Monday, January 12, 2009
"The party of Lincoln Reagan"
Cousin Pat flags Chris Hitchens' recent
celebration of Abraham Lincoln in
Newsweek, and correctly says that Lincoln belongs at the top of the "American Pantheon". Pat goes on to say that "It shocks no one that the GOP continually reminds us what party Lincoln was a part of".
Not so fast my friend!
While it would
seem that Republicans wouldn't hesitate to brag about the
Republican President who saved the nation... the plain fact is, many conservatives who vote Republican are discomfited by Lincoln. It's true. At best, they see him as a mixed bag. At worst, he is anti-conservative and (therefore?) un-American.
Indeed, Hitchens describes in his article how blemished Lincoln appears in certain conservative quarters:
A hundred years after Lincoln's murder, an editorial in William F. Buckley's National Review depicted him as "essentially negative to the genius and freedom of our country" and a sworn foe of states' rights as well as a pitiless advocate of indiscriminate war upon civilians. Visit the neo-Confederate (by no means neo-con) Web sites, and you will find this same flame of resentment being assiduously nursed to this very day.
In my view, Hitchens understates the range of conservative dyspepsia over Lincoln. It goes beyond a few fringe "neo-Confederate Web sites".
For example, when Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani spoke to the Conservative Political Action Committee in March 2007, Rudy
made the mistake of
praising Lincoln:
[Some CPAC] attendees said Mr. Giuliani lost momentum when he heaped lavish praise on Abraham Lincoln.
While many conservatives regard the Civil War president as the spiritual founder of the Republican Party, others deeply resent him as a man who ruthlessly suspended constitutional rights and freedoms in order to militarily challenge the South's belief in its right to secede.
...
"Rudy thought he was addressing a Republican audience," said Mike Long, chairman of the New York State Conservative Party. "Mitt understood this is an audience of people who are conservatives first."
Then,
this sequence occurred at Tuesday's debate among the six candidates vying to become the next Republican National Committee Chairman:
Grover Norquist, the moderator and head of Americans for Tax Reform, asked each candidate to name his favorite Republican president. The tally: Reagan, 6; Lincoln, 0. "Okay, everybody got that one right," the moderator announced.
Clearly, the Lincoln-haters in and around the GOP don't constitute a majority of Republican voters. But it seems to me that they do constitute a significant minority
that Republican candidates do not wish to alienate.Ask yourselves, how would a Republican candidate running for high office fare if he or she talked about their open admiration for Lincoln like Obama does? How would a Republican candidate fare in a debate or forum if they decided to pass up a chance to praise Reagan, and praised Lincoln instead?
Wouldn't such political behavior be risky, even in today's GOP?
Isn't it somewhat shocking to think that if one wishes to succeed within "the party of Lincoln"... they would do well to
limit their public praise of Lincoln?
Labels: Cons, Giuliani, GOP
13 comments
DiggIt!
Lincoln Reagan"" Title="Del.icio.us" target="_blank">Del.icio.us
13 Comments:
All I can say is "Bingo" Darlin'.
Could you reach ANY harder, even if you tried?
"I think", "some observers" said he "lost momentum"? C'mon...
Could you daisy-chain ANY LONGER if you tried?
What do you think is more relavant to the dogmatic barking sycophants in the GOP? What's more attainable. What do people recall with greater clarity? The 1980's, or the 1860's?
Popular Sovereignty, or the Fall of Communism?
The Kansas/Nebraska Act, or Trickle Down Economics?
It's like trying to say that by mentioning Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton when talking about contemporary African American Political Leaders, what Democrats are really doing is avoiding mentioning Frederick Douglas.
You have been over-reaching far beyond the realm of reasonable belief lately, oyster...
Thanks for the link.
I remember reading a gag book a while back called "You may be a Democrat/Republican if..."
The idea of the book was to spoof, like the "you might be a redneck if" jokes; you might be a Democrat if you own a sailboat named 'Guilty Pleasure,' you might be a Republican if you own a power yacht named 'Just Deserts'...etc.
There were some good ones.
One of the best was when the answer on both pages, Democrat and Republican, was the same. You may be either if "You can't believe Lincoln was a Republican."
