Two conservative giants deserve more praise

Key Takeaways:

• Celebrating centenaries prompts society to reassess historical figures and their legacies
• Very few people reach 100, which makes these milestones especially significant
• The text argues that liberal historians and obituary writers may overshadow conservative contributions
• Two conservative giants, though unnamed here, are singled out for deeper praise
• Recognizing such figures calls for more balanced historical perspectives

The Rarity of Reaching 100

While only a small number of us live to be 100, every birthday has a centenary date. In this sense, it becomes both a symbolic and literal milestone—an opportunity to remember and celebrate, even if the individual is no longer present to mark the occasion.

A Question of Historical Bias

“For historians who seem mostly to be of the liberal persuasion and obituary writers (ditto),” commemorating a historical figure’s centenary can introduce uneven portrayals. The author suggests that personal or collective biases may influence whether achievements are highlighted or downplayed, shaping how the public perceives an individual’s legacy.

Two Conservative Giants Deserve More Praise

Although the original text does not name these figures, it is clear that two conservatives stand at the heart of the argument. The author feels their achievements are either overshadowed or misunderstood when compared with peers or successors who receive broader public acknowledgment.

Centenaries as a Call to Reevaluate

Anniversaries—especially the 100-year mark—can bring a significant figure back into the public eye. Even in instances where the subject has passed, the centenary becomes a moment to tell their story anew. In doing so, these milestones can correct oversights, foster deeper appreciation, and spark debate on the subject’s rightful place in history.

Toward a More Balanced Memory

Historians, journalists, and readers alike hold a collective responsibility in shaping an individual’s posthumous reputation. For those identified as conservative giants, the article urges reconsideration of their legacies, suggesting that they deserve the same depth of analysis often extended to figures with more mainstream or liberal appeal. Recognizing this helps ensure that no viewpoint is lost to history solely because it fails to fit the prevailing narrative.