FDR and Churchill
Their Political and Military Legacy
April 1, 2005
Richard J. Garfunkel
Churchill saves the West! by Kaaren Hale!
Very well said! With regards to Churchill the political role of the American system is much different then Britain. Churchill never had to really stand for election as leader and was never really trusted with “domestic” responsibilities. He was much more of a “loose cannon” and never really felt comfortable working with others. He was certainly a fabulous talent, but had too many inner doubts to be completely confident with himself. His “black” moods and depression limited his ability to have the confidence to “rule.” He had too many opinions that limited his ability to make political alliances. He was a man of action and not a calculating “planner.” He never understood the need to build organization of political support. He was basically a talented loner.
He was not willing to sublimate himself to the will of others and never could pose as a team player. he wasn't prepared for the 1945 elections that swamped him and his government. His campaign was terrible and he did not have a “clue” what the public was thinking. He was still a captive of the upper classes that dominated British life. He seemed unaware and unconcerned regarding how the MacDonald-Baldwin-Chamberlain governments ignored the working classes that suffered throughout the Depression. He was not big on real reform that would have worked to restructure the critically unbalanced British economic and social landscape and infrastructure. He never understood the moribund future of colonialism and his attitude towards India was pretty foolish and primitive. His political philosophy was inconstant and vacillating. He constantly was mistrusted by both sides of the British ideological divide. He was not able to dominate either party and was perceived by the public as a political outsider with no place to “hang his hat.” His strategy in the First World War was badly flawed by the disaster of Gallipoli. He “snafu “was actuated more by logistical insanity then strategic miscalculation. All in all it was a terrible costly failure in blood, material, and his career.
With regards to WW II his strategy was basically no better then Chamberlain's and he experienced disasters with the navy in Norway, the British 8th Army in North Africa and its collapse at Tobruk, the insane and huge defeat and disaster in Singapore, (the worst most foolish British defeat in history), the disaster at Dunkerque, the catastrophic losses of the Repulse and Prince of Wales off Hainan Island, near the Chinese mainland, the abandonment of Greece and Crete, the ill-fated attack at Dieppe, the alienation of the French and the subsequent defection of the French fleet causing the need for it to be crippled by British naval action and many others. He was lucky that the Nazis re-directed the Luftwaffe to bomb British cities and not go after their radar early warning stations, their aerodromes and the British fighter defense. A smartly delivered strategy against these targets would have attritted the British to a defenseless posture.
Basically Lend-Lease, the US Navy and the convoy system, the undeclared US naval war in the North Atlantic against the Nazi submarine wolfpacks and the attacks by Germany on Yugoslavia and Greece, culminating with the postponed late spring , early summer invasion of Russia helped Britain survive. Churchill strong vocal leadership rallied Britain and the free world, but without Roosevelt and the power that he formulated by creating the “Arsenal of Democracy,” Britain would have eventually been beaten despite the flawed Hitlerian strategy. If the US had not helped Britain with Lend-Lease and our fleet, Russia probably would have been neutralized and the further European resistance would have ceased. Greece and Yugoslavia were basically beaten, and the rest of the Eastern Europe, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania were German allies. Turkey was in Germany's camp and would have remained a “player” looking to get back into reclaiming their former Ottoman Empire.
Churchill did have many successes aside from American help. Their victory at Taranto that devastated the Italian fleet, the sinking of the Graf Spee, the hunting down of the Bismarck, the destruction of the 10 German destroyers off Norway, his actions with Orde Wingate and the Chindits in Burma, his mobilizing massive bombing raids over Germany, the destruction of the French dry docks, and his selection of Montgomery to head the British 8th and his subsequent victory at El Alemain were strong plusses. But even with the entrance of America into the war, later British strategy with Churchill's blessing and interference led to the huge loses in Holland with the ill-fated Market-Garden assault on the Dutch bridges. Montgomery, Churchill's greatest choice for leadership squandered his opportunity to cross the Rhine and was trumped by the American capture of the Ludendorf Bridge at Remagen. That single event of intrepid work by American forces dealt a huge blow to German resistance on the Western front. While Montgomery was accumulating landing craft, the US Army was surging over the Rhine with men and armor, creating an unassailable bridgehead, and trapping German forces on the wrong side of the River.
