Today's brilliant example comes from Sunny Hundal, who, whilst being a good writer sometimes, just has a tendency to throw in rather stupid remarks. In a post he has done titled "White-washing George Bush’s legacy" which is largely an attack on Tim Montgomerie's decision to write a post listing what he think Bush did right rather than what he did wrong. Sunny says,
It’s an old tradition on the right to try and paint glowing legacies for political leaders who have been abject failures (think Ronald Reagan) so they can look back and reminisce about the entirely made-up good old days.Correction Sunny. It is an old tradition of party political hacks on either side to try and paint glowing legacies for political leaders who have been abject failures. It's not something that is exclusive to the Right, and suggesting it is makes you look exactly like one of those partisan idiots you often complain about on the Right.
The fact is is that every democratic political leader, historically speaking, will have done somethings right, and somethings wrong. A leader that has managed to win a second General Election can probably be said to have definitely done something right in their first term.
Tony Blair did somethings right, and somethings wrong. Likewise, when Brown is gone there will be those who will write about what he did right as well. Of course, the judgment of what is right and what is wrong, will vary based on the subjective bias of the person assessing the period.
However, the idea that one leader or the other is an abject failure from start to finish, that is to say everything they touch went wrong, is frankly bollocks. What is even more bollocks is the idea that writing positively about a leader when most writing is negative is something only the Right do - one assumes that the apologists on the Left for, amongst others, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein passed you by?