Excelsior, Brothers and Sisters (On the fiftieth anniversary of Winston Churchill's death.)

The Catholic Thing via CERC ^ | January 26, 2015 | ROBERT ROYAL

[9thLife]

Sir Winston Spencer-Churchill 1874-1965

He was that providential man who, more than any other figure, kept Hitler's Third Reich from an even longer and more murderous run. He also, in a famous speech in Fulton, Missouri, first named the Iron Curtain and the Cold War. We've long lacked leaders of such courage and clarity.

But there are deeper reasons for remembering Churchill. Witness this lecture last Thursday by my friend Leon Kass. A physician and ethicist (former head of the President's Commission on Bioethics), as well as a long-time professor at the University of Chicago, Kass gives a fascinating reading of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, making the case that, if we seek a candidate for Aristotle's "great-souled man," we might well look to Churchill.

The whole notion of being "great-souled" encounters considerable headwinds, of course, in our culture, since we believe little in the soul and perhaps even less in greatness. One of Kass's central points is that democracies, valuable as they sometimes are, tend to denigrate the idea that anyone is better than anyone else, and this democratic envy, to give the thing its right name, is crippling to our souls.

Aristotle's Ethics and the virtue tradition it helped develop have long shaped moral discourse both in the Church and the West (and via Maimonides and al-Farabi, among Jews and Muslims). Aquinas' commentary on the Ethics brings the pagan and Christian traditions into a brilliant harmony. But few today are familiar with it. And it's no wonder that we, Christians and not, therefore rarely embrace Aristotle's — and Churchill's — aspirations to greatness.

Indeed, Christians often look askance as such aspirations. Some, out of false humility (which the pagan Aristotle already understood as a vice), think doing great things should not be a goal for followers of Jesus (who did many great things). So we get an almost automatic dismissal of those who aspire to great things, whether in politics, business, or art.

This dismissal stems from a subtle confusion: that Christianity is above such things, even as Christians should remain humbly below them, as if the world had no place in Christian life. It's true that no Christian should merely pursue fame and approval. Jesus denounces that kind of honor-seeking.

But every Christian ought to seek to do great things, because we are called to follow a great Way. It was St. John Paul II — also a great-souled man — who often urged young people not to settle for mediocrity. Put positively: A Christian must seek, not a low passivity, but even greater things than others do, even in this world.

We often hear today, unfortunately even from the pulpit, that "God loves us just as we are." This is a central Christian truth, properly understood, meaning that even when we were (are) in our sins, Christ came to save us.

But it obviously does not mean that God loves the way we are. Anyone with a smidgen of self-knowledge and capacity for thought knows that. By some diabolical school of sophistry, however, we have a teaching new to the entire history of the world: that everyone is fine (maybe businessmen and neo-conservatives excepted) just the way they are.

This is where figures like Churchill — let alone saints and sages — are helpful to us. Almost all were men and women of great practical action as well as contemplation. As Chesterton says of St. Francis of Assisi:

If we mean by what is practical what is most immediately practicable, we merely mean what is easiest. In that sense St. Francis was very impractical, and his ultimate aims were very unworldly. But if we mean by practicality a preference for prompt effort and energy over doubt or delay, he was very practical indeed.

For all our more superficial activity, that larger-souled sense of practical urgency seems all but absent from us today.

The whole notion of being "great-souled" encounters considerable headwinds, of course, in our culture, since we believe little in the soul and perhaps even less in greatness.

Churchill was a great man of action. He held several high government posts in Britain before becoming Prime Minister. In almost every instance, by hard work and careful attention to detail, he tackled sluggish bureaucracies and made them serve large purposes. His wartime leadership was without equal in modern times, partly because he believed so passionately in what he was doing and knew it took human effort and courage to make it a reality.

That spilled over into those now-familiar phrases from his great speeches. Who would not have been moved by this after France has fallen: "Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'" There's been nothing so heroic in English since St. Crispin's Day in Shakespeare's Henry V.

Yet Churchill was also a prodigious thinker and writer: his magnificent history of World War II is nearly twice as long as Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. And in addition to thousands of articles, and 500 speeches in Parliament, he wrote more than forty books. Good books. (His novel Savrola will soon be republished with annotations by our colleague Patrick Powers). A considerable output for anyone, let alone someone who spent so much time and energy in military and public service.

In whatever he touched, Churchill was a tireless worker despite bouts of depression — an odd combination he seems to have shared with Mother Theresa. He possessed a preternatural capacity to accept his own errors, failures, and downturns without dwelling on them. Instead, he moved quickly onto the next challenge, with good cheer and a great sense of humor. According to accounts, he passed away about as peacefully as a human being can. As he once said, "never flinch, never weary, never despair."

