Steven P. BarrettUnnecessary Rap On Pat Buchanan's Latest Book
June 17th 2008 04:48
Link: patbuchananbooks.com/
CHURCHILL, HITLER, and THE UNNECESSARY WAR: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, Crown 2008, by Patrick J. Buchanan may prove to be the latter’s most unnecessary tome or a story that’s been long overdue.
I have to hand it to Buchanan for his tirelessness and his willingness to take on a sacred icon of both traditionalist conservatives and neoconservatives: Winston Churchill. Imagine if Churchill’s mug had been carved out of Mount Rushmore along with the presidents. (In some respects, the English bulldog would qualify on a shoestring since his mother Jennie was American and he was awarded American citizenship by a grateful Congress some forty years ago. But it’s a thin shoestring.)
Now picture some traditionalist conservative or neocon’s worst nightmares of Pat Buchanan strategically placing dynamite sticks under Winnie’s likeness. It’d be one hell of a cigar lighting. Some cigar, some bang!
Of course I’m having some fun, but to read the reactions of some full-blown Churchill lovers, including one I came across today, Townhall.com, well, Buchanan might as well have lit the fuse. There are some people within the ranks of conservative writers, speakers, talking heads and even scholars, who are simply beyond touching reach; Churchill‘s one of them, Reagan‘s the other. Just suggesting that Churchill committed massive blunders which contributed to two world wars plus the cold war that followed -- well, no mercy is being shown to this iconoclastic contributor to contemporary conservatism. Imagine Dana Carvey imitating Poppy Bush on Saturday Night Live saying “Not prudent.”
David R. Stokes in “Buchanan's Unnecessary Book,” (6/15/08 Townhall.com) believes Buchanan is a “grave flipper,” for trashing people most of whom are dead, thus unable to “defend themselves.” Only in Stoke’s view, Buchanan’s sins are more scarlet since the latter’s taken to criticizing Nixon and Reagan and Poppy Bush, all of whom Buchanan worked for. Nowhere I also see any credit given to Buchanan for the countless times the latter has praised his former bosses. Minor detail, apparently.
Stokes is unapologetically “Churchillophile.” His candor is refreshing in a world full of hacks majoring in irony and minoring in transparency. “In the interest of full disclosure and complete candor,” harrumphed Stokes, “I need to say up front that I am, and have been as long as I can remember, an unreformed and unapologetic Churchillophile. Therefore, I tend to recoil when confronted with Buchanan’s broadsides like:
“There has arisen among America’s elite a Churchill cult. Its acolytes hold that Churchill was not only a peerless war leader but a statesman of unparalleled vision whose life and legend should be the model for every statesman.” (Emphasis, Stokes.’)
I’ve long been an admirer of Churchill, but to be honest, there are some … things, unpleasant things … about his legacy that need to see the light of day, for justice’s sake. His role in the shaping of the post-war world, notwithstanding his great “Iron Curtain” speech delivered in Fulton, MO, has a lot to be desired. His and FDR’s and Truman’s.
I’m a registered (conservative) Democrat, and a proud admirer of both FDR and Truman. But they were human beings, capable of committing terrible mistakes, however well-intentioned.
Ironically, Churchill, much alike FDR and Truman, was more than manly enough when it came to admitting his blunders than many of his present-day shills. (There’s a lot of silence coming from the Neocons concerning Iraq and those WMDs.) Churchill appreciated his admirers, but he appreciated truth far more. While he committed awful blunders, one of them wouldn’t have been restudying (both) William Pitts to find out to how to defeat Hitler, which seems eerily similar to how the Neocons look at today’s hot spots.
More to come on this subject.
I have to hand it to Buchanan for his tirelessness and his willingness to take on a sacred icon of both traditionalist conservatives and neoconservatives: Winston Churchill. Imagine if Churchill’s mug had been carved out of Mount Rushmore along with the presidents. (In some respects, the English bulldog would qualify on a shoestring since his mother Jennie was American and he was awarded American citizenship by a grateful Congress some forty years ago. But it’s a thin shoestring.)
Now picture some traditionalist conservative or neocon’s worst nightmares of Pat Buchanan strategically placing dynamite sticks under Winnie’s likeness. It’d be one hell of a cigar lighting. Some cigar, some bang!
Of course I’m having some fun, but to read the reactions of some full-blown Churchill lovers, including one I came across today, Townhall.com, well, Buchanan might as well have lit the fuse. There are some people within the ranks of conservative writers, speakers, talking heads and even scholars, who are simply beyond touching reach; Churchill‘s one of them, Reagan‘s the other. Just suggesting that Churchill committed massive blunders which contributed to two world wars plus the cold war that followed -- well, no mercy is being shown to this iconoclastic contributor to contemporary conservatism. Imagine Dana Carvey imitating Poppy Bush on Saturday Night Live saying “Not prudent.”
David R. Stokes in “Buchanan's Unnecessary Book,” (6/15/08 Townhall.com) believes Buchanan is a “grave flipper,” for trashing people most of whom are dead, thus unable to “defend themselves.” Only in Stoke’s view, Buchanan’s sins are more scarlet since the latter’s taken to criticizing Nixon and Reagan and Poppy Bush, all of whom Buchanan worked for. Nowhere I also see any credit given to Buchanan for the countless times the latter has praised his former bosses. Minor detail, apparently.
Stokes is unapologetically “Churchillophile.” His candor is refreshing in a world full of hacks majoring in irony and minoring in transparency. “In the interest of full disclosure and complete candor,” harrumphed Stokes, “I need to say up front that I am, and have been as long as I can remember, an unreformed and unapologetic Churchillophile. Therefore, I tend to recoil when confronted with Buchanan’s broadsides like:
“There has arisen among America’s elite a Churchill cult. Its acolytes hold that Churchill was not only a peerless war leader but a statesman of unparalleled vision whose life and legend should be the model for every statesman.” (Emphasis, Stokes.’)
I’ve long been an admirer of Churchill, but to be honest, there are some … things, unpleasant things … about his legacy that need to see the light of day, for justice’s sake. His role in the shaping of the post-war world, notwithstanding his great “Iron Curtain” speech delivered in Fulton, MO, has a lot to be desired. His and FDR’s and Truman’s.
I’m a registered (conservative) Democrat, and a proud admirer of both FDR and Truman. But they were human beings, capable of committing terrible mistakes, however well-intentioned.
Ironically, Churchill, much alike FDR and Truman, was more than manly enough when it came to admitting his blunders than many of his present-day shills. (There’s a lot of silence coming from the Neocons concerning Iraq and those WMDs.) Churchill appreciated his admirers, but he appreciated truth far more. While he committed awful blunders, one of them wouldn’t have been restudying (both) William Pitts to find out to how to defeat Hitler, which seems eerily similar to how the Neocons look at today’s hot spots.
More to come on this subject.
| 22 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
