Over the Christmas holiday, I read a couple of books that, at least for me, may provide some guidance in the upcoming tumultuous and probably consequential year. The first book was Munich, 1938 by David Farber, (grandson of former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan) by far the most authoritative book on that world changing event.
Beyond the obvious policy point that appeasement is generally bad, the value of the book is in its dissection of how the experienced leadership class of the then-leading power -- the British Empire -- was able to think and talk and deceive itself into a catastrophically bad policy decision. The author reveals in minute example how domestic politics, leaks and counterleaks to major newspapers shaped -- and misshaped -- both vital foreign policy judgment and how the world construed and misconstrued British strategic thinking.
The author also reveals in fresh details the well known story of how Winston Churchill, Duff Cooper and a hand full of others -- in and out of government -- dissented from the policy.
The other half of the story of Munich 1938 was events in Germany, where, unlike in Britain, the problem was a war policy advocated by Adolf Hitler that was opposed by most of the institutional leadership (including many of the very top generals) and by the general public which feared another war. (As Hitler paraded his armored columns through Berlin in preparation for entering Czechoslovakia, according to a witness, "the people of Berlin ducked into subways, refused to look on, and the handful that did stood at the curb in utter silence. It was the most striking demonstration against the war I've ever seen." Hitler watched it from a window and in furious contempt of the German people complained "With such people I cannot wage war." Of course he did, in part because of what, the author points out, was Hitler's "exceptional insight into the tendency of men torn between conscience and self-interest to welcome what made it easier to opt for the latter.")
The second book is a new short biography of Winston Churchill by the prolific English writer Paul Johnson. It has the advantage of being probably the last Churchill biography which will be written by an author who personally knew the great man -- and is filled with personal tidbits that bring further color to the well known story of Churchill's life.
At a mere 166 pages, the book, among other things, encapsulates how to dissent on the great policies of war and peace by a politician who is both personally ambitious and honorable. It also brings to life how such a man fights on in the face of overwhelming public opposition and elite scorn. These are lessons we need to learn and practice here in America in 2010.
The author identifies five Churchillian attributes that guided his eventual success: 1) He aimed high, but never cadged or demeaned himself to gain office or objectives; 2) there was no substitute for hard work -- even though he was brilliant; 3) Churchill "never allowed mistakes, disasters -- personal or national -- accidents, illnesses, unpopularity and criticism to get him down. His powers of recuperation, both in physical illness an in psychological responses to abject failure, were astounding"; 4) Churchill wasted extraordinarily small amounts of energy on hatred, recrimination, malice, revenge grudges, rumor mongering or vendettas. Energy expended on hate was energy lost to productive activity; and 5) he always had something other than politics to give joy to his life.
My old boss Newt Gingrich used to say that he studied history as a practical guide for a working politician and political activist. And it is with that in mind that I offer the foregoing.
2010 is going to be a tough year. We are going to have huge struggles over terrorism, war, shockingly large new deficits and public debt policies, crushing tax proposals on energy, income, health care and many other human activities. We have every right to dissent, and to do so vigorously even on such matters as terrorism policy.
Contrary to White House and Democratic Party complaints in the last few days, there is nothing partisan or improper about sharply criticizing such administration policy. As a loyal conservative Republican, I nonetheless wrote an entire book in 2005 criticizing George W. Bush's antiterrorism policy and operations, as did many other conservative Republicans dissent. At a much, much grander level, Winston Churchill in the 1930s powerfully dissented from a policy of appeasement that Britain's leaders at the time were convinced were vital to secure the peace. Dissenting with honesty, ferocity and courage is one of Churchill's lessons to us today.
And, whether fighting as an underdog in a political struggle or trying to keep things together as a bread winner in this second hard economic winter, Churchill's last words in his last speech in Parliament as prime minister in 1955 are sturdy guides to conduct: "Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair."
Tony Blankley is the author of "American Grit: What It Will Take to Survive and Win in the 21st Century" (Regnery, 2009) and vice president of the Edelman public-relations firm in Washington.
Churchill was a great writer and a stirring orator-but you can't consign mass murder to the memory hole with a stirring speech or the rhetorical flourish of a pen.
When it appeared that Adolph might secure a foothold on British soil, small teams of terrorism trained soldiers were established in tiny underground bolt-holes all over the countryside at Winston’s direction. Their short and suicidal mission, of perhaps a few days, was to cause as much disruption to the enemy as possible while they remained alive. Even including the liquidation of fellow nationals suspected of collaborating with the invaders.
The US security services, were publicly interviewed on television last night. One of the reporters asked why the terrorists acted as they did. The security staff appeared completely nonplussed by this question, and could not offer any plausible explanation. I would suggest that they start finding out. Because the primary requirement for fixing something, is to first understand it.
lol
>>>> Contrary to complaints from Democrats, there is nothing partisan or improper about criticizing Obama's policy. Dissenting with honesty, ferocity and courage is one of Churchill's lessons to us.
The statement that "Democrats haven't done anything worthy of dissent...etc" is preposterous on its face and doesn't even merit debate: book after book shows how the Democrats in several previous administrations were complicit in promoting a legislative and regulatory weakening of housing lending standards which have led to the current crisis(whither Chris Dodd?).
The term "progressive" does not mean that something that makes me feel good is automatically exempt from the laws of economics, foreign scrutiny, constitutional limitations, process analysis or enemy attack. The public senses this and is beginning to question the Administration's ideologically driven detachment as not necessarily in its best interest.
The 1938 Munich agreement was in part an attempt to avoid another British blood bath northern France and Belgium which the old empire had experienced 20 years earlier from 1914-1918.(The war to end all wars).
It was Chamberlain's belief that he did not want to go down in history as The Prime Minister who sent another generation to fill more graves in Northern France.This was one of the major reasons Chamberlain made every attempt to avoid another military confrontation. "Peace in our Time," became the slogan of the day.
History is always asking "What the hell was Neville Chamberlain thinking," since we now know all too much about the monster who occupied the chancellery in Berlin.
However, in 1938 most of the British public and it's Prime Minister wanted to believe that war could be avoided, and in doing so, save a million British boys from repeating the last war.
Chamberlain and the majority of the British people wanted this new generation to grow up to become men, fathers and even grandfathers, and not again lay waste on the poppy fields of France.
EngChina.
So, by all means, Mr. Blankley, dissent away as long as you do not sacrifice honesty and courage for ferocity alone. The Liberal Glee Club has yet to learn how to drown out criticism with chants of "USA! USA!" and we have not designated "Free Speech Zones" so the floor continues to be yours.
Why not just wait to be exterminated?
Ok, fair enough. But the D's problem with the R's crticism is that it only has one of the three..
And - I know that you know this. So the most basic premise of your post here is fallacious.