Where's Winston?

Rising from the oak benches — sweaty-faced, red-cheeked, round-bellied — he clasps the lapels of his three-piece suit. The man's voice thunders, "In the last few months we have been subject to cruel, wanton, indiscriminate bombings of our cities. Our enemy hopes of killing large numbers of civilians that will terrorize and cow the people of this mighty city. We can take it, and victory shall be ours!" No, this is not an American or world leader after 9-11. It's Winston Churchill, Britain's leader whose empurpled rhetoric and indomitable spirit inspired the Brits and kept Hitler walking the floors at night. No one today decries Churchill for being a bald, chubby imperialist who could drink most IU seniors under the table. He's remembered as someone who saw the inevitability of war and had the courage and fortitude to fight it, a man of principles and unyielding confidence.\nToday voters choose between cookie-cutter candidates whose personalities and plans for the future of the modern world could put veteran insomniacs to sleep. Instead of telling the American people what he would do differently in Iraq in one of his weekly assaults on Bush, John Kerry stated in Seattle May 25, "I can wage a more effective war on terror than George Bush." Well, thank you, Sen, Kerry, for letting us know you and the president differ, but now could you tell us how?\nPolitical nihilism is an unacceptable option, but neither party is guiltless of vague rhetoric, which would lead some to agree with the vituperative political satirist Lewis Black, who quipped, "The Democrats are a party of no ideas, and the Republicans are a party of bad ideas!" \nI ask, therefore, where have all the Churchills gone? In the recent past and in the current election, candidates have been so focused on maintaining an image of presidential authority, decisiveness and conviction that in the process they have spun decisions for political benefit or neglected to make unpopular decisions altogether. Or as President Bush said, "I know there is a lot of ambition in Washington, obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely to succeed with success as opposed to failure." Clever, isn't he?\nAm I saying Churchill was perfect or that he was above politics? No. Churchill was an imperial egoist who managed his Cabinet poorly and suffered from severe bouts of depression. But his strength of will and his oratorical powers alongside his administrative gusto hardened Britain's resistance. \nU.S. voters seem to like their candidates clean-shaven, with a full head of hair, thin and without wrinkles. Could a pudgy, cigar-wielding, verbose Churchill be elected today? \nCase in point: three million lost jobs, a sagging economy, public education's decline, Social Security's nebulous future and more than 500 dead in Iraq, but the recent media craze remains whether or not John Kerry has undergone Botox treatments in order to enhance his craggy good looks. \nAs the election develops, the public undoubtedly will grow wearier of both candidates and thirstier for Churchillian leadership — a politician who outlines ideas and goals for the 21st century and crystallizes an intricate vision of a new America instead of the placebo of prevarication and political spin. Perhaps the true heir to the leadership of Churchill is the man who now occupies his distinguished office at 10 Downing Street, Tony Blair. After being blasted by both British political parties for his support of the Iraqi war, he stated with undeterred resolve, "Leadership and conviction comes at the price of popularity." If only Tony were born in Nebraska!