What Barack Obama could learn from Winston Churchill
Perhaps, as one of his first acts as President of the United States, instead of returning a bust of Winston Churchill to our friends in the United Kingdom, Barack Obama had studied the life and leadership of that great man, he could better lead this great nation. That Englishman “inherited” far worse problems from his two immediate predecessors than the American did from his.
And wheareas instead of demonstrating “bottomless reservoirs of gracelessness” in faulting those predecessors for “the terrible mess he inherited” as Obama has done toward his immediate predecessor, Churchill, according to Paul Johnson, showed magnanimity toward those flawed leaders:
Churchill wasted an extraordinarily small amount of his time and emotional energy on the meanness of life: recrimination, shifting the blame onto others, malice, revenge seeking, dirty tricks, spreading rumors, harboring grudges, waging vendettas. Having fought hard, he washed his hands and went on to the next contest. It is one reason for his success. There is nothing more draining and exhausting than hatred. And malice is bad for the judgment. Churchill loved to forgive and make up. His treatment of Baldwin and Chamberlain* after he became prime minister is an object lesson in sublime magnanimity. Nothing gave him more pleasure than to replace enmity with friendship, not least with the Germans.
An object lesson Obama is in sore need of learning. In his speech on Afghanistan, by one pundit’s count, he “adverted at least half a dozen times to the supposed blunders of his predecessor.” And he’s not the only official in his Administration who eschews such Churchillian magnanimity in order to lambaste George W. Bush. In an email to supporters touting Obama’s Afghanistan speech, Vice President Biden “said of the new policy towards Afghanistan: ‘It’s a clean break from the failed Afghanistan policy of the Bush administration, and a new, focused strategy that can succeed.’”
Why must they always define their policies by contrasting them to the “failed” ones of W instead defending them on their own merits?
Wonder how we could make a teaching moment for these two?
*those aforementioned predeceesors
14 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“An object lesson Obama is in sore need of learning.”
Except that his whole ideology is built on hate and resentment.
Comment by pst314 — December 4, 2009 @ 5:20 pm - December 4, 2009
In his eyes, he is “perfect”, so why would he need to learn about a great world leader
Comment by PatriotMom — December 4, 2009 @ 5:35 pm - December 4, 2009
In his eyes, anything Not Bush’s Policy is reason enough.
Neve rmind that GWB would likely have already given the go ahead on this Surge, and the only difference really his GWB likely would have sent all those asked for, if not more, and no stupid ending date given. So his policy like so many others turns out to be Bush Lite. Much to the chagrin of his leftist supporters.
Comment by JP — December 4, 2009 @ 6:27 pm - December 4, 2009
Obama will never learn from Churchill. Some people say that Obama’s grandfather had reason to loathe the British:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5276010.ece
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 4, 2009 @ 7:45 pm - December 4, 2009
(P.S. I don’t say it; I have no idea what the truth of that matter is; I only wanted to point out that possible angle of the subject.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 4, 2009 @ 7:46 pm - December 4, 2009
You need to get your little heads out of the partisan “poor ol’ Georgie” defensiveness. Obama’s references to the mistakes of the past are necessary – they are in America’s interest. The world was repulsed by Bush’s leadership – that is a simple fact. It is enormously in America’s interest that the rest of the world see clear evidence, both in deeds and rhetoric, that America is forging a new and different path.
Instead of playing these mind-numbingly silly partisan games – in which you endlessly try to find some bizarre reason after another to demonize Obama – try thinking about what is and is not in America’s interest. Seen in that light, what Obama is doing is worthy of great praise.
As we see today, in the response from NATO countries to his request for more troops in Afghanistan.
Comment by Tano — December 4, 2009 @ 9:03 pm - December 4, 2009
#6: “It is enormously in America’s interest that the rest of the world see clear evidence, both in deeds and rhetoric, that America is forging a new and different path.”
Yeah, Tano, so you’ve said repeatedly on this blog. However, you have never identified a single, tangible benefit America has received as a result of Obama “restoring our standing in the international community.” Since Obama’s inauguration, rogue nations have not only refused to cease their diabolical pursuits, but our supposed “allies” have rebuffed our requests to join us in taking action against them beyond sending meaningless letters expressing disapproval. And the response from NATO countries does not support your position:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nato_afghanistan
Comment by Sean A — December 4, 2009 @ 9:31 pm - December 4, 2009
The world was repulsed by Bush’s leadership – that is a simple fact.
Of course — Bush broke up their multibillion-dollar bribery and exploitation scheme.
