I have a crush on Tony Blair. Tall, charming, successful and filled with ambitious ideals for the betterment of mankind, he has more or less everything I look for in a man. He's my hero, really. It was, therefore, with some astonishment that I read this horrible headline in a recent issue of the Economist: "Tony Blair: Neo-Con."If it were possible for me to have a crush on a magazine, it would be The Economist. It brims with insightful analysis about both of the countries I belong to-England and America-and is among the most respected and influential magazines in the world. So what on earth was it doing associating Tony Blair, the most liberal Prime Minister since at least 1974, with the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and that awful little cowboy, George W. Bush?

A "neocon" is someone who believes that democracy is the key to world peace and prosperity and-most importantly-that it is the duty of powerful nations to spread this value with whatever force is necessary.

The primary reason for branding Blair with this unfortunate label comes from his obstinate alliance with Bush, to whom most of Europe looks with no particular fondness.

Blair is running for re-election as the liberal candidate in Britain's election next spring, but has he, at this point, earned the label of neoconservative? If this were the case, Britain, which protested by the millions when Blair announced his decision to support Bush's war or terror, would have very little reason to re-elect him.

My answer is no, I don't think so. The difference between the philosophies of Blair and Bush-and the reason that Britain should re-elect Blair this spring-is subtle but important.

The way each announced his decision to enter Iraq illustrates this distinction quite succinctly.

When Bush stubbornly declared his intentions in the Middle East, he had me protesting on the Boston Common just like everyone else. On the day of the US invasion, Bush described the unquestionable path that America has before it to spread peace and freedom. There was no suggestion of doubt or any real analysis-the role of America is inevitable, admirable and backed by God.

The American partiality for spreading its values has so much to do with convenience-Bush had much to gain from his invasion of Iraq, and the fact that he would be spreading democracy served as an added bonus.

Blair's speech, however, was different. "My judgment as prime minister," he said, "is that...retreat might give us a moment of respite, but years of repentance at our weakness would, I believe, follow."

Bush spoke as a society, insisting the duty of one culture to reform another. Blair, one the other hand, spoke as one man. If Saddam Hussein had struck Britain-which, with the information Blair had at the time, did not seem entirely impossible-he would have been remembered in history as one man who failed to protect his country. If a nuclear attack by Hussein's hands had killed scores of people in any country in the world, Blair would have been a man who did not use every resource available to prevent it.

When-with an anxious but dignified resolve--he stated his reasons for joining the president, I was secretly convinced that perhaps it was the right thing to do.

Thus Blair continues to strengthen his alliance with Bush, despite the exasperation of his people. For Blair, the responsibility to spread democracy to the rest of the world is not a thing of convenience. He decides daily that he will fend off a nation of disgruntled protesters-even if it jeopardizes the future of his career-to use his position as one of the most powerful men in the world to do what he believes is his duty. As the Economist put it, "the awful truth is that Mr. Blair goes along with these ideas not because it's expedient, but because he believes in them."

There are a lot of similarities between the philosophies that drive both Bush and Blair,but still "neoconservative" is the wrong word for my prime minister. He's neo-something, but it has nothing to do with the left or the right.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll send in my absentee ballot next spring and proudly cast my vote for Tony Blair-not because I think he's cute-but rather because there's something both remarkable and refreshing about a man so earnestly inflexible about using his power for what he believes is good.

Cheers, Tony, and if you're considering divorce, let me know.