Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
Winston Churchill called them his “Wilderness Years.” The inter-war years spent as still a sitting Member of Parliament but excluded from Cabinet office. Though bitter, these years were not unproductive as Churchill gave speeches and wrote books of history that would eventually see him awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. But most of all he thought: about the state of the world; about the threats to the British Empire; and most of all, how the British government should respond and overcome the challenge of an increasingly militant and assertive Germany. As the Nazi threat arose in the mid-1930s, the then Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin remarked in response the idea of appointing Churchill to the newly created cabinet post of Minister of Defense, “Of course if it is a matter of military efficiency, Winston is no doubt the man.” But, in the spirit of appeasement that characterized pre-war England, Baldwin decided, “If I pick Winston, Hitler will be cross.” Today, of course, we credit Churchill with saving Western Civilization.
Churchill biographer William Manchester observed, “If public men of vision are tough, they endure. If they are not, and most are not, they perish or live out their lives in lonely exile.” I thought of Churchill and of Manchester’s words as I watched Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain in conversation last night in Texas.
Gingrich has certainly spent his own time in the wilderness since leaving the Speaker’s Office under a cloud. But last night I found myself listening intently to what Newt had to say. When the debate ended I was left with the impression that Newt too has spent his time out of office thinking about the problems of our time and how to deal with them effectively.
Is Gingrich the new Churchill? I don’t know. History only recognizes the Man of Destiny retrospectively. But a wise professor once gave four measures for separating the Statesman from a mere politician: A Bedrock of Principles; a Moral Compass; A Vision; and the ability to achieve a Consensus to achieve that vision. After last night’s performance I would argue Gingrich meets that test. The hour may be at hand for Newt to come in from the cold.
- Comment (39)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '11
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
I too am considering Newt. He has command of the issues and knows how the legislative "process" really works, which puts him at an advantage over the rest of the front runners. Likely he could hit the ground running. True, he has made some unfortunate missteps but as someone once said in mountain of good ideas there are bound to be a few clunkers. So, I continue considering.
Jan '11
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
Interesting that you made the connection between Churchill & Gingrich as well - I think there is something to that.
A friend and I were talking about the GOP nomination months ago, just when the candidates were announcing. We both spoke of how we've always liked Newt, how smart & articulate he was but also that he'd never get the chance. We're both reevaluating now since the field has proven to be so weak.
I could happily support him.
Oct '11
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
I didn't see or hear the debate, but I am inclined to agree. I've heard Gingrich speak in person and listened as he spoke of his religious conversion, and he seems to be a man who has been humbled by his own mistakes but nonetheless feels a continuing sense of responsibility for the nation he loves. These days, such things are often tossed off as posturing or hype, but people of principle know that they remain true. Given what is likely to happen in the years just ahead, having someone of Gingrich's gravitas in the White House would be reassuring.
Oct '10
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
Just watched the whole thing on CSpan. Well worth the time. I agree with Herkybird. Newt has earned a second look. Link to the debate is:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CainNew
Oct '10
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
Newt is without doubt an extremely intelligent observer of the scene. He showed his ability to lead in 1994. And he showed his lack of character required to continue in leadership after that victory. Winston Churchill achieved his lifetime goal of the Premiership of Britain and followed through on the war he had foretold. As an inveterate back bencher, he was the outsider who saved Britain, not the politician.
Gingrich has already shown his "gravitas" by his personal failures. So far, apart from a scandal drummed up by the left wing media, Herman Cain has been following through with the guts and gumption that a would be Churchill must have.
Jun '10
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
This comparison I have made many times -- and several times in conversations here at Ricochet. A very apt comparison.
raycon: Churchill was not an "inveterate back bencher" he was only in that position for about 10 years from about 1929 to 1939. Before that he held almost every important cabinet post there was, ending as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the last stepping stone (usually) before being Prime Minister. He was the third or fourth most powerful man in the world at the age of 38 -- as Lord of the Admiralty, where he acquitted himself marvelously, especially for someone so young.
He was acquitted of any mistakes at the Dardanelles fiasco -- but unfortuanately, this information was not available to the general public for many years because of the Official Secrets issue around the incredible incompetence of the the Navy's admirals trained by peacetime thinking.
Newt's "scandals" and "mistakes" while Speaker were entirely dreamed up by the left wing media and the leftists in Congress using the ethics committee illegally.
The only thing we are left with besides a stunning record of achievement is his being twice divorced. This is the only real problem I know of.
Jun '11
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
I too like Newt quite a bit. We'll see how things unfold in the next few weeks.
But the comparison with Churchill lacks in one area. Churchill was a dynamic and inspirational orator. Newt is not a great orator.
Jun '10
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
Churchill had difficulty in his early days. He had a speech impediment his whole life which he overcame by cleverly writing speeches without too many sibilants, especially at the beginning and ending of words.