What blabbering Tano is stating is that it is more important to keep the goodwill of criminals than it is to do the right thing — as we see with Barack Obama’s opposition to Honduras’s elections and support of the criminal Zelaya.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 4, 2009 @ 9:53 pm - December 4, 2009
Tano, petulant children are often resentful of the disciplinarian authority figure. I’m inclined to say F**k ‘em, but I’ve also read enough of your postings to just say FU. . .
Comment by Jax Dancer — December 4, 2009 @ 10:17 pm - December 4, 2009
Um, Tano, do you exist to make me laugh and help me write?
You do some obsessed with W’s misdeeds. You might want to talk to someone about this. I mean, he left the White House now nearly a year ago. And yet accuse me of writing about him in a post about Obama.
This post isn’t about George W. Bush. I’m not defending him here. It is, in large part, about Barack Obama and how he feels some kind of need to bash Bush in his public addresses. And please note that when your man Barry references W, he generally doesn’t identify the particular mistakes, just rambles on about failed policies of the past.
Please note as well as that George W. Bush is never the subject of any sentence in this piece. If we had noun cases as our language once did (before the tragic event of 1066), then his name would only appear in the accusative, a most appropriate word because the post references accusations made against him (though he is referenced in what would be the genitive or dative or quite possibly instrumental case depending on the grammatical construction I would use to translate this into Anglo-Saxon).
This is not a partisan game, it’s just a piece of advice. Don’t read here what you want to read here, read the post without assuming it’s a partisan screed.
Now, since you do need to have trouble reading the piece, seizing on the reference to your bête noire and running with it, let me give you a brief reading guide and yes, I mean to be patronizing because you make no effort to understand points I make an effort to make. Maybe this will help you understand the post. And given how much time you spend on the blog while regularly missing the points of our posts, a reading lesson does seem to be in order.
Let’s start with the title. What Barack Obama can learn from Winston Churchill. That signals that it’s about Barack Obama, the incumbent president of the United States and the lessons he could learn from a certain fellow named Churchill who. when he served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, helped bring that nation from the brink of defeat at the hands of the evil Nazis to one of the greatest victories in the history of mankind.
In the opening paragraph, I build on this point of what Mr. Obama, the subject of this piece, can learn.
Then, I move on to contrast this Mr. Obama to the aforementioned Mr. Churchill to point out that latter’s magnanimity. I used the blockquote from Paul Johnson’s book on that great man to build on that point. The reason I include quote is that nearly all serious students of history recognize that man’s greatness (with at least one ex-conservative nutbag trying to discount it).
The point being this man achieved greatness facing a worse mess than that which Mr. Obama now faces. And one reason he achieved such greatness was that he didn’t harbor grudges, didn’t blame his predecessors. What I meant to imply here was that instead of referencing past mistakes, Mr. Churchill rolled up his sleeves and got to work, addressing instead the task at hand.
Churchill didn’t say it was hard because his predecessor was bad. It was hard. His predecessors were “bad.” But, he realized he needed focus on the task at hand.
So, let’s now move on to the paragraph after the quote. In the first line, I again return to the subject of the post, with Obama again being the subject (even though his name is the fourth word in the sentence), an odd grammatical construction I admit, but, did want to place the emphasis on “lesson” (which would be in the accusative in Anglo-Saxon). Again, the point about what I believe Mr. Obama could learn from Mr. Churcill. (As you might have figured out by now, I’m trying to emphasize that point.)
I then reference Mr. Obama’s recent speech and how he referred to his predecessor in his Afghanistan speech with that word (by dint of the preposition “of” preceding it) in the genitive (or possessive) case. Then, I actually introduce that predecessor with whom you, like your hero Mr. Obama who can do no wrong, are obsessed. Note that word “eschews;” I use it to distinguish Mr. Obama’s attitude for the attitude of Mr. Churchill, the attitude I believe he should emulate. He has alas not adopted one of those qualities which helped make Mr. Churchill great. And I’m indicating that I’m about to show how Mr. Obama is not alone among the members of Administration is playing the blame game.
Then, I bring in a quote from his deputy, a Mr. Joe Biden, current Vice President of the United States who, in a fundraising letter, identified the policy of the previous Administration as a failed one (Bush Administration here again in the genitive case as per the “of the” signal).
I move on to wonder why they need to express such blame. This is, as you should know since you spend almost as much time on this blog as I do, not the first time I have made reference to such expressions.
Which brings me back to your comment for you do seem to be addressing this point. Maybe Mr. Bush did those horrible, no good and very bad things which you believe defined his tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But, well, that sentence is not a stand-alone(as your comment seems to suggest), it occurs at the end of a short post where the very title indicates I’m relating Mr. Obama’s performance to that of Mr. Churchill. And the reason I brought Mr. Churchill up was to point out that that great Briton “inherited” a terrible mess from his predecessors (something I pointed out in the very first paragraph of this post). But, he didn’t see the need to remind people of their failings. If the world were indeed repulsed by Bush’s leadership (which you claim to be a simple fact), well, then they wouldn’t need a reminder.