FDR, on the other hand mobilized the American economy in an unprecedented way, fought an effective two ocean war, selected and appointed excellent overall leadership with his Joint Chiefs lead by Admiral Leahy, who coordinated the activities of Generals Marshall and Arnold along with Admiral King. FDR's selections, in all of the theaters of his responsibility; of MacAthur, Nimitz, Eisenhower, reflected excellent carefully thought out judgment. Their choices of subordinates that included Bedell-Smith, Clark, Bradley, Patton, Hodges, Simpson, Eaker, Doolittle, Stillwell, Halsey, Spruance, Vandergrift, Smith, Lemay and many others spelled eventual success. His speeches,and cool leadership gave the people confidence after Pearl Harbor and the loss of the Philippines. FDR's leadership of the wartime conferences at Argentia Bay, Quebec, Casablanca, Teheran and Yalta were the driving force behind victory and the post-war dominance of the West. His sponsoring of the Bretton Woods Conference had the most lasting effect on the future world's economies vis-a-vis monetary stability. All in all FDR's domestic leadership before and during the war were unprecedented. The late President, the architect of victory, won a hard earned election in 1944, with excellent majorities in Congress, even as man suffering from advance heart disease and arterial sclerosis. He was able to maintain his majorities in Congress all through his tenure in office, and even though the Democrats narrowly lost Congress in 1946, they quickly recovered their majorities until the Eisenhower landslide of 1952. But from 1954 until the 1980's the FDR-New Deal coalition of Democrats maintained Congressional hegemony.
Churchill, as a man, was bold, talented and basically remarkable. He was a brilliant speaker, a marvelous writer, a brave soldier, a reporter, a painter, a magnificent Parliamentarian, a cabinet official, a Prime Minister, and most importantly a beloved war-time leader. He embodied what was great about Britain. But he was a failure as a politician, lacked excellent judgment went it came to strategy and suffered from great insecurities. His terrible childhood and education plagued him with self-doubts, depression and lack of direction. Overall he was able to overcome all of those limitations. Churchill was still, at heart, part of the “ruling class” that dominated Britain. he was still part of the Imperialist mindset, and he was still sadly lacking, with regards, to what the average “Brit” needed. He never built a political base, and when the post-war choices were made he was cast aside with little regret from the British people. His return to office in 1951 was no great success and he was too, too old to be a major factor in re-shaping Britain after years of war and social reform.
FDR was not the writer that Churchill was, but as an orator he was certainly in his league. He was determined and self-confident. His childhood was one of nurtured success and happiness. He was beloved by his adoring parents. He was self-educated to age fourteen and went on to the best schools where he achieved moderate success. He was the single greatest politician in modern history and was able to overcome personal and physical blows and disasters. He was a vigorous man who overcame a life-time of sickness. He had wonderful mentors, Theodore Roosevelt, Al Smith and Woodrow Wilson. He took something from all of them, and was smart enough to avoid the problems they all experienced. He shaped his own destiny, built the Democratic Party, reversed the Depression, rallied the public, instilled great respect from the world at large, inspired great enemies and opposition, took on the Fascists when America wanted no part of that fight, created the United Nations, built the “Arsenal of Democracy” and through his actions, at the Atlantic Conference in Argentia Bay, put forth his vision of the world based on the “Four Freedoms.” His vision is the vision of the modern world, his vision is of one of the world community pulling together for the common good.
Churchill really left no governmental legacy. He really never governed. FDR's legacy was one of not only unprecedented leadership, but of government innovation, reform and restructuring. Both have great unequalled places in the history of our world and our time.
Richard
Other residents being disrupted
(Original publication: March 29, 2005)
I am very concerned about the other residents of the hospice in which Terri Schiavo is dying. Don't these people have the right to spend their final days or weeks in a quiet environment without bagpipes, bullhorns and loud praying and television cameras? No matter what one thinks about who should be in control, who should intervene and what role the courts and the executive branch should play, one should have some concern about the other residents. Their family members must go through security before they can visit their loved ones.
I heard a story on the news the other day about a woman who was delayed by security in her desire to see her dying grandfather (he died before she was able to reach his bedside).
It is unfortunate that the news media, including this newspaper, have not done any stories about the wonderful care and the wonderful people who work in hospices.
Linda Garfunkel, Tarrytown
March 22, 2005
Ms. Suzanne Berger
Chairperson,
Greenburgh Democratic Town Committee
120 Bellair Drive
Dobbs Ferry, New York 10522
Dear Ms. Berger,
I hope that this letter finds you and yours quite well. It has come to my attention that the Greenburgh Democratic Town Committee will be interviewing interested personages regarding potential designations for the position of Greenburgh Town Councilperson. I would like to inform you of my plans to seek that designation.
