The Legacy Test In our internet age, everything we write is forever. When I think about my writing as everlasting, I’m led to try to be generous and gracious, positive and precise. Because whatever is memorialized and permanent forms our legacy, which I define as a reputation that sticks, both while we’re alive and after.
I admire Wes Moore’s legacy in progress. Wes is in his first year as governor of Maryland.
I admire him for his dedication to public service through his military career, his leadership of poverty fighting organizations, and now the beginnings of his political career. With his books and speeches, he’s inspired countless people. He is a wonderful husband and father and loyal friend. He’s also uncommonly kind and positive.
I say “in progress,” because Wes is only 44 years old!
David - This is my favorite thing that you’ve written, which is saying a lot.
There’s something about Churchill that modern history shies away from. He was, above all else, an aristocrat. He never once drove a car, or got dressed without the help of a valet. His bath was drawn for him by a servant his whole life. His generosity to Chamberlain was inextricably linked to what he himself might have called “breeding,” or “station.” A gentleman simply didn’t say “I told you so.” Much has been gained in our egalitarian culture, but something has been lost too. When was the least time you even heard the word “gentleman”?
I loved Andrew Roberts biography of Churchill. Admirable is Ron Chernows biography, Grant.
Both led young, dynamic lives. Both rose to greatness as existential crisis pressed inward on their country.
I favor Grant a bit because no man in centuries, rose from such lowely origns, to such a height, literally saving a nation by his own direct personal leadership.
Quite a contrast between Grant and Churchill in terms of their circumstances at birth and expectations of them.
I remember reading a book (not Chernow) about how post-presidency, Grant suffered financial loss, but then wrote his autobiography as he was dying and in terrible pain, to provide for his family. The guy had no quit in him.
Ah yes. Actually Mark Twain came to President Grants aid and facilitated publishing Grants memoir. He actually was it his side doing proofing and offering advice.
I highly recommend reading Chernow Grant. The journey is just amazing and wonderful.
David, I appreciate this piece and its call for the ultimate shield of conscience. Because I’m troubled by what a written legacy really means in the digital age, I admire the prescience and legacy of Marshall McLuhan - not only is the medium the message, the medium increasingly shapes how we think (and perhaps undercuts our ability to resist and hold true to conscience).
I’ve been coming to terms with the possibility of all my words disappearing into the ether or being coopted by AI content. Amid such grim odds, the writers I like on Substack do shine through - and perhaps Churchill’s example shines another kind of light.
As you point out, there's a lot of insurance value in making certain you have a physical copy of what you write solely on the internet, such as substack posts.
It’s entirely possible that what seemed to have been a graceful act on Churchill’s part was actually not. That instead, it was an act born out of the sheer necessity of uniting the party, the government, and the people for the war effort. I’d like to think not. I’d rather believe that it stands in complete support of the idea that grace, kindness, and forgiveness are as necessary for the survival of the human collective as are air, water, and food.
I once skimmed a book that I’ve now stopped to read (and am very glad that I did) called “Between You and Me, Confessions of a Comma Queen” by Mary Norris. Norris placed a quote in the beginning of the book that was on my mind when I read your piece and it somehow seems related. I’m not sure if it’s tangential or if goes right to the heart of the matter, but here it is: “Of course, when you correct the errors of others,/do so with kindness, in the hope that later writers/will be as kind when they correct yours.” (Francis A. Burke-Young and Sandra Rose Maley,“The Art of the Footnote”.
Maybe there's not a contradiction between the necessity of being united and the grace of Churchill's words. And maybe it's impossible to untangle all the motives.
We forget that at this point England was the only country fighting against the Axis until December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor.
Churchill was at the right place at the right time. Instead of excoriating Chamberlain for his failure, Churchill listened to “the better angels of his nature.”
Better angels is a great way of referencing Lincoln, the idea of Legacy, and Churchill's eulogy all at the same time. Your comment led me to search out what Churchill had to say about Lincoln. Here it is below:
"But the death of Lincoln deprived the Union of the guiding hand which alone could have solved the problems of reconstruction and added to the triumph of armies those lasting victories which are gained over the hearts of men."
I'll have to think about which person I might admire the most, but following up on your other post asking for TV recommendations, this piece reminds me of an episode of the cop show Blue Bloods that just reran last night. The plot was that the Tom Selleck character, the very upright police commissioner, has to figure out ceremonies for the funeral of his corrupt predecessor who'd been forced to resign yet nonetheless remained well-liked among the rank and file. Basically he has to struggle to thread the needle between not wanting to endorse or minimize the guy's malfeasance, but also uphold the gravity and dignity of the office. After reading your post, I wonder if the episode was inspired by that Churchill speech.
This is beautiful, and causes me to admire Churchill even more than before. He was there when he was most needed, thank God. There’s a very good podcast, “My History Can Beat Up Your Politics,” where Bruce Carlson does a wonderful, short series on Chamberlain. I’m not sure if it’s still available, but I’ve kept a copy. Now, I need to go back for a second listen. Thank you, David.
I didn't know about this. Thank you for sharing. In some ways untypical of the man we know from history, but very typical of the man who was of his class and of the time of his earlier years. Gracious and polite.
I admire Wes Moore’s legacy in progress. Wes is in his first year as governor of Maryland.
I admire him for his dedication to public service through his military career, his leadership of poverty fighting organizations, and now the beginnings of his political career. With his books and speeches, he’s inspired countless people. He is a wonderful husband and father and loyal friend. He’s also uncommonly kind and positive.
