Churchill was not a neoconservative

In connection with “Those Churchillian neocons” who constantly claim their filial relationship with one of the twentieth century’s most outstanding statesmen, I refer readers to Spencer Warren’s argument, posted at VFR in 2005, that Churchill was no neocon.

As Mr. Warren puts it today:

The phrase, “Those Churchillian neocons,” concerns me, since the neocons are appropriating WSC as one of their own, which he was anything but. True, in the context here one can say they see themselves, like WSC, saving civilization. On the other hand, unlike the neocons, WSC would never have had any problem discussing immigration; indeed, he never would have let the Muslims in!

My use of the phrase “those Churchillian neocons” was, of course, intended ironically.

Also, reader Mark N. reminds us of Winston Churchill’s extraordinary observations about Islam, written when he was 25, showing that he was certainly no neoconservative. VFR has posted this quote before but it’s worth repeated re-readings:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities—but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

—Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

What is even more exceptional than Churchill’s grasp of Islam’s paralyzing effects on the arts of civilization, is his understanding that Islam, despite all appearances, was not moribund but militant and still an active threat to the survival of Europe. And to think—he said this at the end of the 19th century, at the peak of the civilizational ascendancy of Britain and Europe. By contrast, Gibbon, writing a little over a century earlier, said that Europe faced no threat of a renewed barbarian invasion like that which destroyed ancient Rome. Perhaps it was because Gibbon was a typical secularist of the late 18th century, thinking religion was nothing more than a lot of colorful nonsense. Like today’s liberals and secularists, he could not see the reality of Islam, which is a spiritual reality, even though he wrote a great deal about Islam. Churchill, having more respect for religion generally, and being more of a Christian in particular, and being less of a liberal, could see the horrifying reality of Islam to which the skeptic Gibbon was blind.

But, more than respect for religion, I was believe it was Churchill’s powerful sense of identity as an Englishman and a Westerner that enabled him to see what Islam really meant. Religousness by itself is not enough, as we can see from the many Christians who think Christianity commands openness to all religions and cultures. To see clearly the reality of the Other, what is needed most of all is a deep and instinctive sense of one’s own.

Finally, isn’t it ridiculous, now that we’re facing a real Islamic threat such as Churchill warned us against, that the Claremont Institute keeps having as its Winston Churchill dinner speaker each year such hopelessly shallow and unserious figures as Mark Steyn and Victor Hanson, who would utterly reject Churchill’s profound insights into Islam?

- end of initial entry -

Spencer Warren writes:

Remember that Churchill was writing little more than a decade after the Mahdi uprising in the Sudan, which led to the death of Gen. Gordon in Khartoum. The 1898 Kitchener expedition to retake the Sudan was in retaliation for that disaster. Churchill as you know was part of that expedition, fought at Omdurman and then wrote about it. The Mahdi was the bin Laden of his time.

Churchill was immersed in English and Western civilization, although he was not an observant Christian. I think he considered himself agnostic, but he wasn’t hostile at all to Christianity like Gibbon.

LA replies:

Mr. Warren’s point about the Mahdi uprising is well taken, though it still does not explain how Churchill could have seen an uprising against British rule in the Sudan as betokening a Moslem threat to the survival of European civilization.

Also, while Churchill was apparently not an active Christian, I wonder what is the evidence that he was an agnostic.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 30, 2006 02:56 PM | Send