A segment of Conservatives are agonizing about whether or not John McCain is conservative enough to be supported as the Republican nominee for the presidency. He is repeatedly compared to Ronald Reagan. I find that odd seeing as Ronald Reagan’s record was not as conservative as conservatives want to remember it to have been. Still, Ronald Reagan is the standard bearer by which ‘true conservatism’ is determined. While many still cast about looking for the perfect ‘conservative’ candidate, I submit that there is no such creature.

I ran across an article today that compared John McCain’s conservative credentials to those of Winston Churchill. Michael Makovsky states in his article The Model for McCain? Not Reagan, but Churchill, “McCain certainly has not achieved Churchill’s heights, but he can legitimately claim to be the most Churchillian among the Republicans of his day.”

Makovsky’s points out that the similarities between McCain and Churchill are striking and instructive. Both men are thought to be/have been mavericks who were/are distrusted by their Conservatives peers.

Both grew up as underachievers in the shadow of prominent fathers and ancestors and then surpassed them in renown. Churchill’s father was chancellor of the Exchequer, a descendant of the Duke of Marlborough who defeated the armies of Louis XIV, while McCain’s father and grandfather were prominent admirals. Both McCain and Churchill were fearless soldiers and prisoners of war, although Churchill escaped Boer captivity after mere weeks while McCain endured more than five grueling years at the Hanoi Hilton. Both have felt most at home in battle, whether in war or political chambers, and have shared a restlessness to advance their own careers and the cause of their countries.

Neither Churchill nor McCain was ever liked much by his colleagues. Perhaps early on Churchill was more liked and his brilliance more respected, but he switched from the Conservatives in 1904 to the Liberals with much newfound partisan fervor, and the Conservatives never forgave him even after he returned to the fold in 1924-even after he won WWII. Churchill’s dispute with the party leadership over control of India (he favored it), Nazi Germany (he was against it), Zionism (he was for it), and other divisive issues, as well as his occasional outreach to Labourites-indeed, he headed a wartime coalition government-did not help his popularity among the party faithful. McCain has always been a Republican, but, without being the partisan warrior Churchill was, he has never been personally popular with his party colleagues. He further alienated the party faithful and establishment by co-sponsoring legislation with Democrats. Both have been perceived by colleagues as erratic, and occasionally harsh in personal relations.

Fundamental to Churchill’s worldview was the belief that priorities had to be rigidly ranked and that the supreme interests need to be vigorously and single-mindedly pursued. Chief among those interests was national security. McCain has suggested a similar approach. Indeed, McCain and Churchill lived and breathed national security issues, and it is in this policy field that their similarities are most pronounced. They both strongly believed in their countries, considering them the chief champions of civilization, and they have been rarities in usually putting national security interests ahead of their political fortunes.

Read the rest of the story …..

*emphasis mine.