IS PORTILLO NEXT?

The obvious choice for the next Tory leader is Michael Portillo, a brash, handsome, smart, fiscal conservative and social liberal. He was once a fire-breather of the Right, but a few years ago, after plenty of rumors, he confirmed that he had once had affairs with men in college, and had something of a change of tone. The usual suspects on the far right found this so abhorrent that they immediately scotched his chances to be a future Tory leader. Worse, the usual suspects on the left – i.e. gay leftists – berated him for alleged hypocrisy for many years and generally for not being a statist like them. Portillo braved it out and now looks set to run for the leadership. I wish him well. His private life, and his sexual orientation, have nothing to do with his ability to be a good politician or party leader. He’s married now and his private life should remain just that – private. Moreover, his experience of being pummeled in this way – and the dignity with which he put up with it – speaks well of him. I wish he’d be less defensive about his gay past; and I also hope that in his very late ‘coming out,’ he doesn’t go wobbly on a whole range of other matters. Now more than ever the British Tories need to stake out clear positions to the right of Tony Blair: much lower taxes, privatization of large parts of the National Health Service, more autonomy for schools, more inclusion of gays and racial minorities, and stiff opposition to the growth of a socialist federal European state. The Tories don’t have so much talent that they can afford to throw away a good potential leader because of gay intolerance on the left and straight intolerance on the right. If they waste Portillo, they’ll deserve more wilderness years. And if Portillo wins, his first task should be to make sure William Hague has a central role in the party. I know I’m biased, but William is a decent man who did right by his party. He deserves a little gratitude; and the Tories cannot afford to waste his talents either.

BUSH IN EUROPE: The usual suspects are bleating that the Europeans are upset about President Bush and that this is a good reason for Bush to change policies to suit, er, the New York Times. This is one of the dumber arguments around right now. If you disagree with Bush’s policies on, say, global warming or missile defense, make the arguments on their merits. But to use European opposition to American policies as proof that the U.S. is wrong is a non-sequitur. Like the Europeans were right in the 1980s when they wanted to keep appeasing the Soviet Union? Like they were right in the 1990s when they kept going on about Kyoto while doing nothing themselves to enforce it? Like they were right in the Balkans when they stood around opening and shutting their mouths until the U.S. took charge? Fareed Zakaria has a typically helpful piece in Newsweek this week clarifying some of these issues. I particularly like his point about unilateralism. When the Europeans send a mission to North Korea entirely to embarrass the Americans, it’s diplomacy. When Bush demurs on North Korea, it’s unilateralism. Go figure. I just hope Bush sticks to his guns in Europe and charms the epaulettes off their dinky and swiftly downsizing armies.

FLORIDA AGAIN: Glad to see the Washington Post’s ombudsman has taken the paper to task for being suckered by the leak of the biased and unpersuasive report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about alleged voting rights abuses in Florida. Read his column and feel better if, like me, you were taken aback by the Post’s coverage.

DON’T HAVE A HEART ATTACK, DUDE: In the annals of silly science, could anyone come up with a daffier one than the notion that pot should stay illegal because it can give you a heart attack if you’re in middle age? I’ve no doubt it’s true. But it’s also true that jogging in middle age can give you a heart attack; so can having sex; so can watching Geraldo. But no-one’s trying to ban any of the above (although one might have reveries about the latter). Cocaine, on the other hand, is apparently harmless in this respect. I guess this is relevant for aging boomer dudes – be careful, guys! – but I don’t see much broader significance than that. But how long will it take the pleasure police to use this material in their war against people’s private choices? Take it away, Gauleiter Walters!

EARTH TO HERBERT II: Finally, the media are beginning to get it. Here’s a good piece from the Washington Post today about the limits of cheap anti-retrovirals in Africa. “AIDS here is not a medical issue. It is a developmental problem, linked to social and economic conditions. It’s a poverty issue.” That’s not me. It’s Marc Aguirre, a doctor in the Ivory Coast. How long, I wonder, before Bob Herbert calls him a racist for telling the truth?