Pointing out similarities between current politicians and historical figures can quickly become a silly and pointless exercise. But the search for historical precedents is instructive - it's especially useful for exposing fallacies in current thinking. That's half of what I'm aiming at here; I also want to use history to add perspective to probable future events.
Barack Obama often invokes Lincoln's memory; and there's been much discussion of parallels between the two men. Last week even saw Obama's face superimposed on Lincoln's head and shoulders in a very skillfully painted mural. And even though much of this is done rather excitedly and without concern for historical accuracy, there are good reasons to compare Obama to Lincoln, as the two men have a remarkable amount in common.
There's been a lot of understandable concern about Barack Obama's lack of experience. But Lincoln - who, whatever your personal opinion of him, saw our nation ably through one of its most trying moments - became president with only two years of Washington experience - and this much earlier in his career. He was, even then, only a member of the House. Obama will have four years of Washington experience by the time he takes office - and as a Senator. Both Obama and Lincoln made early marks largely by opposing a popular war - the Iraq War in Obama's case, the Mexican War in Lincoln's. Both men gained national prominence not through years legislative toil (a la Richard Lugar or Joe Biden) but rather through speaking events that led to 'overnight' fame - Lincoln through his debates with Stephen Douglas, and Obama through his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. Moreover, both men will have been about the same age when elected - Obama 48, Lincoln 51; both were lawyers by profession; amd both were considered political opportunists by contemporaries, especially those in their own party.
Finally, both Lincoln and Obama have proved something of a question-mark regarding their personal religion. They have repeatedly professed themselves Christians; but few who choose to make an issue of it have been convinced by their claims. The truth in Lincoln's case - and I suspect something similar for Obama - is that he had a deeply religious sense of life, of fate, &c; but this sense, combined with a natural skepticism, didn't fit comfortably within 'Christianity'.
A lack of 'Christianness,' as it were, is, however, actually for the best - historically speaking. The only two presidents of the last 50 years who made a point of incorporating their Christianity into their politics were the two greatest failures: Bush II and Carter. Moreover, most of the Founders - especially those who later became president - were not terribly Christian men. They were, rather, men of the Enlightenment - deists with a Christian flavor.
So much for concerns about Obama's inexperience. There's one more point to be made, though. Obama has been criticized for his move to support the FISA bill; he should be forgiven this move - and any future moves that expand executive power and threaten our civil liberties. The unfortunate truth is that our civil liberties will at times be curtailed, for the safety of Americans and the continuation of our government. But such curtailment can and must be temporary; sunset provisions are essential.
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary powers - Lincoln is the perfect example of this. Securing Maryland for the Union was essential to the continuation of government and for the perpetuation of union; but in securing this border state, Lincoln violated the civil liberties of countless citizens. And it was not the only time he did so. But the important point is that his curtailments did not mean permanent changes in the basic rights of Americans. Lincoln had constitutional scruples and violated the letter of our most central document with great reluctance. Obama may very well have to do the same. As Hobbes pointed out, it's silly to worry exclusively about rights when the government maintaining those rights is threatened existentially. We should keep in mind in such cases that the truly important issue - and the mark of a truly great president - is a noticeable reluctance, not a complete unwillingness, to do the unsavory.
Barack Obama often invokes Lincoln's memory; and there's been much discussion of parallels between the two men. Last week even saw Obama's face superimposed on Lincoln's head and shoulders in a very skillfully painted mural. And even though much of this is done rather excitedly and without concern for historical accuracy, there are good reasons to compare Obama to Lincoln, as the two men have a remarkable amount in common.
There's been a lot of understandable concern about Barack Obama's lack of experience. But Lincoln - who, whatever your personal opinion of him, saw our nation ably through one of its most trying moments - became president with only two years of Washington experience - and this much earlier in his career. He was, even then, only a member of the House. Obama will have four years of Washington experience by the time he takes office - and as a Senator. Both Obama and Lincoln made early marks largely by opposing a popular war - the Iraq War in Obama's case, the Mexican War in Lincoln's. Both men gained national prominence not through years legislative toil (a la Richard Lugar or Joe Biden) but rather through speaking events that led to 'overnight' fame - Lincoln through his debates with Stephen Douglas, and Obama through his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. Moreover, both men will have been about the same age when elected - Obama 48, Lincoln 51; both were lawyers by profession; amd both were considered political opportunists by contemporaries, especially those in their own party.
Finally, both Lincoln and Obama have proved something of a question-mark regarding their personal religion. They have repeatedly professed themselves Christians; but few who choose to make an issue of it have been convinced by their claims. The truth in Lincoln's case - and I suspect something similar for Obama - is that he had a deeply religious sense of life, of fate, &c; but this sense, combined with a natural skepticism, didn't fit comfortably within 'Christianity'.
A lack of 'Christianness,' as it were, is, however, actually for the best - historically speaking. The only two presidents of the last 50 years who made a point of incorporating their Christianity into their politics were the two greatest failures: Bush II and Carter. Moreover, most of the Founders - especially those who later became president - were not terribly Christian men. They were, rather, men of the Enlightenment - deists with a Christian flavor.
So much for concerns about Obama's inexperience. There's one more point to be made, though. Obama has been criticized for his move to support the FISA bill; he should be forgiven this move - and any future moves that expand executive power and threaten our civil liberties. The unfortunate truth is that our civil liberties will at times be curtailed, for the safety of Americans and the continuation of our government. But such curtailment can and must be temporary; sunset provisions are essential.
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary powers - Lincoln is the perfect example of this. Securing Maryland for the Union was essential to the continuation of government and for the perpetuation of union; but in securing this border state, Lincoln violated the civil liberties of countless citizens. And it was not the only time he did so. But the important point is that his curtailments did not mean permanent changes in the basic rights of Americans. Lincoln had constitutional scruples and violated the letter of our most central document with great reluctance. Obama may very well have to do the same. As Hobbes pointed out, it's silly to worry exclusively about rights when the government maintaining those rights is threatened existentially. We should keep in mind in such cases that the truly important issue - and the mark of a truly great president - is a noticeable reluctance, not a complete unwillingness, to do the unsavory.
2 comments:
I disagree on the comparison of the Civil War and the curent War on Terror.
The Constitution provides for the writ of habeus corpas to be revoked in case of "rebellion or invasion," neither of which, I believe, applies to our current situation but which did apply to Lincoln.
I don't think the author was rationalizing the constitutional erosions during the war on terror. I THINK he was simply stating that Obama, like Lincoln, is neither ideