To all of you who've posted critical comments, explaining to me that Churchill differs from Paul in his moral character and a million other ways, that the British have a lot of immoral actions on the world stage to answer for, and that huge mistakes - both strategic and moral - were made in the second world war, I get it.
None of them, however, speak to the (I thought, obvious) point of this article that in fights against tyranny, strength of purpose is key, even when things look bleak - and whatever you think about Churchill, he had strength of purpose and to couch it in inspiring ways that that kept an entire nation of people in a fight for their liberty against the odds. (Or should the British have just invited in Hitler on the grounds that their leader, Churchill, wasn't a true lover of liberty anyway..? Of course not. )
Just because two things or people are not the same does not mean that they cannot be compared in specific respects. But even that is not really relevant, because this article does not compare Churchill to Paul: it applies some lessons of one huge fight against tyranny to another, with particular emphasis on the importance of staying strong in a long fight, and many people found that inspiring and helpful.
I have no problem being criticized for what I have written .. but I do have a problem for being criticized for what I didn't write - and having all kinds of inferences drawn from things I didn't even address, let alone say.
If you don't like these kind of articles because you know more history than I mentioned about here, that is fine, but let's not divide among ourselves. It is how we lose. Be glad that many on our side found this inspiring, even if you didn't.
I will let my own record of understanding of Ron Paul and his purpose, and my work on behalf of our cause, and for liberty in general, stand against anyone's.
I will also let the fact that the RP campaign tweeted this article speak for itself. Obviously, they understood it, and thought it useful. If my writing didn't help the cause of liberty, I would stop immediately.
I get that Paul is not Churchill; I get that Churchill is not Paul. I get that Paul has massive integrity and is a man of peace. I've been writing about these things extensively.
And finally, regarding the comparisons referenced in the first paragraph, please READ them before going off on one: they are very particular.
Please don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
(I believe that quote is from Voltaire, not Churchill. I hope he meets the standard of "approved lover of liberty who can be quoted". If he does not, it doesn't make the advice any less good.)
Persuading people of liberty involves getting enough out of our own heads and ideas to be able to understand the points that they are trying to make to us - especially when we disagree with them. Why not practice with articles like this that obviously come from people who are on the same side as you?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: