McCain: The GOP's Winston Churchill

Weekly Standard: Conservatives May Find Comfort By Comparing Candidate To Legendary Leader

(Weekly Standard)  This column was written by Michael Makovsky.

---

It has been widely reported since Super Tuesday that John McCain has effectively sewn up the Republican nomination for president but must still convince enough American conservatives that he stands as heir to Ronald Reagan. This poses an obstacle to his election in November. McCain might be more successful in wooing conservatives if he claimed the mantle of a different Republican icon, Winston Churchill, a maverick distrusted in his day by Conservatives and a man whom McCain praised frequently in his books. The parallels between McCain and Churchill are striking and instructive.

Both grew up as underachievers in the shadow of prominent fathers and ancestors and then surpassed them in renown. Churchill's father was chancellor of the Exchequer, a descendant of the Duke of Marlborough who defeated the armies of Louis XIV, while McCain's father and grandfather were prominent admirals. Both McCain and Churchill were fearless soldiers and prisoners of war, although Churchill escaped Boer captivity after mere weeks while McCain endured more than five grueling years at the Hanoi Hilton. Both have felt most at home in battle, whether in war or political chambers, and have shared a restlessness to advance their own careers and the cause of their countries.

Neither Churchill nor McCain was ever liked much by his colleagues. Perhaps early on Churchill was more liked and his brilliance more respected, but he switched from the Conservatives in 1904 to the Liberals with much newfound partisan fervor, and the Conservatives never forgave him even after he returned to the fold in 1924 -- even after he won WWII. Churchill's dispute with the party leadership over control of India (he favored it), Nazi Germany (he was against it), Zionism (he was for it), and other divisive issues, as well as his occasional outreach to Labourites -- indeed, he headed a wartime coalition government -- did not help his popularity among the party faithful. McCain has always been a Republican, but, without being the partisan warrior Churchill was, he has never been personally popular with his party colleagues. He further alienated the party faithful and establishment by co-sponsoring legislation with Democrats. Both have been perceived by colleagues as erratic, and occasionally harsh in personal relations.

Fundamental to Churchill's worldview was the belief that priorities had to be rigidly ranked and that the supreme interests need to be vigorously and single-mindedly pursued. Chief among those interests was national security. McCain has suggested a similar approach. Indeed, McCain and Churchill lived and breathed national security issues, and it is in this policy field that their similarities are most pronounced. They both strongly believed in their countries, considering them the chief champions of civilization, and they have been rarities in usually putting national security interests ahead of their political fortunes.

From the time he became First Lord of the Admiralty shortly before WWI, Churchill was mostly tough-minded and prescient about major national security issues. He took the unpopular stands of seeking to overthrow the new Bolshevik government in 1919-1920 (derisively dubbed "Churchill's War"), warning against the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s when appeasement was overwhelmingly popular, and then privately and publicly warning against the emerging Soviet threat shortly after Yalta in early 1945 when the British people were exhausted after almost six years of war.

Churchill dismissed the political consequences of his positions on preeminent matters. Indicative of his attitude was his private response in 1919 to criticism over his anti-Bolshevik crusade: "I cannot help feeling a most dreadful & ever present sense of responsibility. Am I wrong? How easy for me to shrug my shoulders & say it is on the Cabinet, or on the Paris [Versailles] Conference. I cannot do it." Although steadfast in principle, Churchill remained tactically flexible, making alliances even with despised regimes and former enemies in order to advance British national security interests against those he usually depicted as foes of Western civilization.

McCain has also often taken gutsy and discerning stands on national security. He stood up and supported the Kosovo war despite personal misgivings and general Republican apathy over what they deemed "Clinton's war" because he thought it necessary to rally around the president and troops in time of battle. McCain also gave the most persuasive argument why containing Saddam Hussein was untenable, and then after 2003 became a persistent critic of the management of the war, including troop levels, before taking the unpopular (even among Republicans) early stand of supporting the surge, which has made significant advances. He often sees conflicts within a clash of civilizations, warning about the threat posed by radical Islam, while remaining flexible in tactics and alliances. McCain has also persistently warned against the danger of a nuclear Iran, and even raised the idea of bombing Iran's nuclear sites when much of the country is wary of new military engagements. A McCain administration would make our enemies nervous in ways that no president has since Bush in 2001-03 or Reagan for much of his tenure.

It was Churchill's credibility, earned by staking out unpopular but prophetic positions, that led him to be embraced by his political nemesis Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when war broke out in 1939, and then catapulted him to replace Chamberlain over war mismanagement in 1940. After shockingly losing the postwar election in 1945, Churchill regained the premiership in 1951 by seizing on the Labour government's failures in economic and foreign affairs. He co-opted the political center by advocating, in place of bitter party strife, a "solid stable administration by a government not seeking to rub party dogma into everybody else."

It was McCain's unique national security credibility that similarly brought him back into the good graces of his more powerful political rival, President George W. Bush, and he can legitimately offer himself as a competent and effective wartime commander in chief. But McCain now can attain the presidency only if he also reaches out to the political center, or independents, as he has before.

Adhering to party orthodoxy is no guarantee of greatness. Churchill often diverged from the party line, but he emerged undeniably the greatest leader of his party, country, and the West of his era. Indeed, Stanley Baldwin, prime minister of the mid-1930s, was a most popular Conservative party leader but is remembered by history for dawdling while Nazi Germany rearmed. Churchill memorably claimed publicly in 1936 that the Baldwin government was "resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent," and later lamented privately he would have preferred Baldwin never had lived. Churchill was far more gracious toward Chamberlain, who at least tried to do something to blunt the Nazi threat, however disastrous the result of his appeasement policy.

