Churchill didn’t say that

By Joseph Price • June 2, 2016

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

"I said what?"

It’s a pet peeve of mine: Misattributed quotes.

The most common example of this I have seen is the misattribution of the following quote to Winston Churchill:

“If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.”

According to the Churchill Centre, which was founded in 1968 and dedicated to preserving the historic legacy of Sir Winston Churchill, there is no record of Churchill ever saying such a thing — written, heard or otherwise.

That’s easily found out when someone takes a few seconds to do some online fact checking. But that pesky human trait of confirmation bias always seems to get in the way. 

It’s understandable. Churchill has gone down in history as one of the 20th century’s greatest wartime political leaders. He’s got semi-divine status as far as politics goes, so his issuing such a statement gives validation for many people. 

Of course, the reality is that Churchill was like most people — he held a mixed-bag of views, both liberal and conservative. According to historian John Luckas, Churchill was a “statesman and not an ideologue.” 

Churchill is not the only figure to be incorrectly attributed with this quote. It has also been borrowed by or attributed to George Bernard Shaw, Benjamin Disraeli, Georges Clemenceau, Otto von Bismarck, Aristide Briand, Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George, Wendell Willkie and William J. Casey, to name a few.

The earliest evidence for this particular quote goes back to 1875 and originates with the French in a book by Jules Claretie in a section where he quoted jurist and academic Anselme Polycarpe Batbie.

The quote goes:

Celui qui n’est pas républicain à vingt ans fait douter de la générosité de son âme; mais celui qui, après trente ans, persévère, fait douter de la rectitude de son esprit.

In English it translates to: 

“He who is not a républicain at twenty compels one to doubt the generosity of his heart; but he who, after thirty, persists, compels one to doubt the soundness of his mind.”

Batbie was allegedly speaking of something called the “Burke Paradox.” The name comes from Sir Edmund Burke, a British statesman, who was known as a supporter of the American Revolution but took an opposite view of the French Revolution.

Of course, there’s even a conflict with attributing to Batbie as François Pierre Guillaume Guizot, a French statesman and historian, is also attributed with the original quote about républicains.

By “republican” the quote is referring to anti-monarchists, who overthrew and executed the French Monarchy during that country’s revolution that lasted from 1789 to 1799. The bloody mess terrified the rest of Europe, especially the monarchs, for decades to come.

If taken in that context, the quote itself doesn’t seem to apply to modern ideology at all. After all, the French and American republicans, who were inspired by Enlightenment ideals, shared the same core goal of throwing off the yoke of monarchies because of taxes and perceived oppression. The legacy of those revolutions is still claimed by people of all political stripes in both countries today.

So taking this into account, it doesn’t sound like it is really meant to apply to the narrow “liberal versus conservative” debate that defines American politics.

So what does it really mean?

It’s difficult to ascertain considering both alleged original authors have been long dead, as has Burke. But it sounds like it’s speaking of radicalism. Young people who are politically active from the first are expected to be idealistic and unwavering while older people are expected to be more skeptical and pragmatic. We have seen this pattern repeated throughout history. It doesn’t mean that radicalism is for the young and left-leaning; we’ve also seen the same unbending idealism from many who are older and right-leaning. Radicalism doesn’t have a political preference.

When put into that context, it sounds as if they’re expected to become more moderate in regards to pursuing their political objectives.

Which makes sense, at least to me. The unwillingness to iron out differences and make deals doesn’t result in much getting done in politics. This is generally accepted by most people with a sigh and shaking of the head in times that aren’t so bad. Life is

able to go on, after all.

But when times are bad, which is to say people starving on the streets, citizens fear secret police and when significant numbers of people feel powerless — that is when radicals begin gaining traction. One only has to look at the French Revolution itself, Germany post-World War I and the Russian Revolution for examples of this. And often, in that situation, the cure can be almost as bad, if not worse, than the disease. 

That’s just my perception of it and that doesn’t make it a fact. I can’t really say what a guy who spoke a different language and that’s been dead more than a century meant. It could just mean that républicains are just républicains and nothing more.