Tony Blair's Emotional Intelligence

Yesterday I was in Waterstones flicking through Tony Blair’s memoirs, lamely entitled ‘A Journey.’ And I stumbled upon the famous bit where he describes his successor Gordon Brown as having zero emotional intelligence. I’m sure he’s right, in a way. But it got me thinking a bit about what the term means, because I never thought Tony Blair’s uncritical acceptance of men like George Bush and Silvio Berlusconi showed what I think of as emotional intelligence (EI).

There is no set definition of the term, and what we find in Wiki is probably as good as any: Emotional intelligence (EI) describes the ability…. to identify, assess, and control the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups.

One reason Tony Blair said what he did about Gordon Brown was because of Gordon’s lack of instinctual connection to the people and what they wanted. So Tony was right from the point of view of the Wiki definition.

But I think this definition is terribly superficial, in the same way that IQ as an ability to solve puzzles at speed is also very superficial. Far more important with the intellect is the ability to reflect over time, to weigh up courses of action and their likely consequences (a strength of Librans!)

With EI, or EQ (Emotional Quotient) as it is sometimes called, I think that what matters is the ability to perceive, and respond effectively to, the needs of those around you; and this would be based on self-knowledge and a shrewd assessment of the people around you (often a Libran weakness in their desire to be ‘fair’!).

What I am talking about are grown-up qualities. The usual definition of IQ favours clever schoolboys and aspergic computer nerds; and the usual definition of EI favours power-crazed manipulators.

I think that to be of value, the definition of IQ needs to point in the direction of wisdom; and EI/EQ needs to emphasise the ability to put others first. I find it extraordinary that you can have a definition of Emotional Intelligence that does not recognise the importance of moving from the self-centredness of a child towards a more altruistic outlook. It says so much about the competitive ‘me’ culture that we live in, me and ‘my’ achievement.

This sort of movement is basic to astrology and to any sane understanding of human development. In astrology, you have the early signs from Aries to Virgo that describe the individual and his/her early development. But then from Libra onwards you are talking about a progressively deeper engagement with the Other, firstly on an individual basis, and then with the society you live in.

Going back to Tony Blair, I think he was and is no doubt very good at engaging people and getting them on his side. And very quick-minded too. High IQ and EQ. And no doubt George Bush could be personally charming and affable. But George Bush’s motives were often clearly not those of a responsible leader.

He put himself forward for the job when he was ill-qualified to do so, he had a complex of issues around his father and proving himself, and he didn’t care very much for people outside of his own narrow tribe. I have no objection to Tony Blair personally liking the man, but George Bush is someone with whom you would need to be very wary of engaging in joint ventures, which Tony Blair did with gusto. Gordon Brown, on the other hand, backed away from George Bush once he was Prime Minister, and I don’t think this was just political posturing: it showed a higher EQ than Tony Blair, whatever Gordon’s failings in personal relationships and in popular touch.

It was the same with Silvio Berlusconi. The man is clearly a self-centred clown who is used to getting exactly what he wants in large doses, whether it is money, power or women. Yet in his memoirs Tony Blair goes on about what a great guy he is. Like GWB, he might well be personally fun to hang out with. But only because it suits Berlusconi. You couldn’t trust a man like that.

It’s like Tony Blair knows how to live in the world of power, he knows how to relate to the people in it. That is a kind of EQ, and I’m sure he’s a lot better at it than I would be. But he doesn’t understand his own love of power and love of being around it. He thinks he is this regular, unideological sort of guy who wants to help the world, and being at the top is the best place to do it. And he thinks the rest of us just don’t understand what great guys people like GWB are once you get to know them. Blair is kind of touching in his naivety.

Tony Blair is an object lesson in how capable and bright someone can be, and yet how deluded they can be about their own motives, how lacking in emotional development, how lacking in EQ in a real sense. I would trust Gordon Brown any day over Blair. OK, he was power-seeking as well, and not lacking in personal blind spots. But you feel a more genuine desire to help underneath it all, and more humility. Tony Blair sees the world in fairly black and white terms – good versus evil, right versus wrong. It gives him certainty and therefore conviction.

The primary appeal of his Roman Catholicism is that it bolsters his sense of certainty and of being one of the good guys. Blair is intensely ideological, even though he thinks otherwise. One thing you can be sure of when you encounter someone who sees the world in black and white terms is that they are emotionally primitive. George Bush had the same sort of primitive emotional life. That is why the two got on so well, despite being from incompatible political backgrounds.

So I think Tony Blair has no right to say that Gordon Brown has ‘zero emotional intelligence.’ He’s right that Gordon is abysmal in certain vital ways. But there’s more heart there, which of course is not relevant under the usual definition of EI/EQ.