Recently, Steven F. Hayward at National Review wrote a piece comparing and contrasting Newt Gingrich to Winston Churchill on two different points - personal faults kept/keeping both men from higher office and whether or not both men had/has learned from history.  Although Hayward's piece is an interesting read, it is based on false historical analytical assumptions.

As a student of history, we are taught that we should not practice "presentism" or  the practice of imposing history on today's events.  We hear such presentism every day on the news whether it's a school shooting being described as a "Columbine type" shooting or a disaster being compared to Katrina.  We also hear it from politicians or pundits comparing today to some event in the past like "the worst economy since the 1970s".  We do it ourselves as well.  Presentism is used to help connect today's events to a shared history or a shared time period or person in history and to help explain what is taking place today, but can lead the reader or viewer to a false interpretation of correlation-causation relationship.

We have to first understand that each event in history is unique time, place, and set of circumstances, so to compare one event to another is a misnomer.  Likewise, to compare one person in history to another is fun, but is also based in the same historical untruths. 

Knowing what we know now about the basic tenet of historical analysis, let's deconstruct Hayward's piece comparing one of the greatest statesmen in modern history - Winston Churchill - with Newt Gingrich.

First, Winston Churchill's faults as Hayward points out and believes  - "his resolute stubbornness, his unconstrained and unpredictable imagination and occasional recklessness" kept Churchill from high office and also contributed to Churchill being distrusted by his own Conservative Party.  Yes, Churchill was a stubborn man, but what got Churchill in trouble was his insistence that England take a hard stance against an emerging Adolf Hitler in Germany - which stemmed from Churchill's own military service and time as Minister of Defense - while the government and people still had fresh memories of leaving an entire generation in Flanders' Mud.  Churchill also made a political miscalculation by picking the wrong side during Edward VII's abdication of the throne. In addition, Churchill did not always tote the party line, even as he became that party's leader.  Churchill had friends, but he had just as many enemies.

Comparing Gingrich's economic "radical change" and past leadership to Churchill's defense of the economic status quo (he would lose reelection to Prime Minister to a Clement Atlee of the Labour Party who ran on a platform of socialist programs that plunged England into a democratic-socialist government until Margaret Thatcher's rollback of those programs) and Churchill's wartime leadership is incorrect.  I would hope that if Newt Gingrich is the GOP nominee, that he too would not fall victim a head of government who has instituted several democratic-socialist programs. 

Second, did Churchill or Gingrich learn from history?  In a nutshell, no. Have both men used their experiences as a tool to leadership?  Yes.  Churchill used his experience as a military veteran and his experience in the government during World War I to sound an unheard alarm regarding events unfolding on the European mainland and to lead England during World War II.  Gingrich, on the other hand, has used his experience as Speaker of the House to find compromises and hammer out a plan of action, including working with the opposition to enact his agenda and believes he can bring that experience to the White House. 

Historical comparison is a dangerous game to play - like President Obama ranking himself as the fourth most accomplished President in just two years, ranking himself behind LBJ, FDR, and Lincoln.  Arrogance to the point of megalomania to say the least.  LBJ dealt with a country seriously divided along racial lines and divided over Vietnam. FDR dealt with an economic crisis not seen since the Crash of 1920. Lincoln dealt with a country literally and figuratively divided.  Obama has accomplished nothing except dividing a nation whereas it can be argued that LBJ, FDR and especially Lincoln, did what they could to unite or reunite a nation. 

Comparing Winston Churchill and Newt Gingrich to each other is like comparing apples and oranges while the circumstances of those apples and oranges are miles apart.  Presentism is a road we, Steven Hayward, and especially President Obama should rarely travel down.