Monday, August 23, 2004

Churchill--reformed Conservative

So you could imagine what Britain would do for the man, Sir Winston, who was the hero and savior of the British Empire. Right…they voted him out of office! How, HOW, on God’s green earth could the British citizens reject Churchill in the election of 1945 after all he did?!

I learned why at the end of my tour of the Cabinet War Rooms. Among famous original documents, letters Churchill’s speeches was a letter from his daughter, Sarah, following her father’s defeat. The letter, which I have attached in my email linking this site (along with a pic from my favorite “brown bar” in Amsterdam which had among its odd assortment of bric-a-brac pictures of Churchill AND Jesus—imagine my delight after quite a few brews and…never mind) explains why the voters chose Labour over the Churchill’s Conservative party in a landslide.

Thing is, before the war there were the few very rich and the many very poor in British society. The war-induced scarcity forced the government to institute strict rationing and welfare programs like healthcare, unemployment insurance and education. This meant that many of the poor, the ones fighting, dying and manufacturing, to keep Britain free and intact were getting more than they ever had—some meat, some new clothes, some gas, etc.

And, as Sarah noted, they didn’t want to go back: “You see the people I know who are labour, don’t vote labour for ideals or belief, but simply because life has been hard for them, often an unequal struggle and they think that only by voting labour will their daily struggle become easier…they are decent people who want an easier and gayer life but certainly wouldn’t tolerate any form of totalitarianism.”

She went on to say, “Because socialism as practiced during the war did no one any harm, and quite a lot of people good. The children of this country have never been so well fed or healthy, what milk there was, was shared equally, the rich didn’t die because their neat ration was no larger than the poor, and there is no doubt that this common sharing and feeling of sacrifice was one of he strongest bonds that unified us. So why, they say, cannot this common feeling of sacrifice be able to work as effectively in peace?"

Why indeed. The Labour Party won in a landslide, installing as the new Prime Minister Clement Atlee, whom Churchill once described as “A sheep in sheep’s clothing” and “A modest man, who has much to be modest about.” Perhaps so, for Sir Winston returned as Prime Minister in 1951 till his retirement in 1955, but the social welfare system was well in place by then.

I rather like this assessment of Churchill from HowToFoldSoup.com:
“Churchill's death in 1965, like that of Queen Victoria in 1901, marked the end of an era in British history. Born into a Victorian aristocratic family, he witnessed and participated in Britain's transformation from empire to welfare state, and its decline as a world power. His true importance, however, rests on the fact that by sheer stubborn courage he led the British people, and with them, the democratic Western world, from the brink of defeat to a final victory in the greatest conflict the world has ever seen.”

One final word, tonight, on Sir Winston. He was a warrior first class, but only out of true “back to the wall” necessity. As he said, “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” I will apply that philosophy and Churchill’s times with the situation now facing our world in another installment.

Until then, please remember that “If you are going through hell, keep going!”

Moo on, RFD 8/24/04

No comments: