A POSTING TO A COLUMN IN THE DAILY TELEGRAPH, LONDON
Bland times, indeed, but what is wrong with that?
Would you rather have the horrors of World War II (about 55 million people killed, whole cities incinerated, death camps, titanic bloody battles) just so there can be an inspirational leader?
Seems a bizarre trade-off to me.
Leaders do often rise to the occasion as we saw with Churchill, Roosevelt, and others, but we really don't have the occasion now, and I think we should be very glad of the fact.
Of course, today, despite the much trumpeted and exaggerated significance of the War on Terror, in advanced countries we are at peace (at least by any meaningful historical comparison), blessed as those through large parts of the 20th century were not.
One of the very reasons we have war is the thirst of some for heroic times and thrilling events. As William James wrote we may need a moral equivalent for war.
Churchill's own career points to a fundamental truth of human affairs. He was a remarkable war-time leader, but no one wanted him in peace.
Also, at many times in his career before World War Two, Churchill made very poor judgments that cost many lives.
The truth is that even the largest figures are often right about things for a only portion of their lives. They almost always go too far, stretch the limits of their talents to the point that is dangerous to follow them. It is part of the human condition.
And that is why it is dangerous to blindly apply precedent, to speak about repeating the past, to speak of things like capitulation when the word doesn't fit.
As Herodotus said, time is like a flowing river. You never do touch quite the same flow again.
