet.org/article159233.html#article159233

Tue, 2010-01-05 18:46 — John Parker (not verified)

When Blair is interviewed at the Chilcot inquiry, can we expect the new detergent product, 'Faith', to be used to remove all stains and leave everything 'whiter than whitewash'?

Sat, 2009-12-19 03:42 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Personally I don't think there's anything remarkable about Mr.MacDonald's opinion. Nor is there anything remarkable about Mr.Blairs recent comments. Everyone's entitled to say what they think without fear or favour etc..which might be something to do with personal dignity, autonomy, agency and integrity(I think therefore I am, perhaps?)

Anyway, if we didn't have these we really would be breaking the back of our constitutional liberties, it seems to me. Thus said; Mr.MacDonald should get off the front pages and find something more constitutionally useful to do.

Mon, 2009-12-14 12:27 — Chris (not verified)

"In what conceivable circumstances... would you have done what you thought was wrong?" Ah, but the likes of Blair wouldn't consider anything they did as being wrong, or if they did, they'd find some way of justifying it to themselves!

Mon, 2009-12-14 13:48 — Chris (not verified)

In other language, he was in a majority of one - just like Saddam Hussein

Mon, 2009-12-14 22:30 — writeon1

Blair exhibits many of the classic traits of sociopathetic behaviour, couple this with ordering mass murder, and one is a only a sliver away from the psychopath.

Tue, 2009-12-15 19:28 — Daniel Taghioff (not verified)

A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and the rights of others occurring since the age of 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

B) The individual is at least 18 years of age.

C) There is evidence of Conduct disorder with onset before age 15.

D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.

Deceit and manipulation are considered essential features of the disorder. Therefore, it is essential in making the diagnosis to collect material from sources other than the individual being diagnosed.[7]