They laughed when he sat down to the piano
Ermmmmmmmmm
Churchill was hated by his own party, opposition party, and press. Feared by King as reckless, and despised for his bluntness. But unlike Neville Chamberlain, he didn't retreat. We had a Chamberlain for 8 yrs; in @realDonaldTrump we have a Churchill.
— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) December 26, 2017
No. Just being hated and despised by all and sundry does not make you a Churchill or Beethoven or Michelangelo or anyone else who was looked at askance for a time and then recognized as OMIGOD A GENIUS.
It’s entirely possible to be seen as a worthless fool by everyone who has an opinion on the subject and actually be a worthless fool. It’s not only possible, it’s dead easy. Most people who are universally considered worthless fools are worthless fools. That’s how that works. The exceptions are the exceptions.
Also, Trump a Churchill? Please. Churchill was a jackass in many ways, yes, and a Tory, and an ardent imperialist, and a strikebreaker; Churchill had some commonalities with Trump politically, but in terms of talents? Don’t make me laugh. The fact that they are both “blunt” does not mean they are both blunt in the same way, with the same level of crudity, with equivalent vocabularies.
Also, Mike Huckabee: your daughter tells lies for Trump.
This is a common bleat amongst religios conservatives. “Sure, the scientific community laughs at me for my creationist belifs, but I take solace in the fact that they also laughed at Galileo for his claims of heliocentrism. Therefore I am Galileo!”
No no no, the most important thing is that HE DIDN’T RETREAT BECAUSE EVERY SITUATION CALLS FOR A BATTLE METAPHOR RAWWWWW
He’s not even Churchill the insurance dog, “Oh no”
I am reminded of Carl Sagan, who said –
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
Right era, way on the wrong side of the channel.
Churchill was a warmonger and a callous imperialist who was very lucky that the US and the USSR entered the war. The British voters understood that simple fact and dumped his government when the war had been won by the allies. Why is he so admired by the US conservative elite?
It’s easy to criticise Chamberlain with the benefit of hindsight.
Ross @4
Sagan wasn’t a historian, apparently. The Columbus expedition was hare-brained given the scientific knowledge of the time. People knew that the earth was a sphere and geographers had a realistic idea of its size. Columbus blundered into the Americas.
Yeah…
What seems to be forgotten is that while Churchill was undeniably a great war leader, he was never a great politician.
He was an inspirational leader for Britain at a time when what was needed was a top-down organiser who could inspire patriotism and national unity. In his own way he was an ideologue like Trump. The difference was that for the duration of the war the British Government had recognised that under those specific conditions democracy must be suspended – you cannot win a war by committee. It is highly significant that the British public also seemed to understand this, and Churchill was voted out in favour of a socialist government at the first opportunity. (And a damned good thing too. After four years of bending the efforts of every adult towards “the War Effort”, four years of rationing, and a debt it would take us forty years to pay off [thanks for that, USA…] the warmongering bastard wanted to take us to war with the Soviet Union! OK, he was clear sighted enough to see the danger posed by the USSR – and he was to be proved right – but it was such an inappropriate aim at that time in that place…
So, yes, in some ways he was like Trump (except with intelligence, education, the understanding that occasionally you have to listen to other people – especially if they’re your top Generals – a belief in the political process, even if he wasn’t very good at it, a degree of style, and an enviable ability for public rhetoric…) but the context he was successful in was not as a peacetime leader. At that he would have (in fact, did) suck…
And the Wright Brothers? There were other people trying to do the same thing; the Wright Brothers weren’t ahead of everyone else in trying, only in getting there a bit before the others.
Usually it isn’t the scientists laughing (though sometimes they do). It’s often either the general public (fruit fly research, anyone? Everyone I know outside of science laughs at that – think Michelle Bachmann – but it is crucial research and scientists aren’t laughing). Or else it is the church – and they weren’t laughing, they were condemning. Churched people laugh now, but that’s only because they lost their power to burn.
Sorry for the oddly structured convoluted sentence!