Thankfully I can report that, a few years down the road, there is a return. A sense of autonomy and individuality that is impossible when one is breastfeeding and keeping a schedule to ensure daily naps. One of the things I used to be, and haven't been for almost a decade, is a history nerd and lover of diplomacy. I named one of my sons Winston because of my love for all things Churchill, his wit, his leadership, his rousing speeches that kept the British people going during WW2. So I was already going to love Thomas E. Ricks book, Churchill and Orwell: The Fight for Freedom. But another thing I did in my former life was voraciously consume science fiction novels. Especially the classics, like Fahrenheit 451, A Brave New World, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and of course, 1984. When I heard the author speaking about these two men in an interview on Terri Gross, I knew I had to read it.
This book delighted me, and not just because it is well-written and thoroughly explores how the British fought back against the Nazis in WW2. (I don't think that we, as Americans, appreciate just how different our world is today because of their tenacity and the extraordinary vision of their leader, although watching "The Man in the High Castle" on Amazon has certainly affected my view.) I also loved reading something so thorough and smart. I haven't come across the word "suzerainty" since college. What's more, Mr. Ricks takes two men (the eponymous Winston Churchill and George Orwell) who are wildly different, and yet, for these years of war on their island, their lives bear striking similarities to one another. This book flowed like a well-told story, and kept me returning day after day to read more. I can only speak as someone who at one point in time was steeped in WW2 history, but I believe that anyone who decides to sit down with this book will learn something they didn't know. And if you are someone who thinks that history is dull or hard to follow, this might be the work that changes your mind.
There are two major takeaways that are still reverberating in my mind although I finished the book and even read a mystery novel after. The first concerns Churchill the wartime politician. As Mr. Ricks writes in his final summary, "Many people around them expected evil to triumph and sought to make their peace with it. These two did not." I think this is why I was so disappointed during our most recent presidential election. I wanted a politician who stood up and demonstrated true principles, to see among the candidates seeking the highest office in our country a person of courage and integrity. Winston Churchill did this before war broke out in Europe. He was often the only person in England's House of Commons sounding the warning alarm about Adolf Hitler and the danger he posed to freedom everywhere. Even when his career suffered and his peers ignored him, he didn't back down, and he didn't change. So when the war did come, when the other countries of Europe crumbled and surrendered to the German blitzkrieg, Churchill was ready to lead Britain to stand firm. We could use more people like him in leadership.The other idea that I appreciate from this study of Churchill and Orwell is the idea of remaining critical of something we love and support. Too often I see this hypocrisy among people, that so long as it is their "side" involved, then whatever that group is doing is fine. There was the immature refrain during President Obama's terms in office that he was "not my president." And as much as people rolled their eyes, as soon as the tables turned and a Republican president took office, the counter was Donald Trump is "not my president." We should be more like George Orwell, a man who supported the spread of liberal thought and communist practices, yet who remained an outspoken opponent to the kind of totalitarian state that Joseph Stalin was implementing in Russia. It wasn't that Orwell was against socialism and collectivism, it was that he believed they could be accomplished without murdering all of one's political opponents and starving one's people. He didn't want to bring down the Soviet Union, he wanted to make it better. And so should we, here in our country, not defend the reprehensible, but we should hold each other and our leaders to a higher standard. As Mr. Ricks writes, "In a world based on facts, in which the individual has the right to perceive and decide those facts on his or her own, the state must earn the allegiance of its citizens. When it fails to live up to its rhetoric, it begins to forfeit that loyalty." If you vote Republican because you believe in lowering taxes and having smaller government, if you find that your beliefs align more with a social conservativism, then vote your conscience. It doesn't mean you have to defend a politician who brags about sexually assaulting women and tweets obsessively about TV shows when he has a country to run. If you vote Democrat because you see the government as a means to improving the lives of our citizens and you desperately want to use tax dollars to fund healthcare and food programs and affordable housing, then go for it. You should still be able to recognize short-comings in your candidates, and acknowledge the role back door deals in the DNC affected the outcome our election.
