3 for historical ponderances
The current political moment of lunacy makes me want to flesh out a pile of political figures history generally looks unfavorably on, but who have their defenders / supporters / sympathizers. A guidepost on how Trump could get sometimes related to by “dissident” historians of differing levels of respectability.
Charles Lindbergh. Favored somewhat by Kurt Vonnegut, upon his controversial speech squirmed that that won’t go well in the ptess. Roosevelt considered the guy a nazi, basically. His wife wrote a dreary book of historical interest spelling Democracy’s death and — in that Brown / red alliance that tends to favor the lot of the browns — foretold that as the wave of the future we need to give spiritually toward. Kind of looked the other way, pretending it never happened after Pearl Harbor. Lindbergh did perform admirably in the war period, a sympathetic senator clandestinely shuffling him to some fighter plane inspections — probably just busy work to allow him some pride in being against a hostile administration. A best selling book related counter-factual “what if” history on the isolationist turned fascist Lindbergh presidency — invariably ending with his disposition and the good guys winning. Justin Raimando wrote favourably on him in his anti-interventionist writings, claiming historical smear jobs.
Neville Chamberlain. Whipping boy of history, and why politicians are no longer able to carry umbrellas when trying for negotiations. He ends up on my mind simply because I see Joe Scarborough rattle on that is a mistake to compare Trump and his Republicans to Chamberlain — who was an honorable man. There are historic considerations — and in trying to ascertain what is to be done to keep Britain moving in some amoral sense, I am broadly considering the state of American politics in the 1850s — the North anti-slavery politicians reaching settlements with the Southern slave states and historically wise to do so as the military might is out of whack. When war did come, Chamberlain was in the war, as best he could muster.
Huey Long. Always a tad surprised by how much casual support he garners in various spheres. Untold history, supposedly — he drove FDR to actual action. Him and the Communists. Though when last I saw Huey Long love, it was relating the political figure of Hugo Chavez. I do not know if we are getting that for Putin and Orban — been a while since Dreher has his writings up at the American Conservative. In practice, Trump is that extra step beyond what Long aspired toward — history unclear on what would have happened had he not been shot, though as always your cinematographers write the Huey Long golden era counter-histories.