There are other, even higher virtues, to be sure. Greatness of soul extends far beyond this mortal coil. But most of us would do well if we could awaken ourselves to aspire to even a portion of so much.

[Palio di Siena]

such a great product of western civilization.
no wonder obama had his bust removed from the white house.

[nathanbedford]

I think we should expect to see a series of revisionist histories written about Winston Churchill as the left seeks to denigrate Western culture as a means to undermine Western democracy and Western free markets.

I have often maintained that a shortcut to determining someone's political instincts is to ask him, who was the greatest man of the 20th century? If the answer, Winston Churchill, is not spontaneously forthcoming either your subject is instinctively inclined toward the left or is the product of modern leftist education devised by The Frankfurt School and your subject is too ignorant to be worthy of your time.

Just yesterday we have seen a post ripping Winston Churchill as a racist primarily because of his opposition to the independence movement in India and some derogatory observations made by Churchill concerning Mohammedans. The author of the piece writes as though it is a given that British imperialism was a wholly malignant force and Islam and holy benign one. The author seeks to deprive us of the standing to make discriminations.

I believe that Western civilization is superior to third world civilizations. I believe that Western democracy is superior to Third World tyrannies. I believe that Christianity is far and away superior to Islam even when judged only on the basis of the fruits produced by each. I believe that much of the Third World, especially Islam, is benighted and in need of Western guidance and edification. I do not believe that primitive societies are noble or even the equal of a Western democracy. I do not believe that they are to be preferred over life in an industrialized Western society. I make these value judgments and I stand by them because I am not ashamed of them.

Churchill had the temerity to write several volumes about the history of the English speaking peoples as though that were a subject worthy of study. I too believe it was and still is.

Expect the reputation of Winston Churchill to be traduced by those who would destroy, or rather "transform," our society.

[samtheman]

Churchill was an incredible player in the events of the 20th century. While most famous for his deeds in the WWII, his participation in WWI is also noteworthy. I’m currently reading a book “The Peace to End All Peace” by David Fromkin which is not specifically about Churchill but shows how important he was to British policy making in the early years of the century. He was no saint, he made mistakes, but as you say, he was the greatest leader of the 20th century. Certainly far surpassing the vaunted FDR.

[EternalVigilance]

Even dead, his mere bust made the communist-in-chief expose his real nature.

That’s a mark of distinction at least, if not a mark of greatness.

[nathanbedford]

Your point is well made.

Is uncanny how well Churchill understood the new realities of the first world war. He prepared the British Navy, as Kitchener said, converted it from coal to oil and made it ready. He saw the futility of trench warfare. He sought always to deploy the Navy and the mobility it provided as ways to shorten the war. The adventures in the Dardanelles are reflective of Churchill's repugnance over trench warfare in the West and it is worth noting that he was wholly exonerated for that fiasco. He fathered the tank, was a pioneer in military aviation, and had a true tactical understanding of the war, refusing to panic, for example, during the devastating German attacks in the spring of 1918. After the war Churchill was not found in the camp of those who would prostrate Germany but he was fully alert to the dangers of the Bolsheviks and, in fact, was roundly criticized for his strenuous efforts to send troops to Russia in opposition. For this and for the Dardanelles he was labeled a war monger and an adventurer but these episodes served only to demonstrate the scope of his genius.

His personal courage under fire cannot be disputed from Afghanistan through Sudan to the trenches of World War I and finally driving his body to the point of heart attack in World War II.

He saw farther and treuer than any man and he alone can boast that he acted upon his convictions but the power he wielded, unlike all the tyrants of history, was always for a benign purpose.

Finally, he was truly a Renaissance man who could rival a Goethe, a Jefferson, a Franklin, a Teddy Roosevelt, a da Vinci.

[EternalVigilance]

And he probably could have drunk all of them under the table.

;-)

[samtheman]

Stirring eulogy. And all true.

BTW, if you get a chance, I wouldn’t mind getting your opinion of the book I mentioned. If you get a chance to read it (or if by chance you already have).

[Old Sarge]

Well, I suppose since Churchill was not my reflex response to your question, you’re calling me ignorant.

Noted and logged.

[nathanbedford]

ok, I’ll play, who then?

[Old Sarge]

I actually have a list of four, but with no single one who rises above - more like a team of superheroes, as it were.

Churchill is definitely among that stellar group, but also Reagan, Thatcher, and of course Pope John Paul II.

Those four have turned the course of history each in their own ways, and the world is a better place for them having lived.

[TalBlack]

He saw farther and treuer than any man and he alone can boast that he acted upon his convictions but the power he wielded, unlike all the tyrants of history, was always for a benign purpose.

Finally, he was truly a Renaissance man who could rival a Goethe, a Jefferson, a Franklin, a Teddy Roosevelt, a da Vinci.

DITTO!

And, as you well know, his mother was an American.

There is a chin-set head back picture of him at about five years that in his aspect seemed to foretell the grand future. He was posing as if he’d already done it all.

[nathanbedford]

Reagan, Thatcher and John Paul certainly turned the course of history. John Paul stole Poland right out from under the eyes of the Bolsheviks, Reagan and Thatcher exploited the moral ascendancy created by John Paul and extended it. Both of these latter two leaders are to be credited with temporarily halting the onrush of socialism and certainly for restoring the economic vitality of their nations. Thatcher probably saved Great Britain from utter ruin.

Against that, a conservative might properly fault Churchill for playing a role in the British progressive reforms that occurred at the same time there as they occurred in the United States. I am not sure how I would grade Churchill for his association with Lloyd George and his leading role in so many British laws that ameliorated the Dickensian effects of the Industrial Revolution. I could defend Churchill by saying that he was engaged in a society fixed by class which cried out for some sort of amelioration for the underclass and he provided relief by way of child labor laws etc. Moreover, a conservative might take note that the British constitution presents no real inhibition to socialism to the degree that the American Constitution does nor was it part of the English culture. Nevertheless, Churchill spoke out against socialism and communism his whole career. At the end of the day I am not enthusiastic about Churchill's role at that time but he certainly did not support but explicitly opposed the socialism of Clement Atlee which came two generations later after World War II.

I elevate Churchill above the three you mentioned because he was a Renaissance man, an author of matchless ability and staggering output, a wartime leader, an active soldier, a statesman, a bulwark against Nazi-ism as well as against communism. Reagan was a great man and so was Thatcher also great but they did not possess the multi-dimensional talents of Churchill. I do not believe that any one of the three could match his intellect for sheer candlepower of IQ. Reagan and Thatcher were good, perhaps great orators, but Churchill "mobilized the English language and hurled it into battle," as he was described to have done by Kennedy, no doubt ironically using Ted Sorenson's words.

Churchill stands above them for his durability, he dominated history from 1900 to the 1950s whereas Thatcher and Reagan had influence for much shorter terms. Churchill bridged history from a cavalry charge wielding a saber to the atomic age and he contributed mightily in every decade.

If one gives credit to Reagan Thatcher and John Paul for bringing down communism certainly equal or greater credit should go to Churchill for recognizing its danger in 1919, his opposition to it throughout his life, his alerting the world to it in 1947 at Fulton Missouri with the Iron Curtain Speech, his attempts, which were undercut by Roosevelt to head off Soviet domination of Eastern Europe which he foresaw and Roosevelt did not, mark Churchill as the lone statesman of the era who saw at least by the end of the war the true nature of Joseph Stalin.

Finally it was not just that Churchill was a leader in World War II, it was that he saw the strategy which ultimately brought victory, mobilized the world to engage against the heaviest odds, saw his nation saved and victorious, provided the vision and the language by which the free world would prevail. He virtually alone foresaw the Nazi threat and he had the vision to see how it could be defeated and the courage and the talents to bring about.

[tet68]

I believe that Western civilization is superior to third world civilizations. I believe that Western democracy is superior to Third World tyrannies. I believe that Christianity is far and away superior to Islam even when judged only on the basis of the fruits produced by each. I believe that much of the Third World, especially Islam, is benighted and in need of Western guidance and edification. I do not believe that primitive societies are noble or even the equal of a Western democracy. I do not believe that they are to be preferred over life in an industrialized Western society. I make these value judgments and I stand by them because I am not ashamed of them.

Well said. Liberals, like the current president, always
seem ashamed of our history and our achievements and
continue to apologize for them.

[Old Sarge]

I am always glad to receive a reasoned reply - it's refreshing, considering the declining level of discourse here these days.

So, in regards to my first less-than-nice comment, I say:

[nathanbedford]

I have not seen the book to which you refer but that is not surprising because I am here in Germany far from any English bookstore or library and, unless I get material off the Internet, I don't ordinarily order books and pay the freight. However, I will look it up on Amazon and see what I can figure out from the reviews.