|
|
Churchill and Obama – Leadership Challenges in Tough TimesCarlo D'Este | December 05, 2008 | 10 comments | Print | E-mail  Winston Churchill in the ruins of the House of Commons debating room followng a German air raid in May 1941. Library of Congress. One of the characteristics of Churchill’s coalition government during World War II was that the crisis trumped political differences. And while America of the 21st century is far stronger in every way than Britain in 1940, even a robust economic recovery will not resolve the myriad problems facing this nation. Stalwart leadership will. And therein lies our best shot at emerging a stronger and more vibrant nation in the years ahead. Indeed, the lessons of history suggest that what Churchill accomplished in 1940-1941, when there was absolutely no light at the end of the proverbial tunnel, can be replicated. During those grim years Churchill had little to offer the British nation but, as he put it a mere three days after becoming prime minister, “blood, sweat, and tears.” We face the same challenge of our own version of “blood, sweat, and tears”: a shattered economy in the worst shape since the Great Depression of the 1930s, war in two of the world’s most inhospitable places that has lasted longer than World War II, faltering education and health systems on life support, a populace divided by ideology, a government characterized by inaction in both the executive and legislative branches, and a very unstable post-9/11 world in which the prestige of the United States has sunk to an all time low. Pulling the levers of finance and credit and formulating new initiatives will certainly help but looming largest of all is the great intangible of leadership, of restoring a global confidence in the United States, and engendering a belief that in the end things will be all right. * * * The president-elect can draw some valuable lessons from the example set by Churchill during Britain’s darkest hour. Despite his private feelings at times that even he could not save his nation, the new British leader did not take counsel of his fears. He exuded a combination of confidence and defiance, and used his great oratorical skills to bolster public morale. Defeat was simply not in his DNA. What other traits of leadership did Churchill possess? He was authentic and charismatic. He made people feel good about themselves during times when there was precious little to feel good about. After the first large-scale bombardments of the London docks in September 1940, he made a point of hastening there to view fires burning amid the devastation. At an air-raid shelter where some forty people had been killed by a direct hit, Churchill found a large crowd of mostly poor people. “One might have expected them to be resentful against the authorities responsible,” recalled his military secretary, Gen. Hastings Ismay, “but as Churchill got out of his car, they literally mobbed him. ‘Good old Winnie,’ they cried. ‘We thought you’d come and see us. We can take it. Give it ‘em back.” Tears flowed down Churchill’s cheeks at the sight before him. Ismay heard an elderly women exclaim: “You see, he really cares; he’s crying.” Pages: 1 2Help Armchair General by bookmarking to
            Tags: Historical Figures, politics
|
|
|
|
||
What is Armchair General?Armchair General (ACG) and ACG online feature a unique, interactive editorial approach that invites the reader to decide the course of action in challenging historical scenarios, to step into the shoes of a battlefield commander. Leading historians and contributors lend integrity and credibility to this fresh presentation of historical and contemporary events. Armchair General is the INTERACTIVE history magazine where YOU COMMAND and decide the course of action! |
What We Write About
|
Our Other Magazines |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Copyright © 2004-2008 Armchair General L.L.C., All rights reserved. |
||
10 Comments to “Churchill and Obama – Leadership Challenges in Tough Times”
Is this some sort of a joke? Obama looks a lot more like Chamberlain than Churchill.
By Gary Cowart on Dec 6, 2008 at 10:58 pm
“Until December 1941 Britain would stand alone”
Until _June_ 1941 Britain would stand alone
Fixed it for you, The USSR is often overlooked, but contributed significantly in the struggle to free Europe from Naziism.
By Martin Harder on Dec 8, 2008 at 11:22 am
Churchill charged with the 17th at Omdurman and personally killed a number of the enemy at close range. He was captured by and escaped from the Boers. He fought in the trenches in WWI. He wrote the History of the English Speaking People. He was First Sea Lord in WWI and WWII before he was PM.
