Written by Dr. Paul Kengor

Last Saturday I dropped off my two oldest sons and their friend at the theatre. I planned to kill a couple of hours at the bookstore, on my laptop, at a coffee shop, whatever. When I got out of the car the balmy two-degree temperature in Pittsburgh prompted second thoughts. Instead, I strolled into the theater complex, looked around, and saw a poster for “Darkest Hour.” I vaguely knew it was a movie about Winston Churchill. I bought a ticket and went in.

I was hooked from the opening scene: a grim, dank, colorless House of Commons, nothing like the fun and festive place you see when you click on C-SPAN on Sunday night to watch “Question Time” with the prime minister. This was interrogation time with the prime minister, with Neville Chamberlain in the dock on May 9, 1940, while Labour Party opposition leader, Clement Attlee, barked at him for his failed accommodation of Adolph Hitler.

Attlee, of course, would one day go on to nationalize everything his Fabian socialists could get their covetous government hands on, and Churchill in this film nicely refers to him as “that wolf in sheep’s clothing, Attlee.” At this moment, however, Attlee was spot-on. Chamberlain had fully earned the evisceration.

It’s after this opening that we see Winston Churchill for the first time—instantly riveting because of the incredible performance by the leading man. I had walked into this movie cold (literally), with no clue of the actors, the writer, the directors, the producers. Not until the credits did I find out who played Churchill. It was Gary Oldman. I would have never guessed it. Oldman was flatly amazing.

There are plenty such kudos to go around for this film. Among the characters and those who played them: Churchill’s wife (Kristin Scott Thomas), Anthony Eden (Samuel West), Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup), Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane), King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn), and the young woman (Lily James) who had the lead female role as Churchill’s secretary/typist. The writer was Anthony McCarten, whose script was superb.

McCarten and director Joe Wright delivered so many fine scenes, from the tragedy at Calais to the capitulation of France. As to the latter, in one painful exchange Churchill asks French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud incredulously, “Tell me how you plan to counterattack.” To Churchill’s horror, the leader of France responds: “There is no plan.” Reynaud and one of his lackeys sniff at the Brits for being so “delusional.” Churchill is less delusional than aghast. “France must be saved!” he insists. That, unfortunately, was not the French plan.

“Darkest Hour” depicts all of this so beautifully and so, well, visually, which history books and news reels cannot or could not do.

But above all, the takeaway from this film—and from the Churchill experience—is an enduring historical-moral lesson: you cannot negotiate a just peace with a brutal aggressor. Savages are not appeased. This is poignantly captured when Churchill snaps at Viscount Halifax and Neville Chamberlain: “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in his mouth!”

What makes that moment and this overall film so valuable is the paramount fact that Churchill is shouting at Halifax and at Chamberlain, both Conservatives, both looking to negotiate “peace in our time” with Hitler, and neither of which had quietly disappeared when Churchill took the helm on May 10, 1940. We tend to have a nice, tidy, black-and-white view of what happened in Britain when Chamberlain stepped aside. We assume that Chamberlain vanished and then Churchill vanquished; there was hence an immediate change in tone, policy, direction, vision.

This film, however, shows what really occurred, namely: Chamberlain and Halifax became part of Churchill’s official War Cabinet and remained tacit leaders of the Conservative Party, while the disrespected Churchill was merely a compromise prime minister leading a precarious coalition government in which the Labour Party accepted him more than his own Conservative Party had. Thus, Churchill still had to deal with intense pressure to settle with Hitler, as Chamberlain and Halifax pushed him relentlessly to “negotiate terms” with the Nazis—with Benito Mussolini their recommended splendid mediator. It was a lousy situation for Churchill, who faced a possible vote of no confidence if he couldn’t keep Chamberlain and Halifax on the reservation.

That ugly internal battle, which is the core of the movie, went on for an extraordinarily decisive month of May 1940, when Churchill soul-searched, struggled, lost sleep, drank, nearly wobbled, and Britain could have caved. Ultimately, Britain stood strong because Churchill—in his courage—refused to stick his head near the mouth of the tiger. Churchill said “Never!” to the Fuhrer. That course both inspired his people and had been inspired by his people.

