Winston Churchill, the towering British statesman who served as prime minister during World War II, was once asked by an American student how to become a successful leader. Churchill’s advice: “Study history, study history. In history, lie all the secrets of statecraft.”

Frank Gavin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and the director of the university’s Kissinger Center, believes Churchill was on to something.

Gavin argues that studying history, fascinating in its own right, can also be exceptionally helpful to aspiring statesmen and stateswomen. Examining the past does not provide ironclad laws of human behavior or a clear blueprint for the future. However, if investigated carefully, history can help leaders better appreciate complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in public affairs. It teaches leaders to ask hard questions, reexamine long-held assumptions, appreciate irony and be modest — even humble — about what they think they know.

Gavin believes the skills needed to understand history can translate into practical tools for aspiring statespeople to confront contemporary problems and craft future strategies. He argues that grappling with consequential or contested historical questions is strikingly similar to making critical choices about governance.

“A rigorous understanding of the past provides insights and tools that enable better choices in the present. This is especially true in the extraordinarily consequential worlds of statecraft and strategy,” Gavin writes in his compelling new book “Thinking Historically: A Guide to Statecraft and Strategy.” He adds: “It may seem obvious that we should employ history to improve decision-making, but it is rarely done.”

Gavin is the professor you always wanted. He’s whip-smart, quick-witted, hugely interesting, deeply inquisitive, intellectually bold and kind-hearted. An expert on nuclear policy and international finance, he has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Texas and now at Johns Hopkins. Gavin’s writing is nuanced and compelling. It’s also fun, with serious analysis lightened by references to the “Top Gun” movies, “Charlie Brown” Christmas specials and contentious family vacations to history-rich Colonial Williamsburg and Harpers Ferry.

His passion project is to persuade policymakers to use history to improve their approach to governing. He also implores historians to make their work more accessible to busy policymakers by avoiding hyper-esoteric subjects and turgid language. He’s convinced there has been too little effort to instruct decision-makers on how to use history or to train historians on how to engage with the policy world.

Gavin urges leaders to develop “historical sensibility” — a temperament that appreciates and embraces life’s unpredictable rhythms, baffling surprises and head-spinning coincidences. Historical sensibility emanates from a tolerance for, and appreciation of, unintended consequences, stunning reversals and sheer luck in human affairs.

He also urges policymakers to learn to think historically. This requires a set of skills to interrogate the past by probing deeply, constructing and reconstructing chronologies, and contemplating counterfactuals in which different decisions might have significantly altered subsequent events.

This may sound abstract, but Gavin offers concrete examples. For instance, former Federal Reserve Board Chair Ben Bernanke was also a respected scholar of the Great Depression. Gavin argues that as the world unraveled during the 2008 financial crisis, Bernanke drew on his understanding of economic history to grasp the scope of the challenge, recognize the importance of global coordination and embrace out-of-the-box thinking. The Fed chair’s grounding in history liberated him from rigid doctrines and encouraged innovative policymaking.

Gavin’s book provides tools for policymakers to interrogate the past: Ask penetrating questions, examine key assumptions, search for pivotal turning points, and consider multicausal explanations of events and developments. He also offers a historical checklist for leaders as they consider current problems and future strategies. The fundamental questions he believes they should ask include: How did we get here, what else is going on, what are our unspoken assumptions, what is really important, what are the most likely outcomes, what else could happen, how rapid is the pace of events and is anything inevitable?

“A deep and rigorous engagement with the practice of history provides a better way to see, know, and act in a world where decision-makers confront complexity and radical uncertainty about the future,” he writes.

I think Churchill would have loved Gavin’s book and would have encouraged aspiring statespeople to study it carefully and reflect on how the study of the past can help us navigate the present and prepare for the future.

“The longer you can look back,” Churchill once said, “the farther you can look forward.”

John T. Shaw is director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute. His most recent book is “The Education of a Statesman: How Global Leaders Can Repair a Fractured World.” He wrote this column for the Chicago Tribune.

 

Conservatives – true conservatives, as in the Ronald Reagan brand – have a problem. The movement has been invaded by the “alt-right” (or alternative right), a brand that is not conservative, but rather slogs through the mud of antisemitism and racism, staining all who support or refuse to denounce it.

This attempt to hijack conservatism by a radical fringe is not new. In the 1960s, Robert Welch and his John Birch Society (JBS) infiltrated the movement. It took the founder of the conservative publication National Review, William F. Buckley Jr., to denounce some of Welch’s extreme views. When Welch claimed Dwight D. Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent of the communist conspiracy,” it was the breaking point for Buckley, who had been reluctant to criticize Welch, largely because many JBS members contributed financially to his magazine.

Now comes a similar challenge for traditional conservatives and especially the evangelical wing of the Republican Party. On a recent podcast, former Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes, a white supremacist and antisemite. The two joined in condemnation of conservatives who support Israel. Carlson specifically mentioned Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), former president George W. Bush, and the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. He called them “Christian Zionists” who have been “seized by this brain virus.”

Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, which guided many of the policies of Ronald Reagan and has been influential with the Trump administration, defended Carlson, saying he “remains … and always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.”

Fuentes – who used to be ostracized by the mainstream right for his views, including support of Hitler and claims that Jews run the country – said on the podcast that “organized Jewry” holds “outsize influence.” He also said he is a “fan of Joseph Stalin,” one of the world’s most notorious butchers.

Alt-right proponents are not shy about voicing their beliefs, including antisemitism and in some cases a denial of the Holocaust and racism. Members of this small but growing movement, especially among the young, often blame Jewish people for allegedly promoting what they claim are anti-white policies like immigration (illegal and legal) and diversity.

Last week, Vice President J.D. Vance had an opportunity to denounce these beliefs. During a question-and-answer session following his speech at the University of Mississippi, sponsored by Turning Point USA, Vance was asked about U.S. support of Israel and the theological differences between Jews and Christians. Instead of denouncing what appeared to be a “dog whistle” and the barely disguised political premise of the question, Vance punted and said America has traditionally made alliances with nations whose policies and beliefs don’t necessarily agree with ours.

It’s critical, especially for the evangelical wing of the Republican Party, that they know the central tenet of the alt-right: White people are an endangered race facing “white genocide” and that they should advocate for their collective interests.

Richard Spencer, 48, is a prominent white supremacist who is credited for coining the term “alt-right” and a leading figure in the movement. He supports the creation of a white “ethno-state.” Shades of white supremacists in the old South.

Spencer also supports the transformation of the European Union into a white racial empire, replacing the many European ethnic identities with one homogeneous “white identity,” according to media stories and several books about Spencer and his movement.

Conservatives, take note, as Bill Buckley eventually did when conservatism faced similar challenges six decades ago. As for the evangelicals among the alt-right, consider one of many verses about hate: “People may cover their hatred with pleasant words, but they’re deceiving you. They pretend to be kind, but don’t believe them. Their hearts are full of many evils.” (Proverbs 26:24-25 ).

Cal Thomas is a longtime conservative columnist. His email address tcaeditors@tribpub.com. His latest book is “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (HumanixBooks). He wrote this for Tribune Content Agency.

In one of the great scenes of one of the great gangster movies, Mike Newell’s “Donnie Brasco,” an aging Mafioso named Lefty Ruggiero paces a hospital corridor while his son fights for his life following a drug overdose.

“Twenty-eight years, you can read it on his birth certificate: Bellevue Hospital,” Lefty, played by Al Pacino, tells Donnie, played by Johnny Depp, about his comatose son. “Now he’s back, in there, and I’m out here, worried to my death. And he’s asleep in there, same as 28 years ago, with the same expression. He’s made no progress.”

It’s a line that could apply just as well to America’s policy debates.

Twenty-eight years ago — that was 1997, when “Donnie Brasco” came out — we thought we had made progress, at least when it came to answering some of the larger questions that had roiled 20th-century politics.

Trade protectionism? The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and beggar-thy-neighbor policies of the 1930s showed us the worldwide economic ruin to which that could lead. Government stakes in private enterprise, like the Trump administration’s recent equity stake in Intel? The record of state investment in, or control of, private enterprises, from Solyndra to Sematech (not to mention Alitalia or “Such a Bad Experience Never Again” Sabena), is mostly a story of financial disappointment, taxpayer bailouts, managerial incompetence, political interference and cronyism.

America first? The slogan of Charles Lindbergh and other pre-World War II isolationists should have been buried forever on Dec. 7, 1941. Instead, it emerged from its grave some 75 years later.

But it isn’t just the Trump administration that is reawakening the moral and intellectual zombies of the past. Everywhere one looks there are policy necromancers.

The platform of the national Democratic Socialists of America calls for a 32-hour workweek “with no reduction in pay or benefits”; “free public universal child care and pre-K”; “college for all”; the cancellation of “all student-loan debt”; “universal rent control”; “massive public investment to transition away from fossil fuels”; “guaranteed support for workers in the fossil fuel industry,” and “expansive paid family leave.” Not only would American workers stand to benefit, but so would everybody else, since the DSA wants to offer these benefits to anyone who wishes to come to United States through an open-borders policy.

How would the DSA pay for all this? By soaking the rich, along with “for-profit corporations, large inheritances, and private colleges and universities.” Why did nobody think of this before?

Oh, wait — many did. “Bolivarian socialism,” welcomed by the Jeremy Corbyns of the world, took Venezuela from being South America’s richest country to a humanitarian catastrophe. Sweden attempted a form of socialism in the 1970s and ’80s, only to reverse course after it experienced massive capital flight and a financial crisis during which interest rates hit 75%. France’s Socialist government imposed a 75% tax on earnings more than 1 million euros in 2012; it dropped the tax two years later as the wealthy packed their bags. Britain’s National Health Service, whose advocates chronically complain is “underfunded,” is in a state of perpetual crisis even as health care, according to the BBC, gobbles up roughly one-third of government spending.

“The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money,” Margaret Thatcher once observed. To put it another way, you can’t abolish billionaires, as Zohran Mamdani, the DSA’s poster child, would like, and still expect them to keep footing your bills.

If socialism is foolish, there’s something worse: the “socialism of fools,” antisemitism, now rapidly ascendant on the MAGA right.

Consider last week’s interview of Nick Fuentes, the white supremacist, by Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host turned podcaster. Among Fuentes’ core beliefs: “I think the Holocaust is exaggerated. I don’t hate Hitler. I think there’s a Jewish conspiracy. I believe in race realism.”

As for Carlson, he lobbed softball questions at Fuentes, found much to agree on when it came to their shared hatred for Christian supporters of Israel, and then draped his arm around his guest for a cuddly photograph. And even that wasn’t quite as repulsive as the passionate defense of Carlson mounted by Kevin Roberts, president of the conservative Heritage Foundation. As Roberts saw it, Carlson had done nothing wrong in making nice with Fuentes. Rather, it was “the globalist class” and their “mouthpieces in Washington” who were the real bad guys.

“Globalist class”? Whoever could Roberts have in mind?

Roberts later tried to distance himself from Fuentes without reference to Carlson’s role in boosting and promoting him — a case, as it were, of trying to have your Jew and eat him, too. But the deeper issue with the Heritage Foundation and its allies isn’t that they have an antisemitism problem. It’s that they have a surrender problem — surrender to any dreadful idea, so long as it has a critical mass of supporters on the ever-growing fringe.

As Al Pacino’s Lefty would say: “No progress.”

Bret Stephens writes a column for the New York Times.

By SAMUEL PETREQUIN

PARIS (AP) — France’s government said Wednesday it is moving toward suspending access to the Shein online marketplace until it proves its content conforms to French law, after authorities found illegal firearms and child-like sex dolls for sale on the fast-fashion giant’s website.

The Finance Ministry said the government made the decision after officials found “large quantities” of illegal weapons on Shein’s popular e-commerce platform Wednesday, following the discovery last week of illegal sex dolls with childlike characteristics.

The ministry said if the prohibited items remain, authorities may suspend the site in France.

The decision came on the same day that Shein opened its first permanent store in Paris inside one of the city’s most iconic department stores. The opening drew crowds of shoppers to the BHV Marais, but also a small group of protesters who briefly disrupted the opening by waving anti-Shein signs before they were escorted out by security.

The director of the Bazar de l’Hotel de Ville (BHV) department store Karl-Stephane Cottendin cuts the ribbon at the opening Shein’s first physical store in Paris, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025. ( Dimitar Dilkoff, Pool via AP)

The ministry did not say whether its decision would impact the physical store. It added that a first progress report would be provided within 48 hours.

Shein, founded in China in 2012 and now based in Singapore, pledged to work with French authorities to “address any concerns swiftly as we have always done and we are seeking dialogue with the authorities and government bodies on this issue.”

French authorities can order online platforms to remove clearly illegal content, such as child sexual abuse materials, within 24 hours. If they fail to comply, authorities can require internet service providers and search engines to block access and delist the site.

Ordering from Shein’s French website was still possible Wednesday following the government’s announcement.

Frédéric Merlin, president of Société des Grands Magasins (SGM,) which owns the BHV department store, praised the government’s move. “I am satisfied with this decision and I hope that, in the end, we will be able to stop selling illicit products on these marketplaces,” Merlin said.

Still, the backlash over the sex doll listings could be a “massive red flag” to investors and become a roadblock to the company’s ambitions of going public, according to Neil Saunders, managing director of research firm GlobalData.

A protester is being evacuated from the BHV department store as fast fashion Shein opens its first physical store, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025 in Paris. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)

The episode feeds into the view that Chinese-founded marketplaces “are the Wild West of e-commerce, where there is very little compliance, and they don’t really adhere to established rules, that they don’t have full control over the platforms,” Saunders said. “And that is a problem because if you’re looking to expand, you have to abide by national laws.”

Saunders noted there’s a big difference in having counterfeit merchandise and questionable merchandise on a site. Child sexual abuse material “crosses an important moral boundary,” he said.

Store opening draws shoppers and demonstrators

SGM has called the sale of the sex dolls unacceptable, but praised Shein for its swift response to defuse the controversy.

Shein said earlier that it has banned all sex-doll products, and temporarily removed its adult products category for review. The company had also announced that it would temporarily suspend listings from independent third-party vendors in its marketplace, and launched an investigation to determine how the dolls listings bypassed its screening measures.

Even before the backlash over the sex doll listings, the decision by Shein to launch its first physical store in the heart of France’s fashion capital had faced criticism from environmental groups, Paris City Hall, and France’s ready-to-wear industry.

Frederic Merlin, CEO of SGM group which owns the BHV department store, answers reporters before fast fashion powerhouse Shein opens its first permanent store Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025 in Paris. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)

The retail giant has long drawn criticism over its poor green credentials and labor practices. An online petition opposing the Paris opening surpassed 120,000 signatures

Ticia Ones, a regular Shein online customer living in Paris, said the main reason she visited the store on Wednesday was the opportunity to see items in person before buying.

“We can see what we order, touch the items, it’s a good thing,” she said, adding that the brand’s low prices were a strong draw despite the controversy. “I’m not going to comment on the quality, but price is definitely appealing.”

The BHV store has been going through financial struggles in recent years and its owners believe the arrival of Shein will help revive business — even as some brands have chosen to leave the store in protest.

“We are proud to have a partner who has spoken out firmly,” said Karl-Stéphane Cottendin, the chief operating officer of SGM. “We are very happy to be opening the boutique.”

Environmental and ethical concerns

Shein has risen rapidly to become a global fast-fashion giant. Selling mostly Chinese-made clothes and products at bargain prices, the retailer has drawn criticism over allegations that its supply chains may be tainted by forced labor, including from China’s far-west Xinjiang province, where rights groups say serious human rights abuses were committed by Beijing against members of the ethnic Uyghur group and other Muslim minorities.

People visit the BHV department store as fast fashion powerhouse Shein opens its first permanent store, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025 in Paris. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)

Cottendin dismissed those concerns and praised Shein for doing a “tremendous job” to improve its practices.

“Today, it’s a brand that produces under much more legitimate conditions,” he said. “We ensured that the entire production chain, from manufacturing to delivery, complies strictly with French and European regulations and standards.”

Related Articles

Mexico President Sheinbaum presses charges after street groping incident

Putin tells officials to submit plans for possibly resuming nuclear tests after Trump’s remarks

Typhoon Kalmaegi leaves 85 dead, mainly in Philippine province still recovering from deadly quake

As world leaders enter climate talks, people in poverty have the most at stake

Louvre heist suspect’s trial in a separate case postponed due to high media profile

Fast fashion, characterized by a constant turnover of collections and very low prices, has flooded European markets with low-quality items, driving environmental, social, and economic costs. The United Nations has warned that the textile industry alone is responsible for nearly 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions and contributes to water depletion.

France is now moving to curb the growing influence of companies based in Asian countries such as Shein, Temu and AliExpress. A draft law targets fast fashion with measures such as consumer awareness campaigns, advertising bans, taxes on small imported parcels and stricter waste management rules.

“It’s a black day for our industry,” said Thibaut Ledunois, director of entrepreneurship and innovation at the French federation of women’s ready-to-wear. He added that Shein’s Paris opening was an attempt to justify “all the bad, and sad and horrible business that they develop all around the world.”