restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations
Bush Is No Churchill
Winston Churchill was no stranger to political dissenters in fact he seemed to attract them. When he came under their attacks and scorn, however, Churchill proved his mastery of vocabulary, principle and wit.
When Lady Astor, the first female Member of Parliament and one of Churchills most diligent critics, once told him, Winston, if I were your wife Id poison your soup, Churchill drolly replied, Nancy, if I were your husband Id drink it. Clement Atlee, leader of the British Labor Party, was another nemesis whom Churchill described as, a sheep in sheeps clothing, and, a modest man with much to be modest about.
Even as his political career approached its end Churchills timing and rhetoric was superior to that of his ambitious detractors. On his 85th birthday, an MP, thinking himself to be out of earshot, said of Churchill, They say the old mans getting gaga. To which Churchill added, without turning to address the speaker, Yes, and they say hes getting deaf, too.
Such stories add to the fabric of the man who used words to inspire his fellow countrymen to withstand insurmountable odds against the Nazi Luftwaffe through the Battle of Britain and eventual victory in WW II. This image is implied of the Bush Administration when its supporters label its words and deeds in the conduct of the War Against International Terror as Churchillian.
One must wonder, though, how Churchills reputation, or even his place in history, would have been affected if, in response to Lady Astors conjectured plot, he had blurted the vile epithet **** you that Vice President Dick Cheney hurled at Senator Patrick Leahy during the class photo session of the current U.S. Senate.
Or how would Britain have responded if Churchill, on the eve of the Battle of Britain, had defiantly told the Luftwaffe, with Bushian swagger, Bring em on, rather than encouraging Brits that their posterity 1000 years hence would look upon the approaching moment of defiance as their finest hour.
Seemingly neither members of the Bush Administration or its supporters possess Churchills mastery of rhetoric, biting wit, or joy of facing the intellectual warfare that should undergird serious political debate. On the other hand Churchill did not benefit from the guidance of an entourage of handlers, advisers, speech writers, focus groups, or pollsters as does the Bush Administration of 2004.
The words and actions of modern politicians are scripted for the sake of achieving a desired, optimum effect on the largest number of people. Such being the case it is entirely possible that more minds and intense research were invested in the presidents Bring em on invitation to Iraqi insurrectionists and the vice presidents coarse recommendation to Sen. Leahy than was devoted to any of the speeches that made Churchill admirable.
Is it possible that the Bush and Cheney quotes, as well as the countless others making the daily news sound bite cut, have been planned for a particular effect? Admittedly the timing for delivering the phrases have a certain emotional appeal, especially Cheneys verbal slap of Leahy. After all, Democrats have made a hobby of rhetorically beating Republicans about the head and shoulders with all kinds of innuendo, conjecture, and outright lies.
Pandering to base emotional reactions is more a tactic of the Democrats, though, and was not a tool of Churchill. Churchills speeches and rhetoric were intelligent, principled, and well-researched. He never resorted to clichés; instead, some of his most famous phrases were years in the making. His most important speeches did not pander to a popular sentiment, but inspired nations to move beyond expectations.
The failure in the comparison of the Bush Administration to Winston Churchill does not end with the contrast in rhetorical skill. Churchill was a serious student of history, a scintillating writer, and a voracious reader. From these avocations he had the insight to predict WWII before the ink was dry on the Treaty of Versailles simply by understanding the reaction Germany would have to such an unjust assault upon its pride.
The president, on the other hand, has bragged about not reading newspapers (yet another shortfall in the attempt to be Churchillian). Furthermore, his administration is populated by advisors who have expressed the belief that Americas military technical fire power provides the thrust to lift the nation over the influences of history, heritage, or human nature. The combination of such leadership and advice forms an explosive mix that is choking out conservative and constitutional reasoning from analyses of government and replacing public service with global adventurism.
Consequently, the verbal gymnastics that the administration has applied to explaining its entire agenda has less to do with inspiration and more to do with manipulation. The difference there is as simple as a comparison between rhetoric and hubris.
July 8, 2004
Since 1993 Bob Strodtbeck has been writing commentaries for The Apopka Chief, a news weekly circulated in a community ten miles north of Orlando. His analyses investigate a wide range of topics from what he calls a Christian pragmatic view that is to say, he considers that human interactions are largely driven by the human instinct toward self-service, which is traditionally known as sin. This perspective has given Bob great liberty to criticize governmental officials from both parties upon the standards of constitutional laws they swear to uphold and review cultural and economic phenomena from moral standards defined in the Bible. Bob currently lives in Orlando with his bride Pam and children Charlotte and Richard. He may be reached for comment here.