And the rest is history.

Churchill’s “Darkest Hour” was, in truth, a series of dark hours that lasted two or three weeks in May 1940, when Western civilization hung in the balance. He was severely tested. He responded with bouts of confidence and doubt, turmoil and inspiration, cigars and (lots of) alcohol—as Oldman shows so vividly. Ultimately, mercifully, he persevered. This powerful film portrays what he was up against and how he prevailed—a rousing lesson from the time and for the ages.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His latest book (April 2017) is A Pope and a President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century. He is also the author of 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative. His other books include The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

Why do we assume that compromise is a good thing? The word itself provokes a Pavlovian response across Western culture, but is compromise categorically a good thing? By definition, compromise requires all parties involved to meet somewhere in the middle of their respective positions, yet half of Evil is still Evil, is it not? Should we applaud those who compromised with Josef Stalin for their statecraft? How does history view Neville Chamberlain and the lives which were lost as a result of his lack of intestinal fortitude and willingness to compromise? Compromise can be a good thing, but not when two positions are diametrically-opposed. In that type of situation, there is no way to meet in the middle without denying the validity of your own position.

Francis Schaeffer was masterful when he spoke against this fallacy of synthesis or “dialectical thinking”. He realized that our culture has shifted from thinking in terms of thesis/antithesis, preferring to ignore logic and reason in order to embrace synthesis.

So when the nation of Israel states their position to be unequivocal in regards to the safety of their citizens and Hamas states their position to be unequivocal about the annihilation of the nation of Israel, it is idiotic to pretend that the two positions are reconcilable. There is no “compromise” possible since the two positions deny the validity of the other side’s position. Would Secretary Mashed Potato-Face favor an agreement where Israel is half-annihilated? This is synthesis, the attempt to blend together two incompatible concepts.

In this way, and many others, we have abandoned logic and reason for emotion. We take a stand for what feels right instead of what is logically possible. In addition to this emotional governance, we’ve been indoctrinated to believe that conflict is a bad word. Progressive ideals have been so fully-assimilated into our culture that we prize progress (e.g. moral and cultural erosion) over principled opposition. Thus we see progressive Republicans asking for compromise and standing with the Left, helping to vilify conservatives for their stubbornness to get into the boxcar. Too often we crave compromise and run from conflict, when we should crave conflict and run from compromise, when the stakes are ideological.

The political climate in America today is not a result of disagreement on policy. This is not a political spat which will blow over in an election cycle or two. This is an ideological war over the future of America and (by proxy) the rest of Western civilization. It’s clear that there is no other “shining city on a hill”. It is us and then….nada.

So when we see the footage and watch the interviews from places like Ferguson and Murrieta, it’s readily apparent that the two sides aren’t even sharing the same ballpark. Those who held the line against immigration anarchy in Murrieta stood for the rule of law, a secure border, and a clear legal immigration policy. How does one compromise on any of those positions without losing the foundation of your position as a whole? Should they settle for adherence to the rule of law every other week? Should they accept a mostly-secure border? Or a moderately-clear immigration policy?

The reality is that one of the worldviews on display in America will win. We will either complete the fundamental transformation into a socialist, progressive state or we will return to our roots of liberty, bucking the whip and chain. So for us to pretend that if we play enough patty cake they’ll give us our Legos back is beyond naïve, it is dangerous. There is only one way conservatism will prevail and that is by fighting this ideological war wherever we encounter resistance. It will undoubtedly provoke hatred.

We’ve seen glimpses of the riotous wrath which bubbles to the surface whenever conservatives dare to draw a line in the sand. When Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin sent salvos across the bow of USS Obama in her nomination acceptance speech, the conservative base was rejuvenated almost overnight. As was the hateful opposition, who dragged her name, family, and career through the mud in order to compromise her candidacy. But Sarracuda is still standing, stronger than ever; as are the principles of Constitutional conservatism. We can either confront Totalitarianism in America, paying the requisite price, or we can kiss the ring of Compromise, purchasing the esteem of total strangers at the cost of our nation’s soul.

This article was originally posted at the ClashDaily.com website.