From a 1977 review of "2 books with nearly identical titles" — "Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941: The Partnership That Saved the West" and "Roosevelt and Churchill: Their Secret Wartime Correspondence."
I encountered that in The New York Review of Books this morning as I was indulging in The Althouse Review of Badinage.
Do we have anyone like that today — a gifted amateur exuding a sense of having been born to rule, capable of sharing their thoughts and actions, pleasures and worries, badinage and anger, with a sovereign self-confidence that comes naturally?
पोस्ट्स
२९ टिप्पण्या:
You mean besides Trump?
Damn, Althouse!
Do we have anyone like that today — a gifted amateur exuding a sense of having been born to rule, capable of sharing their thoughts and actions, pleasures and worries, badinage and anger, with a sovereign self-confidence that comes naturally?
Now you are definitely (and quite sublimely) trolling the delightfully named Mr. O'Toole. And just like that the blog theme for the day is off and running.
Bobby K, maybe.
FDR is standing on Churchill's shoulders
I don't see those two in the same category. I'll admit my personal politics are influencing my opinion. Though. Churchill had the advantage of his nation being under attack on a daily basis. I'm sure that motivation, created his persona.
In what sense was either Roosevelt or Churchill an amateur in 1940?
Both had careers in politics and military affairs that stretched back to before World War I. FDR had been an undersecretary of the Navy, and Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty. FDR was later Governor of New York. Churchill had served as an MP and Cabinet member, and had military experience in Britain's colonial wars in the late 1800s. Most considered Churchill to be at the end of his rather long career as a politician when he became PM.
by WHAT Sense were Either of Those Two "amateurs"
weren't they both landed aristocrats whose families had been running things for a LONG time?
No, it can't be...
Yikes. Such wrongthink will get you swiftly banned from your highly paid position commenting on current events.
Be careful out there
Churchill and Roosevelt were not on a comparable level intellectually. Churchill wrote forty-three works of history, plus a handful of more eclectic tomes such as his personal memoirs and a one on art, Painting as a Pasttime 1948. Churchill also earned a Nobel Laureate for Literature in 1948.
I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who famously said Roosevelt had a second-class intellect but a first-class temperament. That may be, but I would say FDR understood his limitations, which was his chief advantage over Churchill. Roosevelt was a complete amateur at everything, but especially war, and understood that personal truth profoundly. He never deemed himself a strategist, which made him unique among the warlords of the period. Churchill, despite his literary brilliance never squarely faced his failures as a strategic thinker.
RFK, Jr. and DJT are as close as we come to the manner born. Amateurs who lack of political credentials gives them a populist appeal. After 75 years of bureaucratic entrenchment, people are fed up, but it requires a kind of trench warfare that FDR and Churchill never faced..
"...born to rule..." Some people are just born to lick hands.
If they were amateurs, who were the pros?
I'd say Vlad and Xi both exude sovereign self-confidence, but without the badinage.
Of recent or current leaders, I see Boris Johnson and Macron exuding entitlement to rule while being able to engage in witty exchanges. Of course, Boris wasted his talent.
Do we have anyone like that today — a gifted amateur exuding a sense of having been born to rule, capable of sharing their thoughts and actions, pleasures and worries, badinage and anger, with a sovereign self-confidence that comes naturally?
We certainly have people who think they are that - see, e.g., John Kerry.
Re: Christopher B:
In what sense was either Roosevelt or Churchill an amateur in 1940?
My reaction as well. That said, they weren't members of the developing professional class of credentialled clerks and bureaucrats. Well, Roosevelt II was credentialled as a lawyer -- not quite a gentleman -- but he had dropped out of law school, so he was still a somewhat more old fashioned type. So in that sense, I suppose they were amateurs next to the professional civil servants, the "best and the brightest," who brought us the War in Vietnam.
If they were amateurs, who were the pros?
Bullseye.
FDR understood his limitations, which was his chief advantage over Churchill.
Yes. FDR was a consummate politician but had no problem hiring and relying on people who were much more knowledgeable than himself in other fields.
Badinage
First time that I've encountered this word. Didn't get the meaning from the context, but after checking the etymology and seeing the relation to "Banter" it now makes sense.
Elon Musk
Speaking of trench warfare (robother) WSC had a battalion of the Scots Guards (IIRC) for about six months in 1916. He clearly longed to be a great soldier, but his interests and intellect were too wide-ranging for him to focus that narrowly in a rigid structure.
FDR had the strategic sense to go after Germany first, and to do so through North Africa and the Med until the US forces were large enough and experienced enough to take on the Germans in bulk. Not all the professionals agreed. And I'm not that big a fan of his.
Roosevelt, Churchill and de Gaulle all had one thing in common. They came from educated, elegant and worldly backgrounds.
Roosevelt was as close as it gets to a perfect politician, and he couldn’t coax Americans into the second world war until the Empire of Japan rather precipitated matters. It is voters who set the bounds of what is possible. Real-world events change their minds, not rhetoric from above.