I say “in progress,” because Wes is only 44 years old!
David - This is my favorite thing that you’ve written, which is saying a lot.
There’s something about Churchill that modern history shies away from. He was, above all else, an aristocrat. He never once drove a car, or got dressed without the help of a valet. His bath was drawn for him by a servant his whole life. His generosity to Chamberlain was inextricably linked to what he himself might have called “breeding,” or “station.” A gentleman simply didn’t say “I told you so.” Much has been gained in our egalitarian culture, but something has been lost too. When was the least time you even heard the word “gentleman”?
Thanks Simon!
I'm looking forward to your first post on Wednesday from
https://simonwasserberger.substack.com/p/welcome-to-on-the-grid
Simon, You are a gentleman!
I loved Andrew Roberts biography of Churchill. Admirable is Ron Chernows biography, Grant.
Both led young, dynamic lives. Both rose to greatness as existential crisis pressed inward on their country.
I favor Grant a bit because no man in centuries, rose from such lowely origns, to such a height, literally saving a nation by his own direct personal leadership.
To me, Grant's growth as a human is not exceeded.
Quite a contrast between Grant and Churchill in terms of their circumstances at birth and expectations of them.
I remember reading a book (not Chernow) about how post-presidency, Grant suffered financial loss, but then wrote his autobiography as he was dying and in terrible pain, to provide for his family. The guy had no quit in him.
Ah yes. Actually Mark Twain came to President Grants aid and facilitated publishing Grants memoir. He actually was it his side doing proofing and offering advice.
I highly recommend reading Chernow Grant. The journey is just amazing and wonderful.
Grant and Churchill: whiskey, cigars and war (and not necessarily in that order!)
David, I appreciate this piece and its call for the ultimate shield of conscience. Because I’m troubled by what a written legacy really means in the digital age, I admire the prescience and legacy of Marshall McLuhan - not only is the medium the message, the medium increasingly shapes how we think (and perhaps undercuts our ability to resist and hold true to conscience).
I’ve been coming to terms with the possibility of all my words disappearing into the ether or being coopted by AI content. Amid such grim odds, the writers I like on Substack do shine through - and perhaps Churchill’s example shines another kind of light.
Thanks Martha.
As you point out, there's a lot of insurance value in making certain you have a physical copy of what you write solely on the internet, such as substack posts.
As for AI, I haven't a clue!
Wonderful and fascinating (and enlightening!).
It’s entirely possible that what seemed to have been a graceful act on Churchill’s part was actually not. That instead, it was an act born out of the sheer necessity of uniting the party, the government, and the people for the war effort. I’d like to think not. I’d rather believe that it stands in complete support of the idea that grace, kindness, and forgiveness are as necessary for the survival of the human collective as are air, water, and food.
I once skimmed a book that I’ve now stopped to read (and am very glad that I did) called “Between You and Me, Confessions of a Comma Queen” by Mary Norris. Norris placed a quote in the beginning of the book that was on my mind when I read your piece and it somehow seems related. I’m not sure if it’s tangential or if goes right to the heart of the matter, but here it is: “Of course, when you correct the errors of others,/do so with kindness, in the hope that later writers/will be as kind when they correct yours.” (Francis A. Burke-Young and Sandra Rose Maley,“The Art of the Footnote”.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Sam.
Maybe there's not a contradiction between the necessity of being united and the grace of Churchill's words. And maybe it's impossible to untangle all the motives.
Thank you David. Maybe we are all blinded at some point in our lives. Always have admired Churchill.
We forget that at this point England was the only country fighting against the Axis until December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor.
Churchill was at the right place at the right time. Instead of excoriating Chamberlain for his failure, Churchill listened to “the better angels of his nature.”
Barbara, thanks for this comment.
Better angels is a great way of referencing Lincoln, the idea of Legacy, and Churchill's eulogy all at the same time. Your comment led me to search out what Churchill had to say about Lincoln. Here it is below:
"But the death of Lincoln deprived the Union of the guiding hand which alone could have solved the problems of reconstruction and added to the triumph of armies those lasting victories which are gained over the hearts of men."
Mcmscmf
Mmm fbknmk
I'll have to think about which person I might admire the most, but following up on your other post asking for TV recommendations, this piece reminds me of an episode of the cop show Blue Bloods that just reran last night. The plot was that the Tom Selleck character, the very upright police commissioner, has to figure out ceremonies for the funeral of his corrupt predecessor who'd been forced to resign yet nonetheless remained well-liked among the rank and file. Basically he has to struggle to thread the needle between not wanting to endorse or minimize the guy's malfeasance, but also uphold the gravity and dignity of the office. After reading your post, I wonder if the episode was inspired by that Churchill speech.
I've never watched Blue Bloods. I'll have to check it out! Thanks!
I have always admired Teddy Roosevelt's life and legacy. (Personally, Samuel and David Roberts remain heroes.)
https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/kidsyouth/trs-legacy.htm?fullweb=1
This is beautiful, and causes me to admire Churchill even more than before. He was there when he was most needed, thank God. There’s a very good podcast, “My History Can Beat Up Your Politics,” where Bruce Carlson does a wonderful, short series on Chamberlain. I’m not sure if it’s still available, but I’ve kept a copy. Now, I need to go back for a second listen. Thank you, David.
Thanks Anne!
I didn't know about this. Thank you for sharing. In some ways untypical of the man we know from history, but very typical of the man who was of his class and of the time of his earlier years. Gracious and polite.
Great analysis and message!