Churchill & Reagan: Men of Extraordinary Vision

In my humble opinion Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan were two of the most prescient of men to have shaped the 20th Century and beyond. Both men were definers of their times and as such rose above the ordinary. Reagan and Churchill had a forward vision their contemporaries never dreamed nor truly appreciated.

Winston Churchill was a man for the ages, as was Reagan. Churchill was my kinda fella in his admonition "Drink, smoke and never take any exercise" as his keys to longevity. He was a brave and pugnacious little man who as an orator made Obama look like a rank amateur. As well Churchill was a true leader.

Reagan was a very under-appreciated man with vision as well. He wasn't as polished an orator as Sir Winston, but he was a powerful speaker. He connected with the common man when he spoke. Reagan always seemed to me to be "one of us," and considering he was a famous actor before a politician, that may sound odd, but I felt personally connected with Reagan as my president.

Where both men rose to real and lasting greatness was as leaders of their nations. They both led during trying times. Churchill of course led the UK during the war and was a rock of strength and determination to defeat Hitler. Reagan led during less tumult but still danger was ever present. Both men oversaw their respective nations at a crossroads of history.

Both of these brilliant leaders had a rub against them. Churchill was described by Roosevelt as "a drunk," and in fairness he probably was. Reagan was considered too grandfatherly and doddering to be effective. Both men accepted and defeated the usual denigrations and both men used the conventional wisdom to their favor.

Churchill and Reagan had one overriding commonality - they both foresaw their tasks and took the reins, never faltering in their convictions and beliefs. Both met the conventional wisdom with aplomb and overcame the trepidations of their less than foreseeing contemporaries. Both men rose to greatness in difficult times and their legacies sustain their actions as leaders, each dealing with the specific challenges of their time.

Churchill and Reagan both shared a specific moniker...that of "voice in the wilderness."

Winston Churchill railed against Hitler long before the rest of Europe and most of his countrymen had yet grown the backbones to do the hard things that had to be done. Every thought and concept of Hitler and Nazism were ones that Churchill knew could not be appeased. When lesser men wanted to "get along" with Hitler to avoid another "Great War," Churchill stood firm in his refusal to bandwagon upon the conventional wisdom. Churchill was right all along, thus was the "lone voice in the wilderness" arguing that appeasement would only embolden Hitler and he was dead on right.

Churchill was seen as somewhat of an "adventurer," a denigration and attempt at negating his influence and in truth there was some fairness in that label. Churchill was the main impetus of the failed Gallipoli invasion of the Dardanelles during WWI. As the Dardanelles invasion was a resounding failure Churchill wore that label between the wars. He was considered too pugnacious and thus unwise to be an effective leader of the UK.

Yet when Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" blew up in the face of the world it was Churchill who become Prime Minister and stood firm against Hitler. He withstood the disastrous Battle of France, a defeat he inherited form Chamberlain as the Nazi's began their Western offensive on the very day Churchill was named PM. He stood firm against the U-Boats that nearly cut the lifeline between the States and the UK who depended upon shipping to keep up their fight against Hitler. He oversaw the successful withdrawal from Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain as England stood strong and more importantly, stood alone in the face of the onslaught.

Churchill's prescience that Hitler was to be confronted and not appeased is at the root of his greatness.

Ronald Reagan was a man of similar character. After a successful career as broadcaster and actor he became governor of California and a strong conservative. He saw that the US was "the last best hope for man." He believed if the US lost what made it great there would be no light of freedom to shine upon the world. He saw this nation as the haven and example of the potential greatness of Man if only men were given the chance to be free.

Like Churchill in the face of conventional wisdom of the day, Reagan WAS NOT about going along to get along with the Soviets. He was not PC, and nor was Sir Winston. Churchill and Reagan both said things that were considered unpopular and "dangerous" in the words of their detractors, yet history proves both of these men dead on right and their detractors to be timid, PC and totally lacking the vision needed to be a great leader. Both men, completely unlike the current pretender, were actually transformative leaders. They were not lip service to the concepts but actually saw their nation's through the tumult to achieve a better ending vision.

As Churchill stood alone in not appeasing Hitler, Reagan stood alone in not appeasing the Soviets. Reagan's detractors at the time, mostly wishy-washy Republicans, Democrats and leftists called Reagan "dangerous," "warmonger" and other such unfair, untrue and mostly wrongheaded and/or political denigrations in the main.

It must be recalled that many in America thought the path of least resistance was the proper course for dealing with the Soviets. Not so with Reagan. He truly believed there was one legitimate superpower and one "evil empire." He never felt the Soviets were an counter balance to the US. He felt the US was legitimate and the USSR was a phantasm in having never delivered on its promises, even in the most basic of terms. The only equality in the "evil empire" was everyone was as poor as a church mouse.

Lastly allow me to address something specific to my mind...the imagery of the times.

As "color" film was new and less used in Churchill's heyday, I am reminded of the USSR under Bolshevism. The black and white movies and photos of WWII make it seem as if it's truly another time; an alien time many moderns cannot relate to. I often joke that the world is now a different place cause it's in color, whereas the days of yore were clearly black and white. And in my mind the USSR was a dark place befitting of filming it in black and white. To me black and white denote gray, and gray is more an image of something without clarity. Color defines and makes more clear, whereas monochromatic images of the world before color film denotes a darkness and lack of definition.

The world was dark during WWII. In my opinion, the world was dark so long as the Bolshevik empire lived to repress its people. It reminds me of a depressive state and often imagery of depression is described as a "grayness" of sorts. In my opinion both Churchill and Reagan brought the light of truth and hope to bear on otherwise dark environs.

Winston Churchill did not cower or cave to the conventional wisdom. Nor did Ronald Reagan. Both men had a vision and they held firm to that vision in the face of massive denigration, both personal and professional. Neither would go along to get along. Both knew that to appease the enemy of their time was to fail in their duty. Reagan and Churchill had spines their detractors could only dream of.

These are two of the handful of greatest men that I have had the pleasure of being contemporaries with. Lesser men will read this and never understand, but then they have a handicap...the complete inability to part with partisan and long held beliefs in order to allow the light of fact and truth to enlighten them. The world could use more Winston Churchill's and Ronald Reagan's.