I am a little humbled to realize that I have been too brainwashed by media narratives to make the comparison of George W. Bush to Neville Chamberlain. But it’s almost uncanny. Bush is a latter-day Neville Chamberlain. That must mean I am Napoleon. Or Elvis.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
I’ve been wanting to buy “Troublesome Young Men” for quite a while, so thank you for this link.
it’s a great argument.
Personally, I think Churcill’s prescience is vastly overrated. I haven’t made much of a specific study of Churchill, but my understanding about him is that he was ALWAYS interested in military solutions to problems. He saw international relations as a hammer, for the most part.
Like a broken clock, he happened to be correct sometimes. But he was wrong a lot. In a way, maybe he was comparable to U.S.Grant.
But even though I am critical of Churchill, I don’t see much comparison between him and Bush, beyond the fascination with military force as an imperial tool. One might say that Bush seems to combine the worst aspects of Churchill with the worst aspects of Chamberlain.
One HUGE difference is that Churchill seems to have had great personal courage and a lot of realism about war.
Great article, by the way. I think maybe I should start calling his nibs Neville from now on.
I like it: Napoleon Booman.