President Obama was a community organizer, a 2 yr senator and has written 2 autobiographies. As I live and breatheI hope he does the right thing but as I live and breathe I’m not sure he knows what it is.
By Robert L. Coggins on Dec 9, 2008 at 8:01 am
I have not read significant histories specific to Churchill, but I’m sure the new President would be swooning over the notion that a historian of note favorably compares the two.
I’ve seen nothing to this point that suggests any similarities beyond the President elect’s ability to stand at the podium and deliver a rehearsed speech. We have heard the new President’s responses where he doesn’t have the benefit of the tele-prompter and his struggle to project a clear answer when he hasn’t been tutored on the question. He deserves to have a grace period, but the author has already elevated him beyond that point.
I believe the new president would be in a perpetual stammer if he were taking Prime Ministers Questions.
By J.R. Riggins on Dec 11, 2008 at 1:46 am
Comparing “The One” with Churchill is like comparing Hitler with the Pope. “The One” is more like Chamberlain, an appeaser. “The One” wants to talk with the enemies of the US (Islamofacist’s and the ilk like them). Oh by the way, I thought when “The One” was elected the world was going to like us again because the “evil” Bush was disposed of. Also Mr. Churchill was a great orator-could deliver an excellent speech without 50 plus uh’s-so distracting!
By B. Morse on Dec 25, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I agree to compare Churchill who was one of the greatest war leaders in history to an empty suit, is quite a stretch. The experience that Churchill possessed including Lord of the Admiralty in WWI among very extensive experiences both in government and in real combat are the opposite of what Obama brings to the table. Obama shows no qualities to even make this comparison. Obama won the election that a yellow dog running as a democrat would have won. I give almost all the credit to his campaign manager and the group that started and ran his fund raising campaign which allowed him to outspend McCain 4 to 1.
By jaywhite on Dec 28, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Some of the responses are further off base than Mr. D’Este’s blog.
When did military service, however much it may build character, ever guarantee political success or even successful leadership as Commander-in-Chief?
President-Elect Obama is an untested liberal politician, and I find a more apt comparison than Churchill is FDR. He was a son of privilege who had followed his cousin’s path to Undersecretary of the Navy and Governor of New York. He made costly mistakes as president, but he made many other brilliant decisions including his willingness to help defend England and lead the U.S., belately, away from isolationism. What I’m saying is FDR grew and provided needed intangibles.
Hell, Harry Truman didn’t even want the top job.
Let’s pray that the crucible of the presidency bestows on our our brainy and eloquent President-elect all the wisdom he has yet to acquire.
By Richard Korman on Dec 30, 2008 at 12:35 pm
LOL, In reality, it is an insult to the memory of these deceased gentlemen by making the slightest comparison between them and Obama.
Up to this point, Obama is probably the least accomplished President-elect in this nations history. The author started this ill conceived debate and it was a foolish initation on his part. I think we should all re-visit this in November of 2010. At that point we will be able to compare Obama’s Presidency with Pres. Clinton’s. The comparisons can start there.
By J.R. Riggins on Jan 4, 2009 at 2:29 am
I have to agree to compare Obama to Churchill makes no sense, unless D’Este is saying to Obama needs to learn from Churchill’s example in leading Britian from the brink of ruin. Fortunately, the problems we face today are neither new or worse than the economy of the late 1970’s, early 1980’s. Everybody wants personal freedom but will not accept the personal responsibilty that must go with it. I think the only thing Obama and his fellow Democrates have learn from history is the usual big gov’t tax and spend policies of FDR that they are doomed to repeat again. God help us.
By Charlene Lynch on Feb 7, 2009 at 7:38 pm
obama couldn’t be a pimple on Winton Churchill ass. The democrats just wanted someone in the white house who would do anything they wanted to push their crooked socialist agenda. I am afraid for the United States. The idiots who voted for this sorry excuse for a president do not know any better. With the current destruction obama has cause in just over a month hopefully will bring some sane voters out at the next election. If we survive that long.
By Jack Mahogoff on Feb 21, 2009 at 9:14 am