POSTED RESONSE TO A COLUMN BY THE DAILY TELEGRAPH'S DANIEL HANNAN
Cromwell, despite having a dark side, was a remarkable man. I wouldn't want to live under him, but he was interesting.
In some ways, I think he qualifies as the first enlightened dictator, a la Ataturk, of the Modern Era.
After all, in Cromwell's day the alternative was the Stuarts, a pretty sad line of princes.
Putting the sides of the Civil War into modern terms of conservative versus progressive is a hopeless task. The labels really do not fit.
The Roundheads qualify as both. But in the end, Puritan extremism seems revolutionary since it was set against the ancient tradition of the royal prerogative and the official state religion.
Fundamentalist Christians everywhere in the West briefly served a progressive purpose in moving democratic ideas forward.
Ironically, they always had a deeply-embedded conservatism concerning their own beliefs so that once they were in power anywhere, the political environment was anything but progressive.
In pre-revolutionary Virginia, Jefferson, a skeptic, fought for religious freedom, using an alliance with Fundamentalist Christians to oppose the privileges of the established church.
This was progressive, but those same Fundamentalists, whenever achieving power anywhere, right down to this day, are anything but progressive.
Fundamentalism today in the United States typifies the worst oppressive and aggressive tendencies in American society.
Actually, the Roundheads are around today in the form of the American army. The Roundheads New Model Army clearly finds its equivalent in the Pentagon.
Always looking for new military technology, having an almost Puritan ethic, and always ready to offer high-sounding excuses for interventions against others.
