A progressive young leader sweeps into power on a tide of euphoria, consigning a discredited right-wing regime to history. He promises huge changes to his jubilant supporters, vowing to re-shape politics and govern for the benefit of the ordinary and the oppressed, not for the mega-rich who waxed fat under his predecessors. Adoring profiles of the new leader fill the media, portraying him with his wife and children as they settle into their roles at the heart of national life. But alas! In the years ahead, he will deliver crushing disappointment to his supporters while channeling lots more money to the mega-rich.

I’ve just described the election of the gasbag lawyer Tony Blair in 1997. But I could just as well have been describing the election of the gasbag lawyer Barack Obama in 2008. The resemblance between the two men is uncanny, right down to the pathological narcissism, the repulsive, grasping wives and the rumours about secret homosexuality. But the chief resemblance is that both men are lying conmen who promised the moon and delivered hot air.

I saw it coming with Blair: after his victory in 1997, I commented on the euphoria by inventing a new dating system. In a letter to a friend, I said it was now 1 Anno Blairi, the First Year of Tony. It was obvious that Blair would never deliver the miracles he loudly promised. And he didn’t. When Barack Obama first appeared in the British media, I realized that he was a tinted version of Blair, full of fine words and fake promises. So I knew what was ahead once he was elected.

But the mega-minds at the Guardian were fooled by both gasbags. They were beside themselves with ecstasy when Obama was elected in 2008. Then the truth about their Mocha Messiah slowly began to sink in. It’s taken years, but one by one they’ve left the cult. Gary Younge, the Guardian’s chief Black intellectual, has just asked a question that would have seemed utterly blasphemous in 2008:

Barack Obama has now been in power for longer than [Lyndon] Johnson was, and the question remains: “What the hell’s his presidency for?” His second term has been characterised by a profound sense of drift in principle and policy. … In December, even as he pursued one whistleblower, Edward Snowden and kept another, Chelsea Manning, incarcerated, he told the crowd at Nelson Mandela’s funeral: “There are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba’s struggle for freedom, but do not tolerate dissent from their own people.” If there was a plot, he’s lost it. If there was a point, few can remember it. If he had a big idea, he shrank it. If there’s a moral compass powerful enough to guide such contradictions to more consistent waters, it is in urgent need of being reset. … His ascent to power had meaning. It’s his presence in power that lacks purpose. … “If you’re going to be president, then I guess you obviously want to be in the history books,” said Susan Aylward, a frustrated Obama supporter in Akron, Ohio, shortly before the last election. “So what does he want to be in the history books for? I don’t quite know the answer to that yet.” Sadly, it seems, neither does he. (What the hell is Barack Obama’s presidency for?, The Guardian, 23rd February 2014)

So Younge thinks that Obama’s “ascent to power had meaning.” What meaning was that? Well, it was a chance for people like Younge to support something they could wholeheartedly believe in: the splendour of themselves. Like Blair before him, Obama cunningly turned himself into a mirror for his supporters’ narcissism. A vote for Obama was a vote for oneself — a symbol of one’s decency, compassion and profound commitment to building a better, fairer world, free of prejudice and oppression. That’s how conmen work: they exploit greed and gullibility. Liberals are greedy to feed their own narcissism. That’s why they voted so eagerly for Blair in the UK and for Obama in the US.

In both cases, liberals slowly realized that they’d been conned. Like Blair, Obama has disappointed huge numbers of people. But he hasn’t disappointed the ones who matter. And like Blair, he can expect his reward when he leaves office:

Tony Blair earned £20m in just one year advising business bosses and foreign governments Tony Blair earned more than £20 million last year [2011] from advising business chiefs and foreign governments, it was reported yesterday. The former Prime Minister’s income since leaving Downing Street has been shrouded in mystery, but the new figure emerged during an interview with Mr Blair by Financial Times editor Lionel Barber. The size of the former Labour leader’s income is certain to provoke fresh criticism of his money-making exploits since he left office, even though he has insisted he pays 50 per cent income tax on all his earnings. He told Mr Barber, who interviewed him in Jerusalem, that the money was ploughed back into his philanthropic ventures, adding: ‘The purpose is not to make money. It is to make a difference.’ (Tony Blair earned £20m in just one year advising business bosses and foreign governments, The Daily Mail, 30th June 2012)

Blair was interviewed in Israel about his millions. It’s now like a second home to him and he was back earlier this year to pay fulsome tribute to Ariel Sharon: “The same iron determination he took to the field of war he took to the chamber of diplomacy. Bold. Unorthodox. Unyielding.” Blair’s attachment to Israel has a direct link with his huge and growing wealth. He was put into power to serve the interests of a small but very powerful minority. He is now being rewarded for his service. Obama was put into power by the same minority and can expect the same reward: