COVER STORYCHURCHILLS GREATNESSJeffrey Tallin with Juan Williams <strong>of</strong> Fox NewsFROM SPECIAL REPORT WITH BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS CHANNEL, 4 SEPTEMBER 2001BRIT HUME: As youheard, Stephen Ambrosecalled it a tragedythat William Manchestersays he is not able t<strong>of</strong>inish his trilogy on<strong>Winston</strong> <strong>Churchill</strong> [seealso this issue, page13]. Fox News contributorJuan Williamstalked to Jeffrey Wallin<strong>of</strong> The <strong>Churchill</strong> Center here in Washington about Manchester'sunfinished work and about the impact <strong>Churchill</strong>had on the world.JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX CORRESPONDENT: Jeffrey Wallin <strong>of</strong>The <strong>Churchill</strong> Center, thanks for joining us. WilliamManchester, the author <strong>of</strong> two volumes in a <strong>Churchill</strong>trilogy, The Last Lion, has announced that he can't completethe third volume <strong>of</strong> his study on <strong>Churchill</strong>. How <strong>do</strong>you find this?WALLIN: It's a major disappointment. Manchester is onethe few historians who still writes with a grand s<strong>we</strong>ep.And, as a consequence, <strong>of</strong> the two strokes he's had, notbeing able to finish it, it's very hard to imagine how anyoneelse will come along and finish it up, although he hasleft a manuscript <strong>of</strong> a couple <strong>of</strong> hundred pages or so. Soperhaps there's some hope along those lines.WILLIAMS: Have you met Manchester?Dr. Wallin is President <strong>of</strong> the American Academy for Liberal Educationand an academic adviser to The <strong>Churchill</strong> Center. Interview copyright2001 Fox News Network, Inc., reproduced by <strong>kind</strong> permission.WALLIN: I have."If my father had beenAmerican... I might havegot here on my own!"Drawing a laugh in anotherwise serious speech,Congress, 26Dec4l. L-R:Senator Alben Barkley: actingSpeaker William P.Cole Jr.: WSC: Vice-PresidentHenry Wallace, President<strong>of</strong> the Senate.WILLIAMS: And what is your impression <strong>of</strong> Manchester'swork so far?WALLIN: I <strong>think</strong> it is wonderful. Again, the reason for thatis that <strong>we</strong> live in an age that is made up by small, detailedhistory. They may be very long, but quite <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>they</strong> gointo such tiny and minute detail that one loses the largepicture. And <strong>Churchill</strong> was a large man <strong>of</strong> the 20th century,a man whose own vision was out decades ahead <strong>of</strong>many <strong>of</strong> his contemporaries. So when a biographer comesto him without a similar vision, <strong>of</strong>ten what you get <strong>are</strong>just a number <strong>of</strong> disconnected pieces, and you <strong>do</strong>n't beginto understand the man as he understood himself, which I<strong>think</strong> is the beginning <strong>of</strong> all good biography.WILLIAMS: Some have argued that <strong>Churchill</strong> is the mostimportant political figure <strong>of</strong> the 20th century. Wouldyou agree?WALLIN: I would. There <strong>are</strong> two reasons for that. First,his stand for free<strong>do</strong>m. <strong>Churchill</strong> stood not only to defendBritain, but also to defend free<strong>do</strong>m for the world.FINEST HOUR 112/24
Second, <strong>Churchill</strong> managed to embody in himself both alove and display <strong>of</strong> excellence and deep, abiding democraticconvictions. Quite <strong>of</strong>ten you get one or the other,but not both. He had a deep belief in the combined wis<strong>do</strong>m<strong>of</strong> the people when it was finally brought to bear onan issue. But at the same time, he never aban<strong>do</strong>ned himselfto the things <strong>we</strong> see today, where politicians readpolls every day and try to decide where <strong>they</strong> <strong>are</strong> going togo based on what people happen to be <strong>think</strong>ing at anyfleeting moment. And so <strong>Churchill</strong> is important fordemocracy itself, I <strong>think</strong>, to show, as Lincoln sho<strong>we</strong>d,that great character and great minds can be happy in democraticsocieties and can flourish in them.WILLIAMS: As <strong>we</strong> sit here in the United States, I'm surethere <strong>are</strong> some vie<strong>we</strong>rs who might say: <strong>What</strong> aboutFranklin Delano Roosevelt, who was a contemporary <strong>of</strong><strong>Winston</strong> <strong>Churchill</strong>'s? Wouldn't he qualify as the greatestfigure <strong>of</strong> the 20th century?WALLIN: The problem with the title "greatest" is thatthere can only be one. If you grant me "great men <strong>of</strong> the20th century," Roosevelt would certainly be up there.Certainly one can't imagine United States history withouthim, and perhaps one could even say the history <strong>of</strong>World War II without him. So he was un<strong>do</strong>ubtedly agreat man. <strong>Churchill</strong>'s life spanned a