I admired WC. I read two biographies of WC, written by ADMIRERS of WC, and I was stunned. He reminded me on every page of Bill Clinton. If you know anything about WC then you will know why I say that. He was involved with “radical liberalism” on and off for his entire career, and would take, passionately, any position that came along in order to win an election. In WC’s own words, “re-re-rat.” Look it up.
I read biographies on Churchill also. You are missing the fundamental difference which is a MAJOR moral core value.
Fact is, Churchill was dedicated and loyal to Clementine—the exact opposite of the moral scum ball Clinton. A person who can’t control their sexual urges, like Clinton, is a slave. He is totally unprincipled—because by his very actions he is always able to be blackmailed. He will sell out anyone or anything for his urges. That is why cheating on one’s spouse is noteworthy. It proves that there is NOTHING that will prevent him from lying and cheating—nothing, not even his family.
Granted, Churchill read Machiavelli and understood what was necessary to gain power. Machiavelli claimed it necessary to lie and cheat to attain or gain power—but their are “moral reasons” to lie and cheat. That was Churchill’s method. Far cry from Clinton’s immoral, evil reasons.
One clear book (Alone) which explains that difference is-—when WC was the only one saying what nobody wanted to hear in the 30’s about Hitler. It made him terribly unpopular, yet it was the Truth and he would not quit doing it—even when it meant loss of power or position.
If WC was like Clinton—you COULD not admire him. WC has MANY reasons to be admired—rhetoric not withstanding. Perfect—no, but he was principled although the socialists were taking control over all the institutions of England—Churchill warned of the evil of this encroaching socialism.
Clinton was sleazy and icky by every standard just as hillary is—couldn’t even listen to them talk on 60 min—before he ever was elected.
You need to read Machiavelli to understand the nature of power. All politicians read that book....it is necessary in understanding the nature of power. Both Stalin and Hitler had that book by their bedside. But moral people can and must use the book, also—if they are ever to gain and keep power. Churchill understood the nature of power and knew that he would be thrown out of office by an ungrateful socialist-loving nation-just by his study of history (and Machiavelli).
The fact is—the takeover by the socialists was a calculated, long term effort that WC could never have done much about with the design of their government. He did what he could and he failed because the people were too dumb to see his vision. Even in the 40’s the socialists were destroying the educational system in England—to create their future non thinking useful idiots who voted WC out after WWII. Socialists then got control of everything and destroyed that country. Little respite by that great Iron Lady though. She put a little cog in that communist wheel.
Comparing WC to Clinton is absurd and a huge insult not only to WC but to history.