The Monarchist 1.0
Defending the British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Peoples
[+] HONOURING OUR PATRON, SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, VICTOR OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES
[+] HONOURING OUR QUEEN, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, ON THE 80TH YEAR OF HER BIRTH (1926 - 2006)
[+] HONOURING OUR KING, SAINT EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, ON THE 1000TH YEAR OF HIS BIRTH (1005 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR HERO, LORD NELSON, ON THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR (1805 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR SONS, THE QUEEN'S COMMONWEALTH SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE 'WAR ON TERROR'
Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard, 46, Royal Canadian Regiment, Nov 27, 2006 (Afstan)
Staff Sergeant Sharron Elliott, 34, Intelligence Corps, Nov 12, 2006 (Iraq)
Private Jacob B. Kovco, 25, Royal Australian Regiment, April 21, 2006
[+] HONOURING OUR VETS ON THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VICTORIA CROSS (1856 - 2006)
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Churchill loses to Attlee?
Is this some kind of joke? Clement Attlee besting Winston Churchill as the greatest British Prime Minister of the 20th century? Attlee nationalized a fifth of the British economy between 1945 and 1951; Churchill only saved Britons from fascist tyranny, and led the free world to victory against the Nazi menace. Sure Attlee was successful in implementing his program, but Thatcher was successful at de-implementing it. I might be able to stomach Margaret Thatcher – no, I cannot even see the Iron Lady beating Churchill, and I can’t see Thatcher being the equal of someone whose legacy she completely overturned. So what gives?
As it turns out, the survey was completed by a socialist, and therein lies the answer to why the media is probably running with it. Francis Beckett is an historian and a lifetime member of the Labour Party, a former trade union press officer and a regular writer with the Guardian. But the little trickster is no dumby and knows how to buy a little credibility. He has effectively shielded himself from predictable attacks from the right by also topping Thatcher, said neutralized right purchased on the backs of the apoplectic left, who are upset that Thatcher won too. But the real outrage is that Attlee beat Churchill, though most media sources are spinning it differently.
Graded Out of Five Points:
5: Clement Attlee
5: Margaret Thatcher
4: Edward Heath
4: Winston Churchill
4: Harold Macmillan
4: Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman
3: Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil (Lord Salisbury)
3: Herbert Henry Asquith
3: David Lloyd George
3: Stanley Baldwin
3: James Harold Wilson
3: Tony Blair
2: James Callaghan
2: Arthur James Balfour
1: Andrew Bonar Law
1: James Ramsay MacDonald
1: Sir Alec Douglas-Home
1: John Major
0: Robert Anthony Eden
0: Neville Chamberlain
Okay, here’s how it really is. Nobody comes close to the greatest statesman of the 20th century. Nobody. Much as you would rate American military power against its nearest competitors, on the first rung you have Churchill; the second is an empty field. On the third rung you have Thatcher, Lloyd George, Asquith… followed by the also-rans. The idea that a prime minister is successful just because he can implement his agenda ignores the crucial point that some agendas might do insidious long-term harm to the country. Is Stalin the greatest Russian leader because he was able to implement his program?
We must be careful to draw the line between most consequential leaders in history, and those surveys where we might rate the “greatest”. You could grade Attlee as being perhaps the most consequential prime minister of the 20th century (though even here, Churchill probably has him), since his policies had major (negative) consequences for the long-term economic health and welfare of Britain, but you would have to rate him on a par with the failures on a whose-who greatest list.
The greats are the ones who lead a reluctant people out of historical catastrophe and succeed (Churchill, Thatcher, Lloyd George). The failures are the ones who try but fail (Eden, Blair); who don’t try and fail (Major); who try wrongly and fail (Baldwin); who try wrongly and succeed (Chamberlain, Attlee). The most dangerous ones are the latter types, those who blindly lead the people into a historical catastrophe and succeed or partially succeed.
What this essentially shows is that there is no substitute for doing the right thing and succeeding. From Eden on down to Chamberlain, all were either failures or spectacular failures, and while we can sympathize with their historical circumstances, none of them are qualified to rank in that most exclusive of clubs.
Unfortunately, Francis Beckett doesn’t seem to understand this most elementary of points. And because of it, the media is having a field day polluting young minds with the greatness of Attlee. Clement Attlee was not a great prime minister. As Churchill said, he was "a modest man with much to be modest about".