Mr. Obama’s mere presence would indicate change. He didn’t need bash Bush to get those favorable poll numbers abroad. He just needed to be charismatic and “not Bush.”
Oh, yes, back to the reading lesson. I have all this stuff about Churchill (including a block quote from a recent biography) this because I believe Obama could learn from him. But, apparently you think Obama has nothing left to learn. You seem to blind yourself (to borrow an expression from the post) to such “Churchillian magnanimity” can help make him more like Churchill. (But then again, maybe you’re like Pat Buchanan, that aforementioned ex-conservative, and don’t believe that celebrated British Prime Minister is worth emulation. In a comment to a post referencing one of that great man’s good qualities, you don’t once reference that man.)
And then we have my concluding line (footnotes are supplemental material). I ask a rhetorical question, using an expression Mr. Obama is fond of, “teaching moment.” Again, I want to stress that he (Mr. Obama) could learn something from Mr. Churchill.
So, once you let go of your obsession with George W. Bush and your need to bash him at every turn, use this comment as a guide and read my post, then review your own comment. Here I’m not demonizing Obama, but offering him some advice and yes, using that proffer (of advice) to criticize him for his petty attacks.
Bear in mind, dear Tano, that the world in 1940, in particular a Mr. A. Hitler (of whom that Mr. Buchanan seems quite fond) needed to see clear evidence, both in deeds and rhetoric, that Britain was forging a new and different path after the forced resignation of a Mr. N. Chamberlain. And that Mr. Churchill did so without every belittling the hapless Mr. C.
But, then again, since you find this one so worthy of great praise, maybe you don’t think Obama needs learn anything from the great world leaders who preceded him.
Can you ever criticize this man? Or have you, like Andrew Sullivan, fallen to swooning over every word he speaks because he’s not George W. Bush–and particularly over those words where he criticizes Bush.
Oh and finally, thank you, Tano, thank you very much. After a number of frustrations involving my car and LA traffic today (an existential crisis in this town) as well as a slow and incompetent worker at a fast food place), I wrote today with great difficulty. But, when I saw your comment, the words began to flow and I wrote quickly, with great fluency and much fun.
Many thanks for inspiring these great thoughts.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 4, 2009 @ 10:25 pm - December 4, 2009
Isn’t there a standard line about arguing with fools and idiots? Why bother engaging Tano (or Gillie, or TorrentPrime). Enough is enough, my patience is at an end.
If it were possible to list the poster at the beginning of each comment, it’d be so much easier to skip their nonsense. Just sayin’
Comment by Jax Dancer — December 4, 2009 @ 10:38 pm - December 4, 2009
Jax, for my part, I can only say writing comment #10 was a lot of fun–and fun is what I needed after a frustrating afternoon.
Oh, and I do think I made a few good points.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 4, 2009 @ 10:44 pm - December 4, 2009
Tano…thanks for being inspirational. Thanks for being irrational. Thanks for be articulate in your misguided way. At least it is enjoyable to read your postings.
Comment by Duffy - Native Intelligence — December 4, 2009 @ 10:45 pm - December 4, 2009
Wouldn’t it be in America’s interest for the Chump in Chief to grab his balls, take responsibility and do his job? How can you be “progressive” and “forward-thinking” when all you do is bitch about the past?
Is that why you have such an insane hatred for Bush because he didn’t bitch about BJ all the time?
[Citation Needed]
Handing out shitty gifts to world leaders, engaging in trade wars and being rude to the guy from India does what?? Throwing Karzai and Honduras under the bus and favoring dictators does what??
We do which is why it’s so easy to find reasons to “demonize Obama”. When you don’t give a rat’s ass about America’s insterests, it’s easy to plant your lips on his sack and never let go.
Can you name one thing he’s done that’s worthy of praise? I mean besides destroying jobs and making Americans dependent on Uncle Sugar. How about hanging out with corrupt criminals, slum lords, racists, sexists, anti-Semitic, bigot homophobes? Is that praise worthy to the liberal left?
And that means what?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574573711965511326.html
What’s more, even the “progressive” VoteVets has figured out that Chairman Dum-dum has no intention on keeping his promise to allow our soldiers more time off between deployments:
http://sitrep.globalsecurity.org/articles/091204518-presidents-afghanistan-strateg.htm
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 4, 2009 @ 11:14 pm - December 4, 2009