Lincoln, teams of rivals and bi-partisanship

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Anyone reading a Lincoln biography cannot help but be moved by his persistence in reaching out, finding compromise and retaining a Christian attitude in the face of even outrageous provocations.

But let's not get carried away...

The proximate cause of the Civil War was Lincoln's election. That was the "assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand" of the Civil War. Between election and inauguration the nation Lincoln was elected to lead ceased to exist.

Lincoln's bipartisan, accommodating ways are somewhat tempered by the fact that the 40% of the nation who REALLY disagreed with Lincoln were no longer in the Union. He was, indeed, a kind, forgiving and patient man dealing with political factions within the United States.

How did Lincoln get along with the other past-and-future Americans in the Confederacy? He killed them by the car-load.

The modern Republican Party is a reconstitution of the old Confederacy, both in geography and reckless disregard for the welfare of the United States.

Lincoln would have put Hillary Clinton in his cabinet and sought common ground with Blue Dog Democrats but would have opened fire on John Beohner with cannons. (Not literally, but extending the analogy that there are rivals and then there are enemies.)

The thing about turning the other cheek is that God, in his wisdom, gave us a limited number of cheeks.

[Jennicut]

1. Lincoln put Seward in his cabinet and ended up becoming good friends with him

but he really never became close with any of the opposition. The American people (except some in the South) loved him anyways.

[BlooInBloo]

2. More idiotic sensationalism...

Though it was okay until the penultimate sentence.

Lincoln most certainly WOULD NOT have have shot someone for being a piece of shit asshole strictly in the political arena circumscribed by US law.

[Occam Bandage]

3. Given that the Republicans have not seceded, I don't really

think one can draw an analogy. There were quite a few Democrats in the North who remained strongly, strongly opposed to him; those I think are a better comparison. Also keep in mind there were the border states, whose politics were at direct odds to his but yet who he realized he must mollify or lose the war, and he certainly did reach out repeatedly to them, to the point where his "political base" as we would use the term today hated him perhaps more than they hated the Democrats. Finally, any claim that he would have gone no further than seeking common ground with his own party is kind of shot by the fact that he dumped Hannibal Hamlin and made Andrew Johnson, a Southern Democrat who only agreed with him on military affairs (something of a Lieberman of the day), his Vice President for his second term.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. There were more parties back then

You shouldn't over-read the analogy regarding "party"

The binary division in Lincoln's day wasn't partisan but pro and anti Union. Blue Dog Dems and even Hillary Clinton could have easily been in a different party than Lincoln but on the same side of the operative binary division. I didn't say Lincoln worked within his party. I said he worked within the remaining United States which was not a one-party operation.

The humble point is that the Christ-like Lincoln killed an incredible number of people who were in his broad view Americans, recognized that there are limits to persuasion, and drew a pragmatic distinction between honest disagreement and the desire that the other party cease to exist.

The Republicans do not have a different vision of how to make America's economy stronger. Their intention is to harm America (and the rest of the world in the bargain) as a tactical maneuver in hopes that Democrats will shoulder the blame.

It is sociopathy, not mere politics. Since their intention is to cause harm to America it transcends what we think of as political disagreement... it crosses the line from adversary to enemy which is a line I think Lincoln understood very well.

Had I been suggesting that Republicans be literally treated like the Confederacy I wouldn't had said "not literally". Had they seceded I would say literally.

If Barack Obama made Lincoln Chaffee his VP a lot of folks could probably live with it.

I think the analogy is valid unless one insists on reading absurdity into it.

[Occam Bandage]

5. I think the situation is so radically different that

either absurd links are drawn and then by necessity the analogy is absurd, or that so few links are drawn that the analogy ceases to be particularly useful in any sense but the rhetorical.

Forgive me if I misread, but it seems the lynchpin of your argument is that there is a link to be drawn between in one era the Republican opposition to Obama's economic efforts and in another era the Southern secession and effective declaration of war at Fort Sumter. While I understand and appreciate Clausewitz's declaration that war is but a form of politics, he meant politics in the sense of a struggle between two independent entities for power. This could be validly applied to the belligerents in the Civil War.

The modern Democratic and Republican parties are not independent entities, as much as they should like to be. Instead, they report to the same electorate, and the winner in their biannual contests is the party which has convinced the majority of that electorate to support them. Much of that electorate identifies more with one party than with the other, but is willing to vote across (or better yet, re-identify across) party lines if they feel the other party is now doing more to represent them than their self-identified party is. Obama believes that he can convince a significant portion of the Republican-aligned electorate to instead align themselves with the Democratic party.

In that, I think that if a Lincoln analogy is to be drawn, it should be focused not on legislators but on voters, and not with respect to Lincoln's attitude towards the states in open rebellion but rather with respect to his attitude towards the slave states with Confederate leanings but who ended up being successfully convinced to remain in the Union through his aggressive (and offensive, from Republican eyes) moderation and courtship.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Fair enough, but you're expecting a lot from a metaphor

All analogies are metaphors, of course, but we tend to expect more practical rigor from analogy. I often tend toward metaphor. (Which is why I have never had the slightest qualm talking about Bush in terms of Hitler or even Hillary in terms of Mao... if the point itself doesn't depend on a person slaughtering millions then the fact that one slaughtered millions and another didn't is sideways to the whole thing.)

1) people who agree with you
2) people who disagree with you but wish the best for the Union as they see it
3) People whose interest is the destruction of the Union

You work with #2 and staunchly oppose #3

1) People who agree with you on the economy
2) People who want the economy to improve and believe they have a superior method
3) People who want to tank the economy knowing the party in power will get the blame

I put the current crafted Republican position in category #3, not #2.

That's all. The historical analogy plays on the fact that Lincoln did not get along with everyone... if you flatly opposed the Union you were outside the framework of cooperation, outreach, compromise, etc.. Lincoln was happy to work with people who opposed abolition, but not with folks who opposed the union itself.

If the Republicans (as represented by top-down strategy, not bottom-up from individuals who are not all monsters) could push a button that would plunge the world into utter ruin they would if they saw any partisan advantage in it.

If one accepts that view of them then they are more like the Confederacy than they are like competing interests within the Union... implacable enemies of the goal itself who, once battle is joined, can only be overcome through (in this case political) violence.

If one thinks the Republicans are, in aggregate, of good will then I that would be a whole 'nother thing.

[Captain Hilts]

6. Hillary "in a different party than 'Lincoln'"? She and Obama had identical sen voting records. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Party and voting record are not independent varriables

[Captain Hilts]

9. Your reference suggests that HRC's views are so diff. from the Prez...

that she would be in a party different than Lincoln.

But, Hillary's senate voting record was identical to the current President, so she would be in the same party as the president.

[SidneyCarton]

10. This is not a Civil War.

You will know when it becomes one, believe me.