Halifax Now and Then

Movies tend to awaken senses and invite ideas to take a deeper and more profound spot in one´s mind. A series of shots with visual effects that are interwoven beautifully within a script could allow for a reassessment of notions and beliefs. In the movie 'Darkest Hour', the mute inner dialogue of Winston Churchill once he was appointed Prime Minster of England at the acme of World War II resonated with a sapient audience from the future. Churchill´s romantic and patriotic refusal to bow before German attacks and offer a dignified surrender was admired by viewers, who reminisced about the days of glory and pride. The weak, feeble figure of Edward Frederick Lindley Wood, First Earl of Halifax, was naturally ridiculed for its defeatist standpoint. After all, it was the Earl of Halifax who pushed for striking a deal with Adolf Hitler after the fall of most of Western Europe. But Churchill the hero defied his party and its leadership, and stood by the pride and will of a glorious nation. And history proved his decision right.

Interestingly, English statesman and writer, George Savile, the first Marquess of Halifax (1633 –1695) held similar views to the 20th century Halifax.  A staunch opponent to the concept of ´fundamental principles´, he defined such a hyped and defended concept as the ‘nail that everyone would use to fix what is convenient for them at a moment and keep it unshakeable. Fundamental is similar to sacred vocabulary that maintains things in their state, disallowing anyone touching them’. Such progressive intellect could be broadened to tackle the right to question any concept, belief, or costume – including national pride. A fundamental belief in any concept could be a vice that is cladded in ethical discipline. Any government that is based on a set of fundamental principles that are rigid, inherent, and defining to a nation could be subject to auto-destruction if opposed to re-evaluation and assessment.

Earl Halifax warned his English peers in 1940 of the dangers of transforming principles into causes. He championed peace, even if it meant surrender, and accepted that England´s history of victories see a setback- potentially and hopefully temporarily. Refusing to rejoice pride might have echoed the 17th century Marquess´ views regarding the need for a `radical compromise between power and freedom…whereby governments should be able to be strong to maintain peace, and liberal enough in order not to cause repression'. Had history taken another turn, most viewers would have supported Halifax´s questioning of a romantic notion that was promoted by a leader who refused to compromise a fundamental principle. A strong government must ensure peace. It is acceptable to lose at times, to surrender at others, and to start again.

If both Halifaxes were here today, they would most likely have key insights on world events. Should the question of principle kill any attempt for peace? Should a fundamental belief in a cause or an idea deny other alternative notions to emerge? Should the principle that binds Gulf Arab States together in their opposition to Persian expansion stand at a higher pedestal than potential for prosperity and harmony? Are Arab States willing to shed more blood to defend their romantic principles? While it ended well for the Allies in the 20^th century, it will likely not be case for their allies in the 21^st.