Gingrich As Churchill??
A recurring theme in comments to several posts over the past week or so is the notion that Newt Gingrich is “our Churchill” – or at least the closest thing we’ve got.
Certainly there are points of similarity – both effective debaters; both founts of ideas, good and bad; both strongly imbued with a sense of history; both seen by their partisans (though not by their detractors) as men of principle.
But consider – Churchill was essentially a failure as a politician. Prior to the war, he was never genuinely popular with the population as a whole. He changed parties not once, but twice, leaving him deeply distrusted by men of almost all persuasions. The dazzling series of cabinet post he held intermittently up until 1929 were all appointive. His intellect and oratorical skills made him a prized ally for prime ministers in both Liberal and Conservative governments – but while he was often seen as a “future prime minister,” he was never seriously in the running to be a current one.
Even in 1940, he only became prime minister because Labour refused to serve under Chamberlain in a coalition. The Conservative party overwhelmingly preferred Chamberlain. The only “election” Churchill won was among the Labour rank and file, who agreed to serve under him.
In 1945, in the first real general election he ever fought, Churchill was crushed. Overwhelmingly. Finally, in 1951, after six years in opposition, he managed to squeak out a fairly narrow win for the Conservatives – but only after promising to maintain the majority of the Welfare State apparatus (including National Health) installed by Labour.
Gingrich as Churchill? For Newt’s sake, I sure hope not….
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
Steve Manacek:
Gingrich as Churchill? For Newt’s sake, I sure hope not…. ·
I think the folks who are making that comparison are likely looking at it from someone who is at the right place at the right time in a dire crisis rather than his political fortunes. I don't know that to be the fact since I don't share that view, but I can certainly understand why some might think that.
Newt is a deeply smart person with a powerful intellect. He's great fun to watch in the debates, but I'm just not convinced he has the necessary executive temperament compared to someone like Churchill to warrant the comparison.
It would be interesting to see what a Gingrich presidency would look like and it would certainly be preferable to Obama administration. While I'm skeptical he'd be a great president, I'd vote for him over Obama. That's an easy call. I'm grumpy about the current GOP field, but I'm not stupid.
Jun '10
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
Publius
Steve Manacek:
Gingrich as Churchill? For Newt’s sake, I sure hope not…. ·
I think the folks who are making that comparison are likely looking at it from someone who is at the right place at the right time in a dire crisis rather than his political fortunes. I don't know that to be the fact since I don't share that view, but I can certainly understand why some might think that....
· Nov 18 at 6:43am
That's my view. I don't know that Gingrich would be the right person in normal times, but these aren't normal times. We have an economic crisis ahead for certain, and very often (in history) an economic crisis creates tensions that make actual war more likely. In that climate, Gingrich could hit the ground running on all fronts--economic, diplomatic, and national security. Who else (who's running) can? Because he was Speaker, and third in line, he was in a position to learn quite a bit about national security.
May '10
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
I recall from a Churchill biography that, once Chamberlain was out, the PM decision came down in the end to Churchill vs Lord Halifax. Churchill was strongly urged by an associate to go with Halifax to the King and say absolutely nothing. The gambit worked; after a long, awkward silence (which must have been torture for someone like Churchill) Halifax observed that, as a member of the House of Lords, he would be at a disadvantage in leading the government. With that, the King asked Churchill to become PM.
If it came to that, could Gingrich pass the silence test?
Oct '10
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
I strongly agree with Publius. Churchill, with all his flaws had two major things going for him:
First, he served during a time of great crisis. The bombings of London and Coventry were hard to ignore.
Second, he had great administrative ability. All those cabinet posts, including First Lord of the Admiralty and Chancellor of the Exchequer, laid an important administrative foundation.
Newt faces two problems:
First, the crisis isn't as observable as seeing Aunt Mathilda's bombed out house, and then attending her funeral. Much of America does not even believe there is a problem, let alone a crisis.
Second, Newt has never held a post in cabinet, so he lacks any administrative preparation. And, unlike Churchill, he appears to be least likely by temperament to become an administrator.
But, he appears to have great leadership instincts, and above all else, that is what is needed in a crisis.
But without the other two requisites, I doubt that Newt is the man for the hour.
Jun '10
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
Ditto Publius.
Of, course, times make the man. Our Iran moment may be coming--and may require a president to make a very unpopular decision to use force.
I'm not certain Newt is the man, though, given the field, I'd prefer he were making such a decision than Perry or Cain or Bachman. I do think Romney has the gravitas to make such a decision.
Like Publius, I'd vote for Newt if I had to. He's not my first choice.
And I don't think any of them are Churchill. His kind come around only every century or so.
Jun '10
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
raycon puts it very well. The two issues, perceived crisis and administrative bona-fides, are important.