So, point taken.
But whenever there are discussions of great Presidents, and Lincoln and TR make the rounds near the top, there aren't many Republcans I know (personally) who don't crow about that legacy.
I'm wondering if this disrespect of Lincoln is limited to just the noisy 25% of Republican voters. Given how Republican power is concentrated in the former Confederate states, and given the lame-ass social policies the Republican Party proudly espouses, not to mention the dearth of Republicans of color, I'm not inclined to grant the majority of Republican voters the benefit of the doubt on this one. Oyster--and you, too, Pat--I commend y'all for such generosity of spirit.
I just finished reading the David Herbert Donald bio of the Rail Splitter--not a bad book.
Throughout his political career, Lincoln was an advocate of internal improvements funded by government, which runs at odds with the present position of the party. If I remember right, Lincoln also signed the Homestead Act.
Imagine that: GIVING people land.
Danged Dirty F***ing Hippie Commie.
Oyster is not stretching at all. I have been in countless discussions with modern Republicans about Lincoln, online and in person, and the honest ones honestly do NOT like Lincoln, and they're happy to tell you why. The dishonest ones admire Lincoln the way people who were anti-civil rights in the 50s now admire MLK. Once the icon is safely dead and long gone, lip service may be paid.
There's a similar, converse phenomenon regarding Hitler. Honest authoritarians these days may not have the blz to praise Hitler, but that same Nat'l Review crowd positively LOVED Franco, and sometimes Mussolini, too. If that sort of conservative had been in charge of the US gov in the 30s and 40s, Hitler might not be the taboo he is today. Really. They would have to crank up some holacaust denial, but denial is never a problem for them.
And they can't stand by Lincoln because of his religious ideas either. Lincoln once said, "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession." Clearly, Republicans would rather a whoremonger who seeks forgiveness in the church than a heretic who preserved the union.
Peace,
Tim
I had meant to highlight that Norquist quote. This RNC fight has been really fascinating.
Perhaps I have spent more time around younger Republicans and older conservatives who have a far stronger grasp of history, along with those who find their historical legacy more argumentatively expedient. Hell, I've heard and been a part of hours-long discussions where conservatives, liberals and libertarians attempted to establish ideological roots in the persona of Jefferson.
But that's history - and mythology. We wash sins away when we don't want to see them and ascribe greater faults when we do. Jefferson and Jackson were heroes despite their faults, and whenever someone brings up the fact that Washington owned slaves, it causes a controversy.
That Republicans would have trouble reconciling their party as one of Lincoln and one of Reagan is no shocker. I've seen plenty of Republicans who take pride in both, despite the ideological issues involved.
Hell, I can't help but be generous in spirit, it surprises me that Democrats have such an easy time reconciling the historical legacy of a party that included both Andrew Jackson and Barack Obama.
Lincoln Log Cabin Republicans.
Oyster stretching? Interesting image that. Big Molluski invented Political Aerobics. bada'bing!
Spankin'post, Oyster.
Who heard what Lincoln said?
I heard they wrapped his head
in an American flag from the theater.
Did they wait to late
with a wound so great to get the bullet?
Did he lay three days looking out,
following his own son down?
What a way to pay
for the freedom of men,
women and children.
Of course modern Republicans reject Lincoln. Look at a map of the Confederacy and then look at the electoral votes that modern Republican presidential candidates win today and there is probably 80% overlap.
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l176/musiclover1992/elec-slave-map.jpg
I think Democrats should try and claim Ulysses S. Grant and Sherman just to f%ck with modern Republicans. That's the kind of dog whistle politics that is fun and effective.
You know how Republicans think Dems go crazy at the sight of Joe the Plumber? Imagine John Kerry giving a speech about why he loves Grant! It would set the Weekly Standard and National Review and Free Republic and other fishwrap over the edge.
Hey Ursta, did u know that Lincoln was an amateur magician and always kept a live rabbit in his stovepipe hat in case anyone would ask him to perform a magic trick? Sadly, no one ever did and John Wilkes Booth was an avid rabbit hunter! Also, Wilkes great nephew, Lee hated convertibles and was a terrible marksman.
