What detracts from a DEAD politician's greatness?

[AussieMick]

There have been many great politicians. But they all had their faults and weaknesses. If we are going to assess which ones were truly great, then I think we need to honestly identify their weaknesses.

This Thread is obviously going to involve our own opinions and these might be based on anecdotes or simply our gut feelings. Some politicians would fall into just about all of the categories below (Hitler, Stalin for example).

"Lack of Humility or Awareness"
Churchill lacked the common touch and rarely considered his own faults.

"Hubris" (Excessive pride or self-confidence)

"Susceptibility to Corruption"

"Unpopularity"
Ok this is tricky. Rubbing people up the wrong way ...I mean by it that a politician needs to be able to inspire others and have them automatically invest trust and support. Some 'great' politicians failed to win or keep support. Lord Melbourne once said "I dont want people to support me when I'm right. I want people who will support me when I'm wrong."

Weak or low moral standards
This might cover sexual indiscretions. Lack of honesty. Lack of loyalty to others. Financially lax or spendthrift in personal affairs.

Lack of clarity or simplicity of statements
(Its amazing that some politicians still have problems here ... I think Lincoln's Getty Address was the greatest ever political speech ... but at other times I think he could be verbose ... maybe thats how it was done then.)

Economical with the Truth
(Omits 'unhelpful' issues from statements)

[JMadonna]

Misinterpretation of the events or facts of the situation he faced.

[Gene C]

I was thinking that to, but you said it gooder.

[LincolnMan]

I just saw Darkest Hour (speaking of Churchill). My favorite scene is the one where he goes on a public tube to ascertain the thinking of the general public. I guess he really had been out of touch. Great movie, by the way.

[AussieMick]

The above 3 posts seem to me to be linked in the way that Churchill's greatness has suffered in the UK (and also in Australia and NZ) over Gallipoli. To remind you, this was an attempt in 1915 to shorten WW1 by invading Turkey.
It was a disaster mainly due to poor planning (though that covers a host of issues). It was fundamentally Churchill's idea and the outcome was 160,000 casualties for the Allies , and about the same for the Turks, before the Allies withdrew.
The point for me is that Churchill made a strategic decision that was soundly based (I believe) but in the build up and over the months it was altered and poorly actioned by senior command. He resigned and the Gallipoli 'disaster' has forever since been placed as his responsibility.

My opinion is that many of Churchill's critics concerning Gallipoli are political professionals who dislike him for being an old-style Conservative. The fact that he took actions which British Trade Unions remember with hatred also affect the bias of those on the Left. When you couple this with the hatred which many people of Irish background have for him, its no wonder that Churchill's greatness as a politician is subject to much bitterness.

[JMadonna]

(01-24-2018 02:57 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  The above 3 posts seem to me to be linked in the way that Churchill's greatness has suffered in the UK (and also in Australia and NZ) over Gallipoli. To remind you, this was an attempt in 1915 to shorten WW1 by invading Turkey.
It was a disaster mainly due to poor planning (though that covers a host of issues). It was fundamentally Churchill's idea and the outcome was 160,000 casualties for the Allies , and about the same for the Turks, before the Allies withdrew.
The point for me is that Churchill made a strategic decision that was soundly based (I believe) but in the build up and over the months it was altered and poorly actioned by senior command. He resigned and the Gallipoli 'disaster' has forever since been placed as his responsibility.

Success has many fathers, failure has but one.

Gallipoli was a political decision that was approved because of the failure of the European campaign. Despite British Intelligence warnings of a pending disaster it was sent.

The basic plan was for the Navy to land at Istanbul and the Turks would be overawed and surrender. The British used this tactic many times during the Victorian era and it worked against an unprepared or backwards enemy.

But when the Turks didn't surrender the officers were forced to improvise and the disaster unfolded. Churchill became the designated scapegoat.