The first one might take care of itself given another year or so of incompetence bordering on treason by our current president along with the Euro-crisis.
The second one: The Speaker's position is really an executive position. We all should seriously look at this carefully. It's clearly an executive post. But, the difference is that the Speaker serves at the pleasure of his fellow party members. When they get restive they can mutiny legally and throw him out. But, as president this all changes.
When I heard that Newt had lost all his advisers last spring I wondered what he was doing. It's clear now that he didn't need nor like their pestering. Also, there must surely have been a funding issue behind the whole tempest. I think Newt saw clearly into the future far enough and he seems to have been un-ruffled. I like this self-reliance. For a president this is absolutely essential.
If Newt angers people -- how bad is that? He seems to always anger the right people on both sides of the aisle.
Jun '10
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
Regarding Churchill, it seems that there are really two types of people who are great leaders: the coalition builder and the autocrat (think Napoleon). (Both types are deep thinkers and great philosophers.)
Reagan was no Churchill. He was the type of leader, like Lincoln, who built strategic relationships and built the party and cast a long shadow that we can still see today.
Churchill was a firebrand in his early days and a brilliant administrator who could work at an incredible pace. He was always up on all the issues of the days and had so much extra energy that he projected himself into areas that were not his. It is this characteristic that made him a good PM. Remember that during WWII, he insisted on two posts: PM and Minister for War.
Newt is more like Churchill than Lincoln or Reagan. He is a combination form but a little more like Churchill in temperament.
Aug '10
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
Don't forget the booze. Must never forget the booze.
Oct '10
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
True. As much fun as Newt is in the debates now, seeing liquored up Newt go after the moderators would be priceless. I think I'd even give money to his campaign after that.
Jun '11
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
Didn't Hitler blame the weakness of the German People as he entered the bunker?
May '10
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
He did blame them, but he waited until minutes before committing suicide. In that case, he showed more class than our current president.
Feb '11
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
People change, of course, but I recall Gingrich being an excellent administrator while enacting the Contract with America. When that was over, his leadership seemed to lose focus. Maybe this is a trait he shares with Churchill--a much better leader in a crisis than after one.
Aug '10
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
Yabbut, he was never an administrator. He was a legislator.
(I apologize if this is nit-picking.)
Edited on Nov 18, 2011 at 10:37amMar '11
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
As Enoch Powell, an infamous UK politician, once stated -- "all politics ends in failure". So, to that extent, Churchill and Newt will both be failures.
The important thing is what happens before they fail. Without Churchill, the UK would almost certainly still be under the rule of Germany (some things never change) and the world would be a very different place. This fact, alone, is more important than all his failures and defects.
So it is with Newt -- he might prevent America from becoming a giant, failed, Greece.
That's the only point of similarity with Churchill - desperate times and the need for strong leadership.
But the piece in the American Spectator describes it much better than I can.
Apr '11
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
I may be wrong, but I think that this point is confined to (and meant about) the realities of a parliamentary system where in its very nature a coalition can only last so long and a government must necessarily fail ... or fall ... or fail, well you get my point. That's not true in regards to a president who, as an exiting Commander in Chief can go back to the farm, Cincinnatus-like, crowned with the deserved laurels of success. For us, barring the Iran-Contra unpleasantness, Reagan (or Ike or Mr. Coolidge) would be an example. However, if you mean a legacy that eventually ends, those things never really fail or succeed because those are always in flux and are shaped, for better or for worse, by the people looking back. I think that this is what T.S. Eliot meant when he wrote, 'There are no lost causes because there are no causes gained. It's a constant struggle where you never fully win or lose ... you only struggle. Like life.
Edited on Nov 19, 2011 at 9:01amJun '10
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
Misthiocracy
Yabbut, he was never an administrator. He was a legislator.
(I apologize if this is nit-picking.) · Nov 18 at 10:37am
Edited on Nov 18 at 10:37 am
The position of Speaker of the House is an executive position. I'll leave it to you figure out why.
Apr '11
Re: Gingrich As Churchill??
Oranjeman
I think that this point is confined to (and meant about) the realities of a parliamentary system where by it's very nature a coalition can only last so long and a government must necessarily fail.... However, if you mean a legacy that eventually ends,...
Churchill's legacy is very much with us. Before Churchill and Lloyd George, the "terrible twins" of Liberal politics, the UK was roughly as free as her American daughter. After Churchill left power, she was roughly as free as her French and German cousins, almost entirely due to reforms and laws he demanded. He was the most successful progressive revolutionary in history.
His other legacy, that of his part in the defeat of Hitler and Tojo, is also still with us. I expect his twin legacies to be shaping the world when my grandchildren die, as Bismarck shapes ours today.
I think that Powell did mean the small sense, which was unusually true of Churchill, and that you are right about America being different.