It was a speech only a true liberal could love. But not the liberal of what liberalism has become. Not an equivocation that imagines a morally relative universe of pious multiculturalism, but an expression of pluralism that is girded and supported by rock solid social, historical, moral, political, and humanist, values. It is not rooted in a religious morality more to President Bush's taste, but the near epicurean flavor of secular ethics and the cherished belief of equality among the peoples of the world in terms of the rights of man. Good speech for the Left, right? Guess again.

It is a speech that a broad spectrum of the Left will cynically dismiss as ass-covering for no WMDs being found thus far in Iraq, a grand hoopla to dress up globalization with the red herring of freedom and democracy. A poodle's tail wagging to please his master, whom Harry Belafonte claims is also being served by Uncle Toms in the master's administration. In short, it will be a guilty pleasure to read the Lefty reviews of this speech in the days and, perhaps, weeks ahead.

We've heard their talk before, and while no one disputes that great oration is a sublime form of propaganda, those, who misunderstand the peril we face and reject the notion that we must fight it head on, fail also to understand at heart what is at stake, what it is we seek to preserve, what values we—as a nation, a collection of diverse peoples, and a civilization—possess, and what we ultimately seek to achieve in our endeavor to bring stability and order to a part of the world whose tyrants we have coddled for too long out of selfish interests.

Tony Blair may have just given the speech of his career. Let's just assume he did. Yesterday, July 17th, Mr. Blair addressed the United States Congress. In his address Blair covers a lot of territory, bonding with America and its citizens through English humor and camaraderie, focusing on our common heritage without demeaning or ignoring other cultures, diplomatically taking to task Bush's enemies in Europe and the U.S., reminding America of its ties to Europe, mentioning in passing the perils of environmental pollution but the unworkable exactions of Kyoto, touching upon America's central role in the fight against terrorism yet cautioning against the seductions of exercising great power, outlining his idea of what Europe should become and how Britain must be a part of it without loss of its identity— he spent a whole section addressing the Europeans—steadfastly defending the overthrow of Saddam Hussein but hedging just enough to claim the action was right for humanitarian reasons if history shows the intelligence was imperfect, and finally winding up with an exhortation to keep our shared bond with one another in our struggle not only to survive but leave the world in better shape than before.

It was a speech John F. Kennedy would have loved. Too bad it will ring false for many luminaries in the Democrat Party today. Who would have thought a Labor Party leader would deliver such a speech extolling the virtues of the free market when there is no possibility a contemporary American liberal leader could have in any way approximated it?

Interestingly, Blair's speech sparkles with a deeply grasped sense of internationalism. Only, it is not the internationalism of the "Internationale" or Europe's Super State. It is, instead, the internationalism of the free market, of the centrality of balance between the rights of the individual and the welfare of the community, or commonwealth, and of the security and prosperity that they foster and that are guaranteed more reliably within representational government, of the consent of the governed, than within any other form of government.

Blair is not cynical. That is why he actually believes what he is saying. What he said yesterday will resonate profoundly for anyone who understands what political, cultural, and economic freedom really is. In other words, what freedom is and why we must fight to defend it. Such conviction is not free of self-criticism; indeed, self-censor is one hallmark of many individuals who live with this freedom. But it is not the sore and tired self-loathing, and the material and political luxury that allow one to indulge it, of those in the West who believe our way of life has caused untold suffering elsewhere and that our values, what we believe in, what we will kill and die for if necessary, are really no better than those of others who see terrorism as a rightful tool and tyrannies as most suitable and natural for human beings.

Blair makes no excuses for his values, for our way of life. It is a leader like him that will preserve the best tradition of liberalism by detaching it from the radicalism of the past century to which, in large enough measure, it has become almost fatally stuck. The very idea of unity, and not of divisiveness, of fanaticism, is a quintessentially liberal value. Here is what he says about the current world.

Because we all have too much to lose. Because technology, communication, trade and travel are bringing us ever closer together. Because in the last 50 years, countries like yours and mine have tripled their growth and standard of living. Because even those powers like Russia or China or India can see the horizon, the future wealth, clearly and know they are on a steady road toward it. And because all nations that are free value that freedom, will defend it absolutely, but have no wish to trample on the freedom of others.

There is a nice collection of nations that are NOT in the West. Blair mentions the nations in the above excerpt as well as Kashmir, the Middle East, Chechnya, Indonesia, Africa, Afghanistan, Congo, Romania, Bulgaria, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Israel, and Northern Ireland. In fact, it seems almost like a politically correct litany of nations. Blair is attempting to reach Americans and remind them they must not indulge in isolationism, that America does have allies in Europe, that there is, perhaps, hope for cooperation among estranged neighbors "[b]ecause we all have too much to lose."

Here is a stunning admission, not at all politically correct and certainly to be reviled by Blair's enemies at home and on the Continent, not to mention like minded people everywhere:

There is no more dangerous theory in international politics than that we need to balance the power of America with other competitive powers; different poles around which nations gather.

And I believe any alliance must start with America and Europe. If Europe and America are together, the others will work with us. If we split, the rest will play around, play us off and nothing but mischief will be the result of it.

He also takes to task those who find any opportunity they can to negate the rightful cause of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and he does so using the Lefty bias against religious intolerance.

The risk is that terrorism and states developing weapons of mass destruction come together. And when people say, "That risk is fanciful," I say we know the Taliban supported Al Qaida. We know Iraq under Saddam gave haven to and supported terrorists. We know there are states in the Middle East now actively funding and helping people, who regard it as God's will in the act of suicide to take as many innocent lives with them on their way to God's judgment.

There are so many other features of this speech that are noteworthy but I'll let you judge for yourself. Bush has a great ally in Blair. The American people should be grateful to him even as many of his own people are not. Thank you, Mr. Blair.