Winston S. Gingrich
A lot of posters have tried to make a connection between Newt Gingrich and Winston Churchill. If you only know Churchill from the war years then you'd probably view such comparisons as blasphemy.
But at one time Churchill was the most reviled member of the House of Commons. He left the Tories in 1904 and walked across the aisle to join the Liberals. When the Liberals fell into disarray he walked back to the Conservatives. As a result nobody trusted him.
During WWI, he joined the government as First Lord of the Admiralty where he spent Navy funds on a land ship. It was called Winston's Folly. You may know it as the tank.
After the disastrous Dardanelles campaign his career seemed over and he joined the British Army on the front lines. On returning to the House, David Lloyd George wrote to him, "You will one day discover that the state of mind revealed in (your) letter is the reason why you do not win trust even where you command admiration. In every line of it, national interests are completely overshadowed by your personal concern."
Churchill's political salvation was, of course, that he became PM without an election. Sir John Colville, Churchill's private secretary recalled, "Seldom can a Prime Minister have taken office with the Establishment...so dubious of the choice and so prepared to have its doubts justified."
As beloved as he was during the war, when they had the chance, the British electorate turned him out.
On to Gingrich. There are a lot of parallels. They are both children of the House. There is disgrace and redemption. There is controversy within his own party, distrust among those he led and worked with and the total disdain of the "Establishment." There is the fascination with technology. But Gingrich cannot be elevated without an election. He must hope that the American people decide that this is his moment.
- Comment (65)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
It is true that democracy is very troublesome sometimes. We don't want what's best for us. We think we know better but we don't. I have often thought that one of the most underestimated politcal quotes of the 20th century was when Nixon lost the debate to Kennedy. Nixon said "When they look at him they see who they want to be, when they look at me they see who they are." Isn't it a shame 'who we are' isn't important enough for adults to vote for. Certainly it is justified for adolescents to have a sense of being unformed and to look to role models for guidance. But it becomes embarrassing that adults should continue to look for Icons to follow. Democracy depends on responsible adult judgment being exercised by a vast majority of it's citizenry. Supporting, voting for, or just apologizing for Obama is the antithesis of responsible adult judgment.
Edited on December 12, 2011 at 7:33amMar '11
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
That each man faced adversity, committed some follies, served in a deliberative body, was reviled by some of his peers and admired by others, and had his ambitions remarked upon unfavorably is hardly grounds that justify the parallel. These things could all be said of almost every single man who has ever held public office anywhere.
In short: I think this comparison can only be drawn by omitting the details which matter most: Gingrich and Churchill are of unequal casts of mind and soul, unlike temperaments, and had very different life experiences for much of their formative life. They made choices in everything from career to love that are world's apart. That there are a few likenesses does not mean that they are decisive in the sense of affecting character and ability to the level at which we could reasonably invoke the two men in the same sentence.
May '10
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
EJ, you've shown us that Gingrich is like Churchill in being inconsistent, unprincipled, and untrusted.
These qualities didn't doom him in a particular historical moment because of Churchill's more-than-compensating greatnesses: his moral clarity, his unshakable courage, and his brilliant, noble oratory.
Where is the evidence that Gingrich has any of those? He is clever and quick, not brilliant or insightful. He's glib, not witty. As for depth and clarity of insight, or unshakable moral courage, I see rather the opposite.
Mar '11
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
These qualities didn't doom him in a particular historical moment because of Churchill's more-than-compensating greatnesses
Katie: As usual, great insight. Just because two men share the same vices does not mean that they possess the same virtues.
Moreover, I'm not even so sure that they share the same vices. Can one picture Churchill wasting political capital on impeachment proceedings against a fellow MP for marital indiscretion (and lying under oath) even while having committed the same indiscretion himself? No, even when Churchill failed it was spectacular failure on the international stage: he had to fail in an epic and daring island invasion during the bloodiest war in human history until that time. Not sure those two "failures" can be equated.
May '10
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
Depth, clarity and insight are rarely seen in the present tense. That's mostly seen in hindsight.
Certainly as a husband, Sir Winston had more going for him. He was totally devoted toward his Clemmie.
