Benjamin Franklin would like a word with you (signed your declaration of independence at 70), as would Churchill, Picasso, Enzo Ferrari, Mother Theresa and a thousand others…
"In 1953, during his second stint as prime minister, Winston Churchill had a stroke after dinner. “No one seemed alarmed by [his] slurred speech and unsteadiness on his feet, one of the advantages of having a reputation for enjoying alcohol,” writes Andrew Roberts, a historian. For several weeks, as Churchill was incapable of governing, his son-in-law and private secretary in effect ran the country. He never fully recovered, yet refused to stand down until 1955, when he was 80. "
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/07/03/senility-in-hi...
Churchill at all ages is exactly what the US should be trying to avoid - he was the best product of a generation of politicians who took the greatest empire in the history of the world and flubbed the economics and diplomacy so badly that it has become a footnote.
If the plan is to reduce the reach of Washington to Virginia and DC then Churchill would be a great choice of leader and if that is the explicit goal then ok sure. If the plan is to maintain a peaceful status quo as a powerful and successful country people like Churchill in the leadership are a very bad sign indeed.
You have to assume the UK had no power to influence its internal or world affairs to conclude that its political class were competent through the last century. Which is a crazy stance given where they were in the early 1900s.
Not to be an anglophile but you are seriously giving that generation of british rulers a lack of credit. They stood up for the international order and joined two wars that destroyed them financially. Britain could have sat both of those world wars out. They could have said its not a big deal that germany invsde belgium or poland. But they willingly and knowingly undertook an expensive endeavor for a greater good.
When their empire was then faltering aftet world war ii, they then let them go. They set them up to be independent and had peaceful transfers of power instead of bloody civil wars like France and Portugal did. They didnt do it perfect. But they gave them independence, in democracies, with books of laws, and set them up in international organizations.
Britain took the losing hand and tried to set up a situation that a rules based world order could thrive in, and churchill was amongst the men in charge for that.
> But they willingly and knowingly undertook an expensive endeavor for a greater good.
Let's not go that far. They joined the war because of literal decades of politicking done beforehand in order to secure an alliance with France and Russia. Germany wanted more prestige, more colonies and a Navy. Britain, being the preeminent colonial and naval power, would prefer that didn't happen.
Your view on if the allies were justified in wanting to contain the ambitions of Germany probably depends on if you see Germany as justified in wanting a bigger slice of the pie that the other powers of the time were currently taking up, or if you see Germany as a buffoon that upset the existing balance of power for selfish reasons. But Britain entering into those alliances made conflict inevitable, and I find it hard to see any selflessness in desiring or preserving empire. They all paid dearly in the end.
Gp was probably talking about Churchill last stint, after 70, where he was extraordinarily bad for his country. I know leftists usually blame Thatcher, but to me she mostly tried to make up for what the post-WW2 UK government broke. At least unlike France, they managed the decolonization peacefully.
Churchill post-WW2, Picasso after 60, Ferrari after 58 (his son died and that's a _really_ good excuse tbh, he might have stayed sharp if not for that) are good example for people who think humans after 60 mentally decline.