McCain certainly has not achieved Churchill's heights, but he can legitimately claim to be the most Churchillian among the Republicans of his day. That not only offers hope for a possible McCain administration, especially during this time of war, but should also be encouraging to conservatives.

[it_oldtimer]

Poor Republicans, they just can''t figure out why the majority of todays voters don''t respect them or want them around any more. They remain, as ever, totally clueless.

When you''re so firmly glued to the very worst of the past, the realities of the present must be a truly scary and incomprehensible mystery.

To be predominantly fundamentalist Christian, but totally opposed to all that Christ taught. To be largely libertarian, but in favor of of the HUGE government expansion that Bush has engineered. To be against government meddling in private citizens affairs, but totally in favor of the Patriot Act. To hate Big Government spending, but to be all for $2 Trillion dollars worth of government spending on a totally unjustifiedy war of aggression. To be all for tax cuts, when the rich (who are the very foundation of the GOP) are the biggest benefactors of all the vital infrastructure that taxes alone provide. To be anti-abortion, but also anti-welfare. The list goes on and on.

The Republican party is the party of contradictions. They make no sense at all, and it''s becoming increasingly difficult for most Americans to figure them out, let alone support them.

[b-easy63]

he universal problem for conservatives is that they can''''t see how limited their world view really is,

Posted by razzl at 01:41 AM : Feb 17, 2008

Hilary supporters have the same myopia. LOL

[b-easy63]

Reagan Didn''''t end the Cold War, he actually prolonged it. The fall of the former USSR was well underway long before Reagan even ran for office. He just happened to be sitting in the White House when if finally happened. Posted by IT_Oldtimer at 02:45 PM : Feb 16, 2008


Sort of like Bill Clinton getting credit for the booming economy, with no regard by the Democrats to the forced budget slashing of a GOP Congress and a forced/relentless budget balancing as required by Gramm Rudman law nor any credit to George Bush for raising the taxes that cost him his job. then there is the dot com that spurred the economy (Bill not responsible for that) and NAFTA--which netted many job cuts and helped turn us into a service industry with workers too low paid to afford real mortgages or keep the economy afloat.

But then both parties are adept at crowing and taking credit when things are great and blaming the other party when they steer us all into hell in a handbasket.

[b-easy63]

There are 3 to 500 million reasons each day to NOT vote for McCAin--they are the dollars drained out of our economy by a war based on lies. And pretty soon, we won''t even be able to afford the interest on our little war--let alone keep it up for 100 years.

[b-easy63]

Why must Republicans always look for someone to worship, bow down to or adore?

McCAin is no Churchill. He''s lied about the safety of Bagdhad, let his torture bill be watered down, lied about the ability of a GENERAL to stroll the markets in Bagdhad, distorted records of opponents, kissed mega party bootie and sucked up to the far right.

Then he flipped to support tax cuts he was initially against, flopped to say we could be in Iraq for 100 years (wonder who will have the bucks to pay for it) and says he knows nothing about the economy besides the war, America''s biggest worry. Since most Independents are for the war ending and helped put the feckless Dems in power in 2006, He does have his work cut out for him. The best that could happen to him is for Hilary to be the Dem nom--people will go to him feeling at least he is less a liar and fake promiser than Hilary and less of a meglomaniac also. Depending on his running mate--he might have a chance. As for the 100 more years of war--he can say what he likes--but he can only push for 4 more years and that is only if the Congress lets him do it.

Between Hilary and McCAin, he is the lesser of 2 evils and at least McCAin does not promise to be all things to all people, when he knows he can''t deliver (nor can Hilary) but as for appealing to Independents. As one in a houseful of them, myself--good luck with that and the pro war jack the economy stance.

[Razzl]

It''s sheer conservative fantasy to compare McCain to Churchill. McCain''s constipated world view can''t hold a candle to Churchill''s learning, wit, and brilliance. The universal problem for conservatives is that they can''t see how limited their world view really is, and comparing McCain to Churchill inevitably draws uncomplimentary critiques of McCain...

[tucano2]

I knew Winston Churchill quite well. John McCain does NOT come anywhere close.

[andor3]

Ah... so this is the spin they are trying to test: All those idiotic and scary rants by McCain in the past are not to be taken seriously, he was just taking tough but unpopular positions... like Churchill... yeah that is it! [as the pollsters and image spin-doctors squint through the one-way mirror to see if anyone is buying this invention].

[j0hnwi11iams]

Have you ever seen a more significant piece of fluffery than this idiotic article? England was opposing a Nazi war machine. The US is occupying a foreign country, and considering options for invading other countries it doesn''t like. If anything the comparison with HITLER is more appropriate and closer to the mark. Watch now as McCain denigrates anyone who doesn''t share his FASCIST opinion.

[it_oldtimer]

You''''re right, why would anyone want to have Reagans legacy of winning the cold war... ~Posted by fredgrad2000

I think You need to get back on your meds, friend, and then go back to school for a while and get your facts straight before you post.

Ronald Reagan''s is best known for his bloody military actions to suppress social and political change in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Afghanistan, plus his disastrous (for the middle class, anyway) "Trickle Down" economic philosophy. What a cruel joke that was!

Reagan Didn''t end the Cold War, he actually prolonged it. The fall of the former USSR was well underway long before Reagan even ran for office. He just happened to be sitting in the White House when if finally happened.

Read the Russian historical views and history on this, and you''ll find I''m right; Reagan was merely a spectator who was happy to take credit for the others achievements.