Red Ken and the terrorists

It's not often you see the chief executive of a foreign city given his own commentary piece in American newspapers, but that's what's happened with London mayor Ken Livingstone. I noticed his piece in yesterday's Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, repeating his stance that Londoners will not be cowed or defeated by terrorist actions (though for some reason I can't now find it on that paper's web site).

The US media aren't quite sure how to handle Livingstone. Surely many in the media would like to frame him as a London version of Rudy Giuliani. Indeed, many of the early reports showed Livingstone condemining the attacks, and standing up stoically to the terrorists. Early Livingstone quotes placed him nicely in this frame. E.g., this from the AP:

London Mayor Ken Livingstone said the blasts were "mass murder" carried out by terrorists bent on "indiscriminate ... slaughter." ... ""This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty or the powerful ... it was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners," said Livingstone, in Singapore where he supported London's Olympic bid.

And Livingstone's "You will fail!" speech aimed at the terrorists sounded almost Churchillian, and was widely praised in America (a country that loves all things Churchill).

In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.

They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don’t want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.

The trouble is for the US establishment and MSM, Livingstone is not a Rudy Giuliani. He has a history of political positions well to the left of almost all American mainstream politicians - although that didn't stop him getting elected by the citizens of London (in the teeth of Tony Blair's opposition, no less). I remember when, in the 1980s, Livingstone was roundly villainized by the right-wing press as "Red Ken." This was back when he was leader of the Greater London Council (subsequently abolished by Margaret Thatcher), and he had the temerity to place on the GLC headquarters, directly across the Thames from the House of Commons, a giant sign showing the weekly rise in UK unemployment figures (3,005,437, 3,067,556, 3,145,320, etc.)

"Red Ken" has moderated his opinions somewhat, but he retains a left-wing political philosophy and a raft of positions on international issues, including a tendency to lean toward the Palestinians in the Israel-Palestinian dispute (inevitably, American media define any position along such lines as "radical" or extremist, although to be fair, some of Livingstone's contacts with Palestinian elements linked to terrorism could fairly be criticized.) Anyway, this instantly sets up a tension in the US media, who are not sure how to deal with Livingstone. How do they lionize him as a sturdy bulwark against the terrorists when he takes many political positions that the MSM would normally condemn or marginalize? The New York Times expressed this tension in a piece by Craig Smith back on July 12 ("Usually Volatile Mayor Wins Praise for Low-Key Presence", p. A8):

Ken Livingstone, London's famously loose-lipped mayor, boards subway to express city's determination not to be cowed by terrorists, but is otherwise keeping remarkably low profile, with nothing of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's take-charge behavior after Sept 11 attacks in New York; photo; one of reasons may be his controversial past overtures to radical Muslim youth and strong pro-Palestinian and pro-immigrant positions; London mayor's office also does not control emergency services as New York's mayor does, and it would not be seemly for Livingstone to upstage Prime Min Tony Blair or Queen Elizabeth.

David Gelernter eschews all ambivalence, getting stuck in to Livingstone in an LA Times opinion piece, titled "London's mayor: A terrorist puppet?" (The evidence Gelertner lays out focuses, inevitably, on Livingstone's sympathy with the Palestinian cause).

Perhaps the MSM will make its mind up about Livingstone now that he has comes out and charged that "decades of British and American intervention in the oil-rich Middle East motivated the London bombers" (See BBC report here.). This will probably necessitate a change of heart by the right-wing Weekly Standard, which wrote after Livingstone's "They will fail" speech that "the left-wing mayor of London, an apologist for terrorism in the past, spoke for decent people everywhere when he denounced the attacks and made no attempt to ape his fellow lefties in blaming the United States and British governments for them." And US-based Brit blogger Andrew Sullivan, no leftie he, admired "Livingstone's ability to see how liberal and left-wing Londoners who have helped build an amazingly vibrant, diverse and tolerant city are particularly affronted by these medieval monsters." Sullivan continued: "Maybe this will help build support for a war that is as unavoidable as it is unlosable. I don't mean we won't continue to differ over means and methods and tactics and strategy. We will. That's our strength. But right and left, we are in this together."

Ahem. Maybe not. This will likely take some of the shine off of Livingstone, at least in the eyes of the US media, who have to realize that the prism through which this "war on terrorism" is "fought" is significantly different in the UK. And remember, Livingstone's position is broadly in line with the charge made in a report by the highly respected Royal Institute for International Affairs (and which also got picked up by the US media), that Britain's involvement in the Iraq invasion has increased the terrorist threat to Britain. Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw have both rejected the RIAA report. Still, the whole issue of how Livingstone is framed in the UK and the US shows up once again the different dominant ideological positions staked out in these two countries. We might expect to hear more MSM references not to the "London mayor" but to "Red Ken" - if we hear anything more about him at all.