Home › Forums › General History Chat › Toynbee’s "Departure and Return" theory of history
- This topic has 8 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 10 months ago by scout1067.
I was reading a NY Times story on Newt Gingrich (references in another thread) and came across Arnold Toynbee’s theory of “departure and return”:
The New York Times in 2009, he said he subscribed to the historian Arnold J. Toynbee’s theory of “departure and return,” the notion that certain great leaders must endure a long political exile before returning to power. He indicated that Charles de Gaulle, the French general who became president only after years out of power, was a role model.
I had not heard of this theory before, but it seems interesting. I am not sure if Toynbee argues that losing power plays an element in a leader’s return to power, or if losing power and returning to power is simply something that some great leaders coincidentally have in common.
Wow! The Newt Gingrich-Toynbee theory takes on a whole new light now that Newt is being considered as a vice presidential candidate pick for Donald Trump. In the Drudge Report poll I saw the other day, Gingrich was the top choice for the VP slot as chosen by readers. Could the “departure and return” of Gingrich’s political career become reality in the coming months?
Since I don’t think Trump would make a good president I could care less who he picks as VP. That being said, him picking Gingrich, if he indeed does, seems kind of fitting. Both are ideologues to a greater or lesser extent.
Hmmm….I guess I didn’t realize you were not a Gingrich fan as I would have presumed. I like Gingrich’s mind a lot. His intellectual approach to politics and policy is kind of a counter to Trump’s bombastic approach, so perhaps they complement each other in that regard. I don’t know that Gingrich would be the most shrewd political choice as VP, but at least he’d help coalesce the conservative base.
I have turned very much apolitical. I just want a candidate who I think has the interests of the nation at heart to run. The last such I can think of is probably Steve Forbes or maybe even Ross Perot. Everybody who has run recently seems to have some kind of angle and the national interest is always far down the list. I look around the world and see parallels with the 1930’s everywhere.
I see parallels to the bread and circuses of ancient Rome, though I realize my feeling are not exactly unique. I see national politics in part as voting in the person who will do the least amount of harm. Of course with Trump, this is a mixed bag, but I still see him as doing less harm than the other person. America is not in a good situation right now, and it doesn’t look to be getting much better in the future.
I don’t want a candidate that will do less harm than the other. I want someone who will do good things and improve the country, not just make it suck more at a slower rate. Maybe the tree of liberty does need some refreshing. I just don’t know anymore, about the only thing I do know is that bad things are coming, I just don’t know exactly what and how bad those things are going to be.
So who was your chosen candidate during primary season? I have realized that primary season is when the really important decision is made in picking the best candidate over a mediocre candidate. It seems like the Republicans have been settling on mediocre candidates over the last few elections as far as conservative principles are concerned (McCain, Romney, Trump). From that list, I would say that McCain is probably the most conservative.
The guy I wanted did not run as he expresses no desire to be a politician. I wanted “Mad Dog” Mattis to run. He declined but i am still considering writing his name in. Absent Mattis I was a fan of Jim Webb.
The problem as I see it is that nobody worthwhile will run because the presidential race is not about who would make a good president anymore and really hasn’t been since at least the mid-90’s if it ever was. Now it is mostly a contest to see who can energize their own party while not alienating too many in the center and thus getting elected. that leaves us with the Hobson’s choice we have this year where both nominees are essentially equally worthless.