There was some flap about ridding the Oval Office of a bust of Churchill and replacing it with one of Lincoln. Don't make it more than it is. The bust was on loan and returned. There is a bust of Churchill in the White House. Lincoln did take residence in the OO.
Got me to thinking of who would I rather be looking at while doing the People's work, Lincoln or Churchill?
Examine them both and you will find human beings. Flawed people make mistakes. I'm also cautioned to beware the cult of personality. It's results that count. As Scripture says, 'By their fruits ye shall know them'.
Heads of state in times of war. Rough decisions and sacrifice.
Lincoln had a fanboy named Karl Marx. I have theories re Marxism at the time. I believe they backed Lincoln and the Union. A strong state would be easier to compromise and bring to world communism. The Confederacy in spite of the outgoing slavery angle, was the Constitutional state. Such independence would be a tough nut for the commies to crack.
Churchill played footsie with Stalin. FDR was of course, much worse.
However, Sir Winston played a longer game. He was effective and decisive during the war, but he was discarded til the 50s, for his expertise were brought to bear during the Cold War.
A collectivist in the Oval Office might like to have Marx's working class hero (who instituted a state which increasingly became compromised as it absorbed more and more power) as a reminder of the Goal. It has slid to socialism and worse in the US.
Churchill is a reminder that there is an indomitable spirit of Freedom afoot, whereas Lincoln created a nest of tyranny. There could be arguments otherwise perhaps, but these are my analyses.
Lincoln seemed to balk his masters and banking became an issue. Did he want to reform and btw help the South? We will never know. The country was fractured and his death assured division that lasts in some forms to this day.
It is easier to control people divided.
Churchill, in spite of compromise, could be a wild card.
England has sunk into abysmal socialism and worse now with jihadist incursion.
I bet a leader like Churchill would have put the kibosh on the evil threatening our whole world.
A red diaper baby in the Oval Office would not want someone even symbolically like that around.
If I were President (no aspirations lol), gazing at the bust of a wild card who warned the world of what was coming would inspire me as I went about my job serving my people.
Small gestures can have significant sublevel meaning. But I suggest we keep our eyes on the prize, ie, Restoring the Republic.
Col. Cooper Coined a Term for This
1 day ago