I think that the Parliamentary experience for a long term member is what helped Churchill in the end. That and hooking up with David Lloyd George in his early years, walking across the aisle to the Liberals and having from that time on to defend himself and to fight terrific battles. This is great preparation for an orator -- especially when that orator has a first class mind and he is passionate about his subject.
I think Newt is a very good speaker. Maybe not as good as Churchill, but who is? It's a pretty high bar. Newt is passionate, he has a first class mind, he also has fought terrific battles. His speeches will get better if he gets into the upper tier in the polls.
I've waited a long time for Newt's ascendancy. If he doesn't get the top slot, then I just hope he is put to good use. It's a terrible waste, otherwise.
Sep '10
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
As someone who has read a fair bit of Churchill himself and his biographers, I have to interject to say no way no how is Newt in the same league as Churchill, not even close.
Churchill won the Nobel Prize in Literature, was a gifted writer of history but most importantly, a military man. Gingrich simply has no fire hardening even close to that. And Terrell David is right: Newt is no orator. He is a great speaker. There is a difference.
Oct '11
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
Newt Gingrich is far too intelligent to waste. He would make an extremely capable vice president and more importantly, president of the Senate.
Apr '11
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
Pseudodionysius: As someone who has read a fair bit of Churchill himself and his biographers, I have to interject to say no way no how is Newt in the same league as Churchill, not even close.
Churchill won the Nobel Prize in Literature, was a gifted writer of history but most importantly, a military man. Gingrich simply has no fire hardening even close to that. And Terrell David is right: Newt is no orator. He is a great speaker. There is a difference. · Nov 6 at 7:04pm
Newt may not be an orator like Churchill, and I'm not 100% with him on policy, but he's much, much, much better on policy than Churchill.
When people talk about Britain being socialist, most of what they talk about happened under Lloyd George, with Churchill's active, and decisive, support. Churchill supported sectoral minimum wages in support of unions, nationalized healthcare (both in its Lloyd George/ Obamacare version and Nye Bevan single payer), expansion of the state in education, the creation of social security, eugenics, agricultural subsidies, the first real UK gun control, punitive taxes for the rich, and pre (First) world war defense cuts.
Oct '10
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
Just wondering where you disagree with him on policy. I haven't listened to him much in years.
May '10
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
Churchill's oratorical gifts combined with his military background and his insight into the essential evil of naziism were what was needed to meet the emergency of the historical moment England faced in WW II.
Rhetorical powers are great. They are no stand in for character.
Aug '10
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
I thought both Gingrich and Cain presented themselves well in the Texas debate. And I appreciated the format a great deal. Big topics, free and open talk, no petty backbiting.
I came away with a renewed appreciation for both men, who seemed, on the surface at least, to genuinely like and respect one another.
I would love for this debate format to become the norm.
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
Anyone tempted to compare the literary abilities of Gingrich and Churchill is assigned this review of Gingrich's books by one Andrew Ferguson (not just a conservative but one of my favorite writers ever). It's devastating.
Sep '10
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
@James of England:
I don't disagree with you at all on Churchill on policy, and was going to add the same point myself today. But even on policy, Newt on policy is not equivalent to Churchill on war.
After reading Andy's review, I'd say "Vice President of Pandemonium" might be Newt's calling in life.
Sep '10
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
And I still remember the late Henry Hyde's insightful comment about no serious thinker trying to duct tape Alvin Toffler and Tacitus together.
Nov '10
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
Herkybird.. you're the only other person I've run across who apparently listened to the University of Oklahoma's Professor Rufus Fears' lecture series titled The Wisdom of HIstory. I too have used Professor Fears' statesman criteria to evaluate candidates and historical figures. Unfortunately, most come up wanting. Personally, I've added a fifth criteria.. the executive ability to get things done through others, and have been inclined to add the four cardinal virtues of wisdom, justice, fortitude, and temperance (prudence). Anyway, excellent reference. Thanks. Cheers.
Mar '11
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
I stand with Pseudo here.
Churchill, in my humble judgment, was the premier political leader of the past century. Nearly certainly in the West. He is by no means a perfect man, nor did he have perfect policy judgment everywhere (India comes to mind....), but he is probably the closest thing in our time to what was once called a statesman.
If you've never had the chance, I recommend reading virtually anything the man wrote (himself, not ghost written, not with the help of some other author. HImself.) Thoughts and Adventures especially shows him of a cast of mind quite rare among practical men of affairs. Meanwhile, his historical works from The River War through his chronicle of the Second World War all rival many of the finest accounts of war and leadership from antiquity.
In the parlance of an earlier time, Mr. Churchill, warts and all, was a great-souled man.
Mr. Gingrich, even given the many things I like about him, is not in the same league.
Aug '10
Re: Churchillian Echoes from Texas?
Did anybody else catch Newt's use of the phrase "skin in the game" in the debate? I don't think I imagined it.
Is Rob pulling strings behind the scenes? Is Newt doing subliminal advertising for Ricochet?
Inquiring minds want to know.