Dickinson College Humanities Program in Norwich

Picture obtained from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/churchill_winston.shtml

While walking through the Churchill Museum and War Rooms this afternoon, I was again amazed to think that Winston Churchill lost the 1945 election despite his legendary leadership during the Blitz and astronomically high approval ratings. At first glance it is hard to imagine anything similar happening in a national U.S. election. Could anyone imagine a president leading the United States triumphantly through a war, only to be defeated the next election to someone that served under them? After looking at the exhibits in the Churchill Museum, and doing a little bit of research, I have found three fairly compelling reasons as to why Churchill lost the 1945 election. Take a look at them, written from least compelling to most, and see if you think any of these reasons would lead to a similar upset in the United States.

1) Age

Many analysts claim Churchill’s old age could have discouraged many British citizens from voting Conservative in the 1945 election. This cannot be the definitive answer, as Churchill went on to become Prime Minister only a few years later despite being even older. However, evidence seems to suggest that a significant number of voters could have been swayed by Churchill’s age. Could age have such an influence on the American electorate? I am reminded of all of the talk about John McCain’s age in 2008. From my vantage point, age in either country can only have a negligible effect on the result.

2) Labour(Atlee) was better at domestic policy, and the war was over

According to this argument, the end of WWII marked a shift in priorities for the British electorate. Voters favored the person who had the better domestic policy, and found that person (at the time) to be Atlee. Could anyone see a US president being kicked out of office after having an overwhelmingly successful first term because the policy issues are different? I have a very difficult time seeing such cold rationalism, which does not seem to give any credence to all of Churchill’s successes during his time as Prime Minister, becoming a predominant factor in a US election.

3) People were not voting for/against Churchill, they were voting for their local MP

Since citizens only vote for MPs, many citizens could have been focused on local issues and priorities, and not been concerned about the national leader. This is where things really begin to fall into the hypothetical when comparing the US electorate to that of the UK. If this argument holds water(and I believe it is the most convincing reason why Churchill lost the election) I think it demonstrates the most glaring difference between US and UK voters. If given the option to vote for president or local representative, US citizens will vote in the national election nine times out of ten. This is seen in the disturbingly low turnout for non-presidential elections. UK citizens, seemingly, prioritize local elections to a much larger extent than their US counterparts.

For some more information on the 1945 election, you can out this link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/election_01.shtml

 So what do you think? Does Churchill’s defeat make sense? Could a similar electoral result happen in the US?

Sorry to finally be blogging about Wednesday’s events today, the new blog link wasn’t working last night. The number of interesting trips and tours have begun to snowball this week, and blogging about them in a timely way has gotten a bit more difficult.

That said, I feel as though I must write about my experiences on Wednesday, which for me included both Westminster Abbey and the Churchill Museum/Cabinet War Rooms. I’ll echo what I think everyone’s opinion of Westminster Abbey was: unfathomable, in both size and historical importance. I had not realized just how much of the church is dedicated to graves and memorials. It felt overwhelming to be walking from Newton to Darwin to Elizabeth I while flying past David Lloyd George, Edward Elgar, and other very important people for whom the tour just had no time. Certainly no public building other than Westminster Abbey gives an impression of the richness and grandeur and power present in the totality of English history.

And yet, personally, I think I probably got as much out of the Cabinet War Rooms as I did the Abbey. One of the most amazing things about World War Two, I’ve always thought, was that something as powerful as 20th Century Great Britain was brought so close to annihilation, and survived not through brute force but rather determination, cooperation, and strong and unwavering leadership.

Seeing the Abbey and the War Rooms in the same day meant seeing Britain’s at its most epic and powerful and at its simplest, starkest, and truly finest. (Here I’m using juxtaposition, a strategy never before employed on this blog). The Rooms themselves, for those who’ve not yet seen them, are presented with simply an audio guide and some signage, (rather than overblown multimedia) which I think serves them well. Even recreated, they do not appear visually impressive as they were reserved for the PM, the Cabinet and important staff, and there was a minimum of space under the concrete/steel buffer. If one didn’t know the decisions made and the speeches given from that place, one might find it unremarkable.

I might not have recommended the Churchill Museum adjoining the War Rooms if it were on its own. It does gloss over the poorer choices of his career and has quite a confusing setup and superfluous multimedia. My favorite part, frankly, was the loop of video from his remarkable memorial service.

On the tube home I was thinking how tremendous it is that the nerve center of Britain could be confined to those dozen or so rooms in 1940, and only 13 years later it could be back in all its splendor at Westminster Abbey for the coronation of a new queen (with nary a toilet flush to be heard).