Churchill singularly organized his thinking around keeping India as the central piece to an enduring British Empire from 1928 onwards if not before. That was his thousand year quest for the British people of which standing independent of Hitler's Germany in 1940 was the first of many tests. And like Netanyahu in 2024, Churchill in 1941 assured the British Parliament that he was not going to let any American president and some piece of paper like the Atlantic Charter lead to the disestablishment of the Empire and allow indigenous people to claim rights to self-determination or self-government. Gandhi and Nehru went into detention, not into Allied leadership as the Americans had strenuously argued for in early and mid-1942. India should have been the third great power in the Allied coalition, a strategic error of the first order.
“We all know what to do. But we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.” ~ Olaf Scholz
Churchill in 1945 is the perfect example. Churchill lost the post war general election in a heavy defeat.
The answer is actually simple but very hard to do — Communicate well and tell the truth.
Of course we do.
Hunter Biden. You may not like what he shares, but he shares.
Balfegor said...
So in that sense, I suppose they were amateurs next to the professional civil servants, the "best and the brightest," who brought us the War in Vietnam.
You could add Iraq and Afghanistan, the 'two-state' solution, the entire African continent, and whole book of other failures to that.
It struck me that styling Churchill and FDR as 'amateurs' was intended to make it sound like anybody with the proper credentials would be able to step in to a role and perform to their level of achievement without any practical experience. As an example, Rich's conceited view that
Roosevelt, Churchill and de Gaulle all had one thing in common. They came from educated, elegant and worldly backgrounds.
Rich said…
“Roosevelt was as close as it gets to a perfect politician…”
I agree. And that’s the opposite of a compliment.
“and he couldn’t coax Americans into the second world war until the Empire of Japan rather precipitated matters.”
True, but not for a lack of trying. Months before Pearl Harbor, he deliberately put US personnel in harm’s way; both German and US forces shot at each other, with the USS Reuben James sunk in October. And we sunk at least one German submarine.
I laughed out loud.
Then I laughed again when Rich took the bait.
- Rafe
I think to a certain extent Churchill played Roosevelt. I'm pretty sure the seed of the idea for Lend Lease came from Churchill. That is what untimately put Americans to work.
Do we have anyone? I suppose me, but I won't do it.
"Amateurs", as described here, would certainly include JFK. Great privilege and confidence as he acted brashly in matters that put the world at risk and, in one case, contributed to the loss of over 50,000 American lives.
The Bay of Pigs was an embarrassment of planning and resolve that has paid toxic dividends for more than 60 years. He then bet the farm that the USSR would not or could not go to war when confronted with a naval blockade. That, perhaps, emboldened him to roll the dice in Vietnam by sanctioning the fatal removal of the President of the RVN.
His successor, while no amateur in government and lacking privileged roots, proved to be the ultimate amateur as a wartime leader.
You could probably make a good case for Obama checking all the boxes of privileged, confident amateur who greatly affected the world. Although his origins were beyond humble, others made it possible for him to ascend in the aristocracy through academia - Punahou, Columbia and Harvard Law. Oddly, few remember much about him during his school days.
Next thing you know, he's a congressman, then a senator, then a president. Possibly the least seasoned and least vetted of anyone ever to lead the most powerful nation on earth.
Being Black Jesus granted him more willing indulgence than the mighiest of kings. His stated intention to fundamentally change our country reeked of audacity and contempt for our heritage, our culture, our freedoms and our achievements.
We live in interesting times. Probably gonna become more interesting in the next year.
"Do we have anyone like that today"
I work with people every damn day who exude that expertise, that self confidence, that ability to share of themselves, and so on. They have ranged over the years from heavily tattooed auto mechanics to the stuffiest of liberal art professors. That two members of a self proclaimed elite - FDR & Winston - would behave similarly is merely a matter of attracting attention because of the scale of their operational authority. Every competent person I have known in my life behaves the same as those two, on their own subject matters of expertise.
Churchill had been Home Secretary, President of the Board of Trade, First Lord of the Admiralty, Colonial Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer. What this gave him was experience of dealing with military, police, trade, the economy and colonies, so he wouldn’t just take the advice of experts, but subject it to proper scrutiny.
He was a great man. Flawed, of course, but still a great man.
I obviously know far less about FDR, but my take is that, for all his policy errors - prolongation of the depression - he didn’t despair of the American people and America.
Churchill had been Home Secretary, President of the Board of Trade, First Lord of the Admiralty, Colonial Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer. What this gave him was experience of dealing with military, police, trade, the economy and colonies, so he wouldn’t just take the advice of experts, but subject it to proper scrutiny.
He was a great man. Flawed, of course, but still a great man.
I obviously know far less about FDR, but my take is that, for all his policy errors - prolongation of the depression - he didn’t despair of the American people and America.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा