Whatever the revisionists may say, I say that Joan Collins's cleavage saw us through the Cold War
FRANK JOHNSON
Miss Joan Collins is now about two years older than Churchill was when he first became prime minister. I think I can claim to be the first person to notice this. At least, I can claim to be the first person to write it.
The thought occurred because of two events over the last few days. The first was a distinguished three-day conference that took place at London University entitled 'Churchill in the 21st Century'. The papers for it are to be published later this year in a learned journal, and there is a hope that they may be made into a book. The second event was the front page of the Daily Mail which, under a suitable photograph, announced, 'A far from demure Joan Collins reveals that at the age of 67 she has lost none of her allure and glamour. After five decades as a star, she shows off her perfect size 8 figure and full cleavage in her new film These Old Broads. See pages 24 & 25.' Inside were two pages on the theme of 'Collins in the 21st Century'.
These Old Broads, it should be explained, is an impending film. Miss Collins appears in it with two American contemporaries, Miss Debbie Reynolds and Miss Shirley MacLaine. The publicity claims that Miss Collins easily outdresses them. Even more seriously, from their point of view, she easily out-undresses them. Unlike Churchill, she has thus set back the Anglo-American special relationship. But there the dissimilarities between her and Churchill end.
Revisionist historians have sought to undermine the Collins legend and her preeminent place in our island story. They have argued, inter alia, that her reputation has been artificially exaggerated. More specifically, they have argued that her anatomy has been artificially exaggerated. But I shall immediately leave that subject. I have no wish to become the David Irving to Collins's Churchill. I believe that her anatomy is entirely original. Certainly, I would be against her being rebuilt. For many of us, it is a Heritage issue. It would also be inconsistent with the authenticity movement which now affects almost all the arts. Any of the materials used to carry out the rebuilding would be inauthentic, since silicone was not invented when Miss Collins was originally being built.
Churchill's reputation will, I believe, face its ups and downs in the 21st century, but Collins's will not. No attempt to undermine Collins's will much persuade the British peo pie. For them, her indomitable cleavage saw us through the Cold War. Before that, there were the Wilderness Years when she warned against the rise of feminism. She was supported only by a few followers and by her devoted undergarments. The British people did not listen. They preferred to make Mrs Clare Short a Cabinet minister. But now her country has turned to Collins. Otherwise she would not have been on the front of the Mail, and across two pages inside.
But I have a still larger purpose in mentioning her age here. It is to draw attention to a danger and absurdity. It seems that the modern world allows us to have a 67-yearold female sex symbol but not a 67-year-old prime minister. It is often said of, to take two examples, Mr Michael Howard and Mr Kenneth Clarke, that they cannot become leaders of the Conservative party because, being about 60, they are 'too old'. There may be reasons why neither Mr Howard nor Mr Clarke should become leader of the Conservative party — though despite their superficially being on opposite sides of the party I would be pleased to see either of them as leader — but age should not be one of them.
Mr Reagan was a successful president; Mr Clinton was successful and won re-election only after he had broadly embraced Mr Reagan's view of economics. Yet Mr Reagan took office for the first time only about a month before his 70th birthday. To be happy and at peace with themselves, nations need the accumulated experience of a Churchill, a Howard, a Clarke, a Reagan and a Collins. Which of today's female sex symbols will still be appearing in their lingerie in the Mail at 67?
Alti-missile defence is in a tradition going back more than 100 years. That is, the tradition of impregnability. In 1890, the
American admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan published The Influence of Sea Power upon History. It was one of the most influential books at the opening of the 20th century, influencing President Theodore Roosevelt, the British Admiralty and the Kaiser. Its gist seemed to be that the impregnable nation is the nation that is unbeatable across the seas.
But in 1904 the British geographer Halford Mackinder published The Geographical Pivot of History. The pivot was what Mackinder called 'the world island': the Eurasian landmass stretching from Western Europe to furthest Russia and down across China to the Pacific. The Kaiser's Germany, Hitler's Germany and the Soviet Union sought to dominate the world island. But they were prevented from doing so mainly by the intervention of a power far across the seas from them: the United States. So Mahan had defeated Mackinder. It could also be argued that, since the Soviet Union defeated Hitler's Germany, one would-be dominator of the world island defeated another. So Mackinder was still triumphant.
But let us, for the sake of this debate, assume that Mahan was the winner. Geopolitical theory now had only one place to go: space. The next impregnable or victorious great power would be that which dominated the heavens. People who believed that theory had much to do with President Reagan's 'star wars'. They were the Mahans and Mackinders of space. Dr Edward Teller, who influenced Mr Reagan over star wars, seems to have been among them. President-elect Bush's belief seems to be less comprehensive: the great power that dominates the heavens cannot for long be impregnable against other powers, but can be against 'rogue states'.
The worldly-wise say that there can be no such defence. The rogue nuclear weapon will bypass it. That, mutatis mutandis, was what Baldwin said in 1935: 'the bomber will always get through'. But, after his resignation, Britain concentrated on a Bush-like limited defence against the bomber: radar and Spitfires. They prevented enough of Germany's bombers from getting through, and saved these islands. The other precedent from that period is less encouraging for Mr Bush. France believed that the Maginot Line made her impregnable. Mr Bush will similarly fail if he assumes that the United States will not have to wage war beyond her 'impregnable' homeland.
Previous page
