Posted on 01/20/2009 10:17:00 AM PST by Steelfish
January 20, 2009
Obama’s Lincoln And Lincoln’s Obama: What the new president should do if he’s serious about learning from Lincoln.
By Michael Knox Beran
No one begrudges a statesman a degree of latitude in his manipulation of historical precedent. FDR’s Jefferson was largely a fantasy. Sir Edward Coke, in his struggles with the Stuart dynasty, invented a phony theory of Magna Carta. Napoleon, as first consul of the French Republic, invoked the image of Caesar Augustus, then discarded it when, in 1804, he threw away the republican mask and had himself crowned emperor of the French.
The difficulty with President Obama’s reprise of Abraham Lincoln is partly one of style, perhaps of taste. It is one thing to invoke a precedent. It is another thing to trivialize it. The president-elect’s redundant train ride to a Washington he had, after all, arrived in earlier this month had a Disney theme-park air that didn’t quite work. It is said that “Lincoln-inspired foods” will be served at the luncheon in the Capitol following the inauguration. Lincoln-inspired foods? I suppose it is only a matter of time before we learn that the new First Puppy has been christened “Fido.”
Lincoln has already been obscured by a mountain of kitsch. Why add to it?
But there is a deeper oddness in the new president’s invocation of this predecessor. Lincoln’s principal preoccupation as a politician was liberty: He ran for president in order to prevent the expansion of slavery in the nation’s territories. The incoming president, in his own speeches and writings, has emphasized community rather more than he has liberty.
Fair enough: Both liberty and community are essential to a healthy polity. But why, if your political shtick is community, look to the guy whose political shtick was freedom?
There is, of course, a school of thought that holds that Lincoln’s solicitude for liberty was a pose; that as a pro-tariff Republican he was hardly a consistent champion of economic freedom; that his statements about blacks reflected the prejudices of his age; that he rode roughshod over civil liberties; that if he had been really committed to freedom he would have let the Confederate states secede in the name of national self-determination. Whatever one thinks of these criticisms, it is safe to say that President Obama, if he has not much interest in the Lincoln-as-Liberty-Lover school of historical interpretation, has even less in the Lincoln-as-Tyrant school. What, then, does he see in the man?
Obama and Lincoln are as different as salt and pepper. What degree of arrogance could compare ones’ self to one so radically different? There is no amount of paint that will cover up who and what Obama is. Nice try Barry ——
Because next month is Lincoln's 200th birthday, and both he and Obama were from Illinois. What president do you think he'd channel?
I’m reading his speech totally different...It was an anti-white speech. Please don’t flame me..
I’m sorry. My brain will not allow me to contemplate these two people at the same time...like comparing Apocalypse Now with Old Yeller...
Then I follow with “What party was Lincoln?” - invariably the answer has been “Democrat, of course”
This is what has elected 0/44
“I’m reading his speech totally different...It was an anti-white speech. Please don’t flame me..”
I for one am sick of hearing that America has finally done the right thing...or crap like that asshat that gave the closing benediction ending with “White will finally do what’s Right” to thunderous applause...who do these idiots think Lincoln was, a Democrat???
That rather depends. Time will tell, but if one is of the Lincoln-as-Tyrant school of interpretation, Obama may very well prove his likeness.
(If one thinks he is Constitutionally unqualified, as he is not a natural born citizen--either by virtue of having been born in Kenya to a too-young unmarried American mother, or by virtue of a stricter notion of natural born citizen than citizen-at-birth--then as Alan Keyes has observed, he already fits the classical definition of tyrant.)
You really have to wonder about a politician and his supporters who are so desperate to be viewed as successful that they are forced to constantly invoke historical figures (Lincoln, FDR), in order to make their candidate appear relevant. The politican has no track record of accomplishments so they have to make them up ahead of time. This is a weird psychological trick they're using so that everything this BOnehead does is put in the perspective of some imaginary greatness - and the biased media happily complies. That in itself tips us off that there's nothing behind the suit. I'm scared for our great country.
Only difference, as Obama sees it, is that Obama will “save” America with a hefty dose of community organizing. Obama, the man who has accomplished very little aside from achieving his own celebrity, wishes to link himself ostentatiously with one of our greatest Presidents. The man's ego and narcissism are as impressive as his resume is slight.
“I’m reading his speech totally different...It was an anti-white speech. Please don’t flame me..”
No flame, just curiosity. Can you post a few examples?
That rather depends. Time will tell, but if one is of the Lincoln-as-Tyrant school of interpretation, Obama may very well prove his likeness.
::::::::::
True — but looking at the issues of Constitutional respect, patriotism, etc., Lincoln was very different. And I must agree with the comparison that at least Lincoln was qualified to be President — Obama is not. And that does classify him already, along with many other issues we are painfully aware of.
Liberals always compare themselves to legendary people; and never, ever, even come close to being anything that the MSM claims. For example, in 1992 I remember the MSM comparing Klinton to JFK, complete with all those pics of kid Klinton meeting JFK in Washington. Now, there is little that those 2 had in common besides affairs.
Liberals always compare themselves to legendary people; and never, ever, even come close.....
:::::::::
After all, there will be conflict between Klinton and Hussein since Klinton claims to be the “first black president”..... (/chuckle)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.