Republican allies of convenience

[NNadir]

35. Roosevelt was no dummy; neither was Churchill.

If you open a good biography of Churchill - I've just read Andrew Roberts wildly acclaimed, but occasionally morally over generous biography of him - he had no illusions about who and what Stalin was.

As I remarked in another thread in which there was also whining about the fact that the Lincoln Project is run by (gasp) Republicans, Churchill famously said after the commencement of Barbarossa, “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

You seem to disagree with that practical attitude, and want to whine about the Lincoln Project at this time, when they are working to the same goal as all of us here are working, getting rid of that awful beast tearing the White House to pieces.

I have no use for your position.

I must say too, that I am a member of the Democratic Party - and have been my whole adult life - because of its approach to human decency, education, fighting against racism, and (albeit less important than when I was young) concern for the poor, preservation of wilderness etc.

That does not mean that I endorse every rote party position. For example I have spent thirty years in intense study of the primary scientific literature concerning energy and the environment - posts about that work dominate my journal here - and I would say that the overwhelming policy of the majority of the members of my party - that we're going to save the world, along with our bourgeois lifestyle - with so called "renewable energy" is absurd and is actually making things worse, not better. I believe for example, that Ed Markey is a dangerous fool when it comes to Energy and the Environment, but would probably vote for him if his opponent was a person so morally bankrupt as to declare himself or herself as a member of the Trump dominated Republican Party of the 21st century. (I once considered voting for a Republican in the 20th century - Jacob Javits - but didn't do so because of Nixon.)

So I'm certainly no ideologue.

It is not the case that we benefit by eliminating opposition; on the contrary any political party benefits by having a sane opposition. That is what is generally lacking in our country; our current opposition is insane, corrupt, reactionary and ignorant. That said, the remnants of a sane honorable opposition exist, and they are well represented by the Lincoln Project.

In sane times, I would oppose them on particular issues for sure. But these are not sane times; and I welcome their marvelous participation in this overwhelmingly important goal of removing this horrible excuse for a human being from our national life. Their ads are excellent, and I believe effective, and that's all that matters to me right now.

I regard quibbling with them in times like these as foolish and destructive.

I don't think that either Roosevelt or Churchill were naive as to what and who Stalin was. Harry Truman certainly wasn't. However the world was better with Stalin without Hitler, than it would have been with both Stalin and Hitler.

One needs to be realistic about what is achievable, and by doing so, both Churchill and Roosevelt, for all their disagreements with Stalin and with each other, achieved the best that could be achieved in the early 1940's. This is why they are both considered to be great men, flawed great men, but great men all the same.