But he was also devoted to booze and cigars and was a gambler and a spendthrift and at many times in his life stood on the precipice of financial ruin. He was also plagued throughout his life with excruciating bouts of depression or as he referred to it, "the Black Dog." He even contemplated suicide, which for the Church, is hardly a sign of "unshakable moral courage." Sir Winston once admitted, "I don't like standing near the edge of a platform when an express train is passing through. I like to stand right back and if possible get a pillar between me and the train. I don't like to stand by the side of a ship and look down into the water. A second's action would end everything. A few drops of desperation."
I do not claim that Gingrich is another Churchill but I also see WSC's human flaws.
May '10
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
I see WSC's flaws too. They are the classical flaws of the aristocrat.
EJHill
Depth, clarity and insight are rarely seen in the present tense. That's mostly seen in hindsight.
They aren't widely seen in the present tense because most people aren't deep or clear-sighted themselves. But those who are--those who are framed and trained to have some moral vision can recognize the difference in the here and now. Were you fooled by Obama? Did you need decades to pass before you recognized that Reagan was no dunce?
In the 1920's and 30's most people didn't recognize Naziism for the evil it was. But some people did. Churchill was among those who did.
I see no indication, none, that Gingrich has special insight into the threats facing our nation today.
Resistance to the temptation to despair may indeed be proof of enormous moral courage, though only God knows how severely he was tried there.
May '10
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
Unfortunately I see none of that in any of the people on stage at these GOP debates.
No. But certainly some of Gov. Romney's most ardent supporters were.
No. But Gov. Romney did.
My point here (other than to be a bit of the devil and stir things up) is this: Piousness and being loved and admired by your colleagues is great if you're electing a Pope. Belief in absolute marital fidelity is great if you're marrying off your daughter. But that's not what we're doing here.
Unlike a parliamentary system, we can not elevate a Paul Ryan. We are stuck with the choices we have. But I cringe when I read things like comparing Obama's physique to Gingrich's. That level of shallowness on this site shocks me.
Sep '10
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
I think there's a vital distinction here. Churchill had, in addition to the gifts Katie mentioned, had moral imagination which resulted in a prophetic insight into the Nazis. The prophets in the Old Testament were hated figures and a prophetic imagination didn't necessarily translate into noble moral character. They were rhetorical bomb throwers and not pleasant or popular figures.
Churchill was also not a Phd level academic historian as is Newt, but was similar to Reagan in that his intellectual odyssey was achieved by much independent reading, thinking and speech making.
With Churchill you were hiring a war leader to achieve victory; with Gingrich you're hiring a hitman to take out a sitting President. Unfortunately, the bill for Gingrich comes due the minute he's sworn in and it will last for at least 4 years. It will be a Matterhorn ride.
Jun '10
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
katievs: EJ, you've shown us that Gingrich is like Churchill in being inconsistent, unprincipled, and untrusted.
These qualities didn't doom him in a particular historical moment because of Churchill's more-than-compensating greatnesses: his moral clarity, his unshakable courage, and his brilliant, noble oratory.
Where is the evidence that Gingrich has any of those? He is clever and quick, not brilliant or insightful. He's glib, not witty. As for depth and clarity of insight, or unshakable moral courage, I see rather the opposite. · Dec 12 at 5:28am
I was going to say something like this, but Katievs beat me to it (and said it better). Churchill's trajectory provide some basis for comparison. Yes, a rare few may hide greatness behind an appearance of flakiness--Churchill was one. For the vast majority, the outer flakiness merely exposes inner flakiness--that is, I fear, the nature of Mr. Gingrich.
As best I can tell, there has only been one Churchill (though Reagan and Thatcher belong in his company). Newt? I fear not.
May '10
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
EJHill
Unfortunately I see none of that in any of the people on stage at these GOP debates.
I mostly agree, though I'd say Paul, Bachmann and Santorum have more of it than Romney or Gingrich.
But the others don't have Newt's really terrible character flaws. The only thing he has over them is that he's quicker on his feet and he's willing to fight in debate. I think these attributes explain why he's polling so well. But I don't think they're enough to compensate for his defects in office.
This is a straw man surely. There's quite a gap and range between piety and moral incontinence. And if the men and women you've worked closely with for decades are declining to endorse you, that says something.
Right. Agreed. I just think that when we weigh the candidates' respective assets and deficits against each other, we find Newt a net-negative.
May '10
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
Actually that was the single comparison that resonates the most. Churchill was despised by his contemporaries. Most thought Churchill was obsessed with, well, Churchill. Much of his early history writing was devoted to his own relatives.