As a long time activist, regarding public service and Democratic politics, on the local and national level, I believe that my experience and judgment would uniquely qualify me as a candidate for the position of Town Councilperson. Despite the fact that I have not been a life time resident of the Town of Greenburgh, I have been a native son of Westchester all my life. For over 36 years, from my earliest days as a member of the White Plains Democratic Committee, I have been involved in both community and political activity. As early as 1972 I was White Plains co-Chairperson for the George McGovern campaign for President, and recently I was on the New York State Finance Committee for General Wesley Clark. In between I have served as the campaign manager for Martin Rogowsky when he ran for the State Assembly in 1976, been an advance man for Congressman Richard Ottinger, while my wife Linda was on his staff for 8 years, was Organization Chairperson of the White Plains Democratic City Committee for a number of years, and have been an active participant in many, many campaigns.
I have also been deeply involved in charitable work and the promotion of public policy issues, by reaching out to young people through my founding of the Jon Breen Fund at Mount Vernon High School. During my few years in the Town of Greenburgh, I have served as an active member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and as a Deputy Supervisor. As an appointed Deputy Supervisor I have been assigned the task of engaging ordinary citizens to become involved in government through Supervisor Feiner’s “Liaison Program.” This program was designed to get people, who are not ordinarily involved, active in the political process. I have also proposed initiatives regarding the use of alternate sources of energy to the Town Board, and the creation of a town-wide Beautification Foundation. That concept is modeled on the extremely successful White Plains Beautification Foundation and would work to upgrade neighborhoods, local parks, traffic circles and common areas by raising money, providing matching funds and promoting awareness of the importance of neighborhood pride, beautification and cleanliness.
As a member of the Town Board, I would be a strong and independent voice regarding the need to support the excellent record of services we have all enjoyed, balanced within the boundaries of economic reality. In other words, I want to keep Greenburgh an affordable place for all types of people, representing all strata of income, to live and enjoy this wonderful town. I would also be a strong advocate of Supervisor Feiner’s efforts to keep “open and transparent” government as a number one objective. I have known Supervisor Feiner for over 30 years and I believe that with my assistance the Town Board will function much more cohesively. Along with that, I would be an active promoter of more citizen participation on “voluntary boards.” I also believe that the Town of Greenburgh should be first and foremost regarding clean energy and on the “cutting edge” of technology. I support Supervisor Feiner’s initiative on promoting WIFI in the parks and I look forward to finding other more creative ways for Greenburgh to use technology to create efficiencies and more energy independence from foreign fossil fuel.
I have also included my resume, by separate attachment, for the committee’s consideration. I would like to be interviewed, at the convenience of the Greenburgh Town Democratic nominating/designating committee. Unfortunately because of a long-time previous commitment I will be out of the area on the evening of March 31, 2005. I hope that the committee will have other time available to consider my candidacy in person. I would appreciate it also if you could make this letter and my resume available to the Town Committee by e-mail, since I do not have a current list of district leaders addresses.
Again, thank you for your consideration. I can be reached at 914-
Regards,
Richard J. Garfunkel
Richard J. Garfunkel
March 16, 2005
A Responce to Thoughts on Justice Scalia
There is no doubt that the normal educated and enlightened folk are caught between two masters One is the ultra liberal inclusion group who trash all morays and expect society to function in the Auntie Mame “grammar school” mode, where everyone dances around naked. They proposed de-standardization and de-construction with a Phoenix bird rising from the ashes. Gay marriage is in itself ridiculous. Marriage is a sacred and legal arrangement between the two genders to codify the arrangement with a certain set of legal and moral vows and rules. The assumption was and should be that marriage was the covenant that afforded the best atmosphere for raising and sustaining the next generation. Well some people cannot have children, and some won't have children, so be it! But they established the boundaries of their personal life with marriage. Did that rule out cheating, abandonment and divorce, no! But like prohibition, alcohol consumption dropped off dramatically in that period. Prohibition of course was a failure, and to a degree many marriages are a failure. But in a sense they are both “noble experiments.” The “open” marriage concept of a heterosexual union will not long work. In the opposite sense, homosexual or “gay” marriage is a charade. It cannot really work any more then the real and voluntary commitment of each partner. Society has no real investment in its working, there are no children really involved. Their union doesn't propagate the species. In fact, no one gives a hoot and holler whether childless heterosexual couples separate or divorce. It is irrelevant. Therefore, among other related subjects, the marginalized left cannot and should not dominate the political thinking of our social order.