longer period <strong>of</strong>both peace and war. He was involved in the First WorldWar in a responsible position, in the Second World War,and all the great controversies in bet<strong>we</strong>en them and agood number <strong>of</strong> them before even World War 1.1 <strong>think</strong><strong>Churchill</strong> brings a stronger vision to politics than Rooseveltdid. And I <strong>do</strong>n't mean to detract from Roosevelt atall, who certainly was a great statesman.WILLIAMS: <strong>What</strong> was the vision that <strong>Churchill</strong> broughtto politics?WALLIN: <strong>Churchill</strong>'s vision was primarily one <strong>of</strong> the importance<strong>of</strong> human free<strong>do</strong>m. In many ways, I <strong>think</strong> <strong>of</strong>him as a 20th century parallel to Abraham Lincoln. Lincolnthought long and hard and deep about what humanfree<strong>do</strong>m really meant in a way that <strong>we</strong> <strong>do</strong>n't today. If, forexample, you walk into a classroom and you say, "Howmany <strong>of</strong> you approve <strong>of</strong> slavery?" everybody will say,"Oh, no. It's terrible." But ask the question: Why? Whyis it a bad thing? If you can get someone else in yourpo<strong>we</strong>r, <strong>they</strong> work and you eat, as Lincoln said. Lincolnthought that if you couldn't ans<strong>we</strong>r that question reallydeep in your soul, you <strong>we</strong>re not able to defend free<strong>do</strong>m.<strong>Churchill</strong>'s love <strong>of</strong> free<strong>do</strong>m comes from the same sourceas Lincoln's. And that is the American Declaration <strong>of</strong> Independence.He gave a wonderful speech about the Declaration<strong>of</strong> Independence and the truths that it contained.So I <strong>think</strong>, when you consider the whole s<strong>we</strong>ep <strong>of</strong>history, if what you really c<strong>are</strong> about is human free<strong>do</strong>mand the development <strong>of</strong> human character from all classes<strong>of</strong> society—not just the high and mighty class that hecame from himself—then I <strong>think</strong> <strong>Churchill</strong> stands outamongst all men.WILLIAMS: Hearing you say that <strong>Churchill</strong> delivered aspeech on the Declaration <strong>of</strong> Independence reminds usthat <strong>Churchill</strong> holds a fascination for Americans, a surprisingfascination given that he wasn't an Americanleader. Why <strong>are</strong> Americans so taken with <strong>Winston</strong><strong>Churchill</strong>?WALLIN: Well, partly because he was part American. Hismother, Jennie Jerome, was an American. And so he alwaysconsidered himself a blend <strong>of</strong> the two. I <strong>think</strong> thereason he appeals to Americans was his wonderfulspeeches that crystallize an incoherent belief <strong>of</strong> the people.<strong>People</strong> can have strong convictions and not be ableto express them clearly and articulately. That's what<strong>Churchill</strong> meant when he said he was not the Britishlion, but the voice <strong>of</strong> the lion. But at the same time, bycrystallizing it, by giving it substance in speech, you createit a little bit, too. I <strong>think</strong> Americans <strong>are</strong> drawn to that<strong>kind</strong> <strong>of</strong> rhetoric, because Americans have always seen thiscountry as a "city on a hill," as it used to be called. Thatis, something that stands for a vision beyond itself, a beaconto other countries on how people can live togetherfrom diverse backgrounds in different countries, how<strong>they</strong> can pursue free<strong>do</strong>m, how <strong>they</strong> can pursue democracyin a lawful manner. <strong>Churchill</strong> embodied that. Heloved that characteristic about the Americans. And heloved also their spontaneity and can-<strong>do</strong> attitude. He understoodthe nature <strong>of</strong> tyranny. He was not overly concernedwhether the tyranny was from the left or theright. He despised the Nazis—or the "Narrzees" as hecalled them.WILLIAMS: He called them the "Narrzees," you said?WALLIN: Yes. He had a way <strong>of</strong> saying it that was almostlike spitting the word out. He despised the communists.He once said <strong>of</strong> the communists that the infant Bolshevismshould have been strangled in its cradle. He alsosaid that none <strong>of</strong> the ideas <strong>of</strong> communism <strong>we</strong>nt far beyondthe idea <strong>of</strong> the white ant's view <strong>of</strong> organizing society.It was quips like that that would bring him to the attention<strong>of</strong> people all across the world. He loved humanfree<strong>do</strong>m. He believed that individual human beings <strong>we</strong>recapable <strong>of</strong> living their own lives, if <strong>we</strong>ll led.WILLIAMS: Jeffrey Wallin <strong>of</strong> The <strong>Churchill</strong> Center, thankyou so much for joining us.WALLIN: You <strong>are</strong> <strong>we</strong>lcome, Juan. I enjoyed being here. M>FINEST HOUR 112/25
Change language