Letters to the Editor
MacK..
Published Letters: 477 Editor's Choice: 49
-
Homage to Catalonia
[Read the article: A genuine political sea change?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In response to an earlier comments, Orwell's experiences with the International Brigade in Catalonia -- and his book about his time with the POUM and the anarcho-syndicalists in the Spanish Civil War is written from a left wing perspective.
From Chapter 8 onwards he describes the systematic 'coup' of the Marxist-Leninists sponsored by Stalin through the Comintern (who subsequently had almost all of the agents who did his direty work bumped off) and the paranoia and slaughter that they visited on their own side. Some in the European left called it the "Tragedy of Catalonia," but more fundamentally it was the point at which the European left began to realise that they were not only in a fight to the death against facism, but also against Soviet style Communism (the Molotove Ribbentrop pact was pretty helpful in this regard too.)
It is something that many in the US simply don't know, the depth of the loathing that Socialists and Social Democrats across Europe had for the Soviet aligned communist parties (there were also Euro-Communists who had little time for the Soviet liners (Georges Marchais and the French PCF were unreconstructed sovier line communists and were crippled as a result.))
The moderate European left was also, to a degree, sponsored by the US and NATO. Few in the United States realise how pad the position of workers was in the interwar period, the depth of poverty in much of Western Europe. However, starting with Eisenhower there was a broad recognition in many aspects of European foreign policy that the moderate lefts antipathy to the Soviets was strong, while their ideas for a Social democracy helps Europe resist the pressure from the East, not weaken it. Remember, in the darkest parts of the Cold War many of the US' strongest European allies had Social-Democrats in power.
-
Bush's self comparison to Churchill
[Read the article: Last refuge of the scoundrel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To get a sense of how ridiculous the comparison to Churchill is:
• Churchill was extravagantly literate – I recently saw footage of Chartwell, Churchill’s country home and notable was Churchill’s lectern, from which he would dictate is lectures and books to a secretary – the lectern was specially designed to allow Churchill (a great if self-serving historian) to work from 8 books and sources at once. By contrast George Bush “just scans the headlines” and then you can be sure those headlines are in the arch-right Wall Street Journal and Washington Times.
• Churchill held subordinates accountable, and fired numerous generals and other who did not measure up to his demands – his “Action This Day” memos were famous;
• Churchill debated with his opponents – he was not just an orator, but a famous debater in the House of Commons, a man who relished dispute. Bush on the other hand only speaks to invited audiences and the very rare well-whipped White House press conference.
• Churchill wrote his own speeches, made up his own lines – Bush had his piped to him the debate through an earpiece – and even then Bush cannot get them rights. In this regard I will note something Bush had in common with Churchill – as a child Churchill has a lisp, which made public speaking difficult – the difference is Churchill overcame it.
• Even allowing for self promotion, Churchill was an honest to god war hero. Indeed, Churchill as a junior army officer bent the rules and called in favours so as to see combat in Sudan, and volunteered for the front-line in World War I – Bush bent the rules to stay out of combat in Vietnam and called in favours to pull it off.
• Churchill was bi-partisan, despite a majority in Parliament, he formed a war cabinet that included key Labour party figures and others from opposition parties – and he let Ernest Bevan practically run the domestic side of the war.
• Churchill was a pragmatist, when German attacked Russia he famously said vis-à-vis Stalin, “If Hitler was at war with hell I would find a few good words for the Devil.”
• Churchill was a notoriously hard worker, indeed he worked hard enough to induce a heart-attack, and typically worked to the small hours of the morning; Bush goes to bed by 9pm.
• Churchill was a notorious bon-vivant, drinking brandy and champagne will little adverse effect on his wit and humour. A famous example of his humour, when Bessie Braddock, and outspoken Labour MP yelled at him “Winston, you're drunk!” he replied, “Bessie, you're ugly, and tomorrow I shall be sober.” By contrast, George Bush, a reformed alcoholic was by all accounts a mean and incoherent drunk, challenging his father to go “mano a mano.”
• Churchill was an enthusiastic Francophile, speaking French fluently, albeit with a bizarre accent; Bush thinks they are cheese eating surrender monkeys.
• Churchill was not just a great writer, but also an impressive painter; Bush has no creative elements in him at all.
The list of differences could get longer and longer, but I’ll leave that to other posters.
-
The Washington Post and Broder
[Read the article: Last refuge of the scoundrel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Out of curiousity I have been watching the Washington Post to see if it would make any response to the demolition of Broder's attack on Reid.
Talk about a remarkable display of cowardice -- even their forums when you look at the transcripts, for example Howard Kurtz made sure their moderators stayed well away from the topic.