UPDATE: The Gods of the Copybook Headings take a better swipe at Attlee than me. They also noticed something that escaped me - the deliberate expunging from history of Lord Salisbury, Britain's first PM of the 20th century, which is a favourite pastime of all socialists negatively obsessed with titles.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:57 p.m. | LINKS |
Is this some kind of joke? Clement Attlee besting Winston Churchill as the greatest British Prime Minister of the 20th century? Attlee nationalized a fifth of the British economy between 1945 and 1951; Churchill only saved Britons from fascist tyranny, and led the free world to victory against the Nazi menace. Sure Attlee was successful in implementing his program, but Thatcher was successful at de-implementing it. I might be able to stomach Margaret Thatcher – no, I cannot even see the Iron Lady beating Churchill, and I can’t see Thatcher being the equal of someone whose legacy she completely overturned. So what gives?
As it turns out, the survey was completed by a socialist, and therein lies the answer to why the media is probably running with it. Francis Beckett is an historian and a lifetime member of the Labour Party, a former trade union press officer and a regular writer with the Guardian. But the little trickster is no dumby and knows how to buy a little credibility. He has effectively shielded himself from predictable attacks from the right by also topping Thatcher, said neutralized right purchased on the backs of the apoplectic left, who are upset that Thatcher won too. But the real outrage is that Attlee beat Churchill, though most media sources are spinning it differently.
Graded Out of Five Points:
5: Clement Attlee
5: Margaret Thatcher
4: Edward Heath
4: Winston Churchill
4: Harold Macmillan
4: Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman
3: Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil (Lord Salisbury)
3: Herbert Henry Asquith
3: David Lloyd George
3: Stanley Baldwin
3: James Harold Wilson
3: Tony Blair
2: James Callaghan
2: Arthur James Balfour
1: Andrew Bonar Law
1: James Ramsay MacDonald
1: Sir Alec Douglas-Home
1: John Major
0: Robert Anthony Eden
0: Neville Chamberlain
Okay, here’s how it really is. Nobody comes close to the greatest statesman of the 20th century. Nobody. Much as you would rate American military power against its nearest competitors, on the first rung you have Churchill; the second is an empty field. On the third rung you have Thatcher, Lloyd George, Asquith… followed by the also-rans. The idea that a prime minister is successful just because he can implement his agenda ignores the crucial point that some agendas might do insidious long-term harm to the country. Is Stalin the greatest Russian leader because he was able to implement his program?
We must be careful to draw the line between most consequential leaders in history, and those surveys where we might rate the “greatest”. You could grade Attlee as being perhaps the most consequential prime minister of the 20th century (though even here, Churchill probably has him), since his policies had major (negative) consequences for the long-term economic health and welfare of Britain, but you would have to rate him on a par with the failures on a whose-who greatest list.
The greats are the ones who lead a reluctant people out of historical catastrophe and succeed (Churchill, Thatcher, Lloyd George). The failures are the ones who try but fail (Eden, Blair); who don’t try and fail (Major); who try wrongly and fail (Baldwin); who try wrongly and succeed (Chamberlain, Attlee). The most dangerous ones are the latter types, those who blindly lead the people into a historical catastrophe and succeed or partially succeed.
What this essentially shows is that there is no substitute for doing the right thing and succeeding. From Eden on down to Chamberlain, all were either failures or spectacular failures, and while we can sympathize with their historical circumstances, none of them are qualified to rank in that most exclusive of clubs.
Unfortunately, Francis Beckett doesn’t seem to understand this most elementary of points. And because of it, the media is having a field day polluting young minds with the greatness of Attlee. Clement Attlee was not a great prime minister. As Churchill said, he was "a modest man with much to be modest about".
UPDATE: The Gods of the Copybook Headings take a better swipe at Attlee than me. They also noticed something that escaped me - the deliberate expunging from history of Lord Salisbury, Britain's first PM of the 20th century, which is a favourite pastime of all socialists negatively obsessed with titles.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:57 p.m. | LINKS |
Comments:
Can't see the comments?If you are unable to see the comments, your browser may have javascript turned off or may not support javascript. Check your security settings. Otherwise you can click here to access to comments in regular HTML from the TheirSay! Comment Server.
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