The Democrats wandered along for generations as the “out party” who were seen as splintered regionalists with differing ideals. They were opposed by the GOP oligarchs that dominated national politics after the Civil War by creating prosperity through “wage-slavery,” colonialism and monopoly. As the poet says, “the rising tide lifts all boats.” Therefore at the height of the GOP power, under William McKinley the business interests became dominant. Woodrow Wilson understood this differently, and partly his ascendancy and power came from the reform movement opposed to capitalist abuse, well documented by Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair and other muckrakers.
But the Democrats were only successful because of the split between the ruling GOP's factions. The GOP had its own problems, and its business interests were challenged from within their party by the reform forces of Teddy Roosevelt and his progressives, that included people like William Allen White, the La Follettes and others.
In 1924 another clone of this business oligarchic model, Calvin Coolidge (who in one of his few loquacious moments said, “the business of America is business.”) won a landslide electoral vote election with 15.7 million votes against the total of 8.3 million votes by his Democratic opponent John W. Davis. What is forgotten is that Robert La Follette received almost 5 million votes! This represented more votes than TR or Taft received while losing to Wilson 12 years earlier. The progressive vote was out there, but it was divided, and still served as a “spoiler” vote against both parties.
Therefore, the social progressives were never strong enough to capture the mainstream of the American electorate, until the collapse of our economic system in 1932, following four long years of Depression. As Arthur Schlesinger said in his seminal series on “The Age of Roosevelt” and in his opening book “The Crisis of the Old Order,” as he quoted Emerson, “Every revolution was first a thought in one man's mind.” So change came! Robert Sherwood said, on that gray Inauguration Day on March 4, 1933, that the President “radiated optimism, but what lay behind the mask of smiles?”
He wrote, “Are we sure that you have fixed your eyes on a goal beyond the the politician's ken? Have you the will to reach the far horizon where rest the hopes of men?”
As for Franklin Roosevelt, no one could tell what lay behind the imperturbable composure. He said when he had run for Vice-President, that he set forth his concept of the President as the “leader” of the nation. In 1928 he said, “There is no magic in Democracy that does away the need for leadership.” As to the influence of his two philosophical mentors, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, he once wrote, “Theodore Roosevelt lacked Woodrow Wilson's appeal to the fundamental and failed to stir, as Wilson did, the truly profound moral and social convictions. Wilson on the other hand, failed where Theodore Roosevelt succeeded in stirring people to enthusiasm over specific individual events, even though these specific events may have been superficial in comparison with the fundamentals.”
All in all, the spirit and practicality of reform is essential, but it doesn't solve all of our problems. FDR through the combination of events that had resulted from the Crash and the subsequent economic collapse, and his strong charisma and leadership, was able to link both social and economic reform. His realistic and practical ideal created the ongoing coalition of marginal groups and practicalists that would contain and reverse the Depression, resurrect, the middle class by the dual works of the WPA and the PWA, build the “Arsenal of Democracy,” with our re-constituted work force and the previous efforts of central control emanating from the New Deal, win the war, re-build and save Western Europe, contain the Communists, bring social justice to the poor in America, and bring on unequalled prosperity and opportunity in America. As we were “the Arsenal of Democracy,” Roosevelt, the Soldier of Freedom, became the “Architect of Victory,” of the Western World over the corruption of the old world.
But social justice must be part and parcel with economic justice and opportunity. The issue of women's reproductive rights is is a natural extension of human rights. But of course the gulf and conflict between those like Justice Scalia who would pose as “protectors” of the helpless, and the activists who preach “rights” over responsibility is wide. As the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, said, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic…”
To borrow a another quote from Holmes, who said in Buck vs.. Bell in 1927, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” When it comes to our present leader, I think this quote is apt. Any evaluation of his father and grandfather could easily be fitted into this evaluation. Whether the war in Iraq has some justification or not, his prosecution of it has lead to the persecution of the American people. Because of his inept bungling and misplaced sense of values, he has divided the country, abused his narrow mandate and put our economic system at risk. Frankly, as far out as some of our left thinkers are, the danger of our own collapse is much more possible from both our economic dependency on oil, foreign purchases of our debt, and our budgetary insanity.
But be that as it may, harkening back to leadership, it can never be totally discounted for good or evil. Bush, for some, is seen as a determined leader with a vision. History may eventually side with him. “Success has many fathers, as failure is an orphan” as said by JFK. My sense is that we have to succeed in spite of him.
RJG