In Mitt's character, I see a lot of George W. Bush. W believed in humility, grace and forgiveness. He treated his enemies like he wanted to be treated. A fine trait for anything but politics. He and the country suffered because he didn't have the fight in him. I don't see any fight in Romney either.
Gingrich's full throated defense of Israel is a case in point. Romney chastised him for speaking the truth. He agreed with him but said it was wrong to say it. That's not leadership, that's timidity. That's a man who will tell you what you want to hear, not what needs to be said.
May '10
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
EJHill
Actually that was the single comparison that resonates the most. Churchill was despised by his contemporaries. Most thought Churchill was obsessed with, well, Churchill.
Yes. They have that in common with a lot of politicos. In Churchill's case it was compensated for by his greatnesses, including, as Pseud said, his prophetic insight into the evil of Naziism.
What greatness has Gingrich got?
May '10
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
EJHill
Gingrich's full throated defense of Israel is a case in point. Romney chastised him for speaking the truth. He agreed with him but said it was wrong to say it. That's not leadership, that's timidity. That's a man who will tell you what you want to hear, not what needs to be said. · Dec 12 at 8:40am
He said what's true, but Mitt may well have been right that he oughtn't to have said it. That's a prudential question. Was it courage or was it rashness? Was it leadership or irresponsibility? That depends. I agree with Romney that it depends quite a lot on what Israel thinks. About that, I have no knowledge.
In any case, sometimes it is wrong to say what's true. Statesmanship is an art and it requires finesse. Yes there's such a thing as timidity. Romney may be all-too inclined toward it. But there's also such a thing as rashness and there's plenty of evidence that Gingrich is all-too inclined to that.
Mar '11
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
EJ: I do not claim that Gingrich is another Churchill but I also see WSC's human flaws.
Katie: I see WSC's flaws too. They are the classical flaws of the aristocrat.
I might have said they are the classical flaws of the magnanimous man.
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
James Gawron: It is true that democracy is very troublesome sometimes. We don't want what's best for us. We think we know better but we don't. I have often thought that one of the most underestimated politcal quotes of the 20th century was when Nixon lost the debate to Kennedy. Nixon said "When they look at him they see who they want to be, when they look at me they see who they are." Isn't it a shame 'who we are' isn't important enough for adults to vote for. Certainly it is justified for adolescents to have a sense of being unformed and to look to role models for guidance. But it becomes embarrassing that adults should continue to look for Icons to follow. Democracy depends on responsible adult judgment being exercised by a vast majority of it's citizenry. Supporting, voting for, or just apologizing for Obama is the antithesis of responsible adult judgment. · Dec 11 at 10:30pm
Edited on Dec 11 at 10:33 pm
Elegant!
Apr '11
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
What Price Gingrich?
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
katievs
EJHill
Actually that was the single comparison that resonates the most. Churchill was despised by his contemporaries. Most thought Churchill was obsessed with, well, Churchill.
Yes. They have that in common with a lot of politicos. In Churchill's case it was compensated for by his greatnesses, including, as Pseud said, his prophetic insight into the evil of Naziism.
What greatness has Gingrich got? · Dec 12 at 8:58am
There was more than a hint of greatness in what he accomplished in 1994 and between 1994 and 1999. WSC's greatness was only visible to people during and after the war. When he prophesied he was dismissed as a crank and a clown. His constituency committee came close to forcing him out of Parliament.
May '10
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
Well, I am beginning to believe that rashness is what's needed. While we obsess on the politeness our enemies (both foreign and domestic) savage us. While we dither about the political expediency surrounding various issues we have a tendency to put band-aids on gaping wounds and hope for the best.
Gov. Romney is going to "manage" us. I don't want "managed." He comes from a Rockefeller-Republican tradition that's to the left of Nixon. And Nixon was plenty to the left of Reagan.
We keep talking about "executive" experience and "executive" temperament. That's fine if you want to lead by executive order. Gingrich has been backbencher, whip and Speaker. The president may propose but it is the Congress that will dispose - especially in the House where the purse strings are kept.
As for Gingrich's relationship with his colleagues less than 20% of the Republicans now serving in the House served with him.
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
No one knows. It could be very high.
Dec '10
Re: Winston S. Gingrich
Paul A. Rahe
No one knows. It could be very high. · Dec 12 at 9:53am
With Gingrich the course of the nation will change. The problem is that we don't know which direction. Perhaps a 50% shot at getting it right is simply better than a 100% chance of making no course correction at all.