He was what I often think is a dangerous thing for a statesman to be - a student of history; and like most of those who study history, he learned from the mistakes of the past how to make new ones.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Like most of those who study history, he (Napoleon III) learned from the mistakes of the past how to make new ones.
I didn't realize the president was such an historian.
The historian must have some conception of how men who are not historians behave. Otherwise he will move in a world of the dead. He can only gain that conception through personal experience, and he can only use his personal experiences when he is a genius.
I love history, and Churchill is one of my favorite people to study. He's a fascinating, fascinating man.
Fifty years ago, historians advised politicians and policy-makers. They helped chart the future of nations by helping leaders learn from past mistakes in history. But then something changed, and we began making decisions based on economic principles rather than historical ones. The results were catastrophic.
Herbert Hoover was a man of genuine, fine character, but he lacked practical political sense. And he couldn't bend and shift and change with the requirements of the time. And he was a ruined President, because he was such a, I think, stiff-backed ideologue. And I think that speaks volumes about his character.
The essence of statesmanship is not a rigid adherence to the past, but a prudent and probing concern for the future.
I like Ronald Reagan, who didn't play crass politics, and he just articulated and delivered on broad themes that were needed. Free markets meant free markets. Deregulation. Lower tax rates. Strong national defense. And he was credible and believable.
A good historian is timeless; although he is a patriot, he will never flatter his country in any respect.
Man, it seems to me, is not in history: he is history.