Of Great Men And Small Potatoes
I’ve been reading Paul Johnson’s excellent biography of Winston Churchill. Yesterday I came upon a quote in the book that blew me away. It did so because it was so revealing about the current state of American politics and the behavior of members of one of our national parties.
Some background. Churchill, though enormously admired by his people during the 1939-1945 war years, was drummed out office in the 1945 national election along with his Tory Party. It wasn’t a close vote. It was a landslide for Labour.
The reasons this happened were quite clear then and since. The great majority in Great Britain were simply desperate for change. Real change. Big change. They expected Labour to enact domestic policies that significantly loosened the grip in all aspects of daily life of the monied and upper class elite that had long ruled the country. In the foreign realm, the electorate was fed up with the imperialist policies of this same grouping, most notably when it came to the matter of giving India its independence.
Churchill was the embodiment of this ruling class, and the most public spokesman for holding on to India. He was personally crushed by his countryman’s rejection of these policies. He might therefore have been expected to be vindictive in defeat. But he wasn’t.
Rather, this is what he said to a gathering of his fellow Tories just after that election:
“I will never give way to self-pity. The new [Labour] government has a clear mandate which the opposition [his own Tories] has no right to attack in principle. The new government will have the most difficult task of any in modern times, and it is the duty of everyone to support them in matters of national interest.”
Churchill understood one of the basic necessities required to keep a democracy functioning. When your own team is thrown out of office and you go into opposition, you become a loyal opposition. And if the other guys got a big enough win, they had a mandate, and you step aside to let them do their thing. Not without continually criticizing them, of course, but without displaying an angry churlishness.
A personal note. Year ago I had an Irish landlady who used an especially harsh put down with people she didn’t like. Small potatoes, she called them, because as she once explained to me, that was all that was left over after the good stuff had all been harvested, what the poor were forced to eat during the great Potato Famine because there was no better food available.
I think of Winston Churchill’s comments cited above, and the word that comes to mind is greatness. I watch the actions of Republicans since they were so badly trounced in the 2008 elections, and the phrase that comes to mind is small potatoes.
Winston Churchill was a magnificent conservative in defeat as well as victory. But what can one say about the state of conservatism in this country today, watching people who claim the conservative mantle behaving the way they do?
8 Responses to “Of Great Men And Small Potatoes”
Was it only yesterday, or was it far away, heard I a drumbeat drumbeat drumbeat – nay, FELT I a drumbeat drumbeat drumbeat, deep in my bones: dissent is patriotic dissent is patriotic dissent is patriotic dissent is patriotic dissent is patriotic dissent is patriotic dissent is patriotic dissent is patriotic dissent is patriotic dissent is patriotic dissent is patriotic dissent is patriotic dissent is patriotic dissent is patriotic dissent is patriotic…
OF course dissent can be patriotic, but is it always? I don't think so. And yes, the small potatoes characterization is on target, as is the word churlish. Dissent is well and good when informed by noble or genuine concerns, but the automatic no machine isn't even in the ballpark.
I am chuffed!
re ignoble & ungenuine
Since you are confident the principles and reasoning you disdain have no merit, then you ought have no problem exposing their fallaciousness and winning the day!
There is a problem with Silverstein's invocation of Churchill's standard. In the matter of Obamacare, the public opposes it by approx 10 polling points, and has opposed it by approximately the same margin for several months. The mandate is against Obamacare. Those who support Obamacare are thus dissenting against the national mandate; and are, according to Silverstein's standard, failing to step aside and let Obamacare die – as the public mandate demands.
And there is a problem with your standard. Why can't the supporters of Obamacare win the day via noble and genuine reason which is, after all, unopposed, due to the absence of noble and genuine reason on the part of the polled majority of Americans?
But, don't concern yourself. Such a question arises from ignoble and ungenuine motive. There are no principles or reasoning to explain the public's ongoing 10 point margin of opposition to Obamacare. Even mentioning it is purely churlish.
Well feel free to unchuff. However appealing as the idea of universal standards might be, I have no illusions about the likelyhood of pleasing everyone with my opinion – including yourself. My agreement about the low standards of “conservative” behavior doesn't necessarily mean I think the “liberals” are great role models, only that the conservatives are consistently worse – at least in this century. As for “winning the day”, I think we'd see different poll results if there was a greater effort to inform the public, as opposed to tyring to yank them one way or the other for the usual cynical reasons
If Obamacare goes forward, it pans out like this: Deee ZAS ter
And if it doesn't go forward, it pans out like this: More downwardly mobile status quo
Lets say, for purposes of our discussion: “more downwardly mobile status quo” is correct. I'll take it. “more downwardly mobile status quo” results in less pain and suffering than Deee Zas ter, and can be corrected more easily than Deee Zas ter can be corrected.
The above actually addresses a macro point of contention amongst people who closely follow the issue:
is Obamacare designed to fix the problems we now have
……………………………..vs
is Obamacare designed as an unnecessarily massive power grab?
Separately, amongst Americans who are polled, the major problem is that they perceive that Obamacare will not work; that it will instead make things worse re both healthcare and the national economy. The secondary problem is that Obamacare is so big that it scares Americans: a big portion of Obama voters believed Barack to be moderate and level headed, i.e. did not believe Barack would thrust such monster legislation at them. Barack deceived those voters during the run up to the election. It helped him get elected, but it does not buy their support for Obamacare.
You might argue that this proves your point: if Obamacare were more effectively explained, it would not scare these Americans.
I would retort, first, that these Americans never supported or voted for massive change. They believed Barack's “change” meant “change towards more competentence and moderation”. When Barack said “going to fundamentally change this country”: major media pooh-poohed the implications, and the scope of the statement was outside the boundaries of what these voters could imagine. Barack's statement did not compute, and thus was thrown out as bad data. These voters were deceived during the election – or, it could be argued, they deceived themselves.
I would retort, second, that Dems in Washington do not believe better explanation of the details of Obamacare will help the cause. Dems in Washington believe better explanation of the details will reduce public support for the bill. My proof is that Dems in Washington, as much as possible, avoid explaining the details – to the point that they rush the legislation to votes before it has been digested. If Dems were confident that details would help the cause, then they would put the bill out there in final form and go home to their districts and sell it to their constituents. When questioned about the bill, Dems would confidently say: Bring it on! Bring on any and all questions, because this bill is so good that it will withstand any and all questioning.
And this is where the logic of the bill hasn't been sold well enough breaks down: the bill hasn't been sold b/c it cannot be sold. The more the people know about the details, the less support the bill has. If this were not true, the votes on the bill would not be pushed through on Christmas Holiday Weekends and on Lent Weekends. Pres. Obama would now be in Australia, blissfully confident the the American people – after having another month or two to fully absorb the details – would overwhelmingly support the bill when it came up for vote in May.
None of this is happening. The bill is being passed via furtive negotiation and corrupt deal-making. Reid/Pelosi do not think daylight will help the cause.
Amazing what an American millionaire can buy as stud for his daughter who wanted to be royalty. To most Europeans Churchill was, is and will be a half breed since his father in law bought his father as stud to his daughter.