Newtonian History
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 11:29AM | by Otter Let me begin with this:
Unnamed conservative relative compared Newt Gingrich to Churchill.OwOwOw! #MakeItStop
— Riparian Church (@RiparianChurch) January 30, 2012
I’ve been fascinated by Churchill for years. William Manchester’s stunningly-written (if awestruck) biography of him grabbed my attention in high school when my mom was guiding me through some dated histories of World War II written in the old days when people understood the power of style in persuading people to believe their story. In those days, the art of “story” was still part of the science of “history.”
It shall be so again.
But anyway, I’m equally fascinated by my unnamed relative’s elevation of Newt to the Churchillian stratosphere, so I’m doing my best to understand it.
The warrant for such a comparison, I suppose, would be:
- A lifelong obsession with politics
- Lifelong fascination with history
- Long period in the political wilderness
- Mammoth ego and sense of personal destiny
- Gift for coupling political pragmatism with a black and white demagogic view of the world
- A taste for high style in oratory that demonizes opponents
American Conservatism feels itself increasingly fighting for its life in a pluralistic world, I suppose, and is ready for its Next Big Thing. Newt could be huge, except that, unlike Churchill, he feels not so much mysterious as chaotic and confused.
Churchill made Churchill what he was, Hitler made Churchill what he became: something that history could tolerate. Newt has yet to find his Hitler. He certainly is a man made for a moment when conviction trumps sentiment, as Churchill (and Hitler) could be. But I think a trend towards socialistic legislation is hardly the opponent that drives a demagogue. The United Kingdom became socialistic under Churchill: the man who could save Europe from Hitler could not save the UK from itself (if we wish to adapt the Gingrich view of good and evil wherein socialization is evil).
Politics in Current Events, History, Politics 
Reader Comments (2)
On a somewhat related note: I just read the first half of King Leopold's Ghost for one of my anthropology classes. A few of the students took issue with the writing style of the book, but I thought it was wonderful. The author managed to bring story back into the history, but at the same time didn't twist the facts for the sake of sensationalizing the story. Granted, the truth was plenty sensational without any embellishing, but I really appreciated the way he was able to bring the personalities and humanity of the people involved into the book. And there were a few times when some of the things he put in were sheer speculation, but even then, he openly admitted that they were speculation without detracting from the flow of the story.
I need to get that one on my reading list....