March 22, 2015

Finest Hour 127, Summer 2005

Page 15

Among the blather which races around the Internet, Todd Ronnei reminds us to address this one:

“Let’s imagine: It’s time to elect a world leader, and your vote counts. Which would you choose:

“Candidate A: Associates with ward healers and consults with astrologists; has had two mistresses; chain-smokes and drinks eight to ten martinis a day.

2024 International Churchill Conference

Join us for the 41st International Churchill Conference. London | October 2024

More

“Candidate B: Was kicked out of office twice; sleeps until noon; used opium in college; drinks a quart of brandy every evening.

“Candidate C: Is a decorated war hero, a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks an occasional beer, and has had no illicit love affairs.

“Which of these candidates is your choice? You don’t really need any more information, do you? Candidate A is Franklin Roosevelt. Candidate B is Winston Churchill. Candidate C is Adolf Hitler.”

Professor Warren Kimball (editor, Roosevelt-Churchill Correspondence) tells us: “There is no evidence that Roosevelt was a heavy drinker or chain-smoked, nor did he have two mistresses while married to Eleanor, only one.” As to Hitler, all those descriptives are true; but how many of them matter?

The Churchill description is the worst. Presumably the two kicks out of office were as First Lord of the Admiralty over Gallipoli (1915) and as Prime Minister (1945). That much is true. But Churchill did not sleep until noon; he woke at 8AM and worked in bed for a few hours. He did not use opum in college; he packed along opium pills when he went to South Africa in 1899, along with every other western traveler to such climes. As to his alcoholic capacity see Myth #1 (“Alcohol Abuser”), FH 111:33. On this matter we also like to quote Professor Kimball: “He was not an alcoholic—no alcoholic could drink that much!” Kimball thinks he was “alcohol dependent”; we don’t, but what we agree on is that even Winston Churchill did not drink a quart of brandy a day.

More to the point, how crucial are these characteristcs in determining the worthiness of leaders? Which would you prefer: an unromantic, teetotal vegetarian, or a whisky-drinking, cigar-smoking veteran of political wars who has had his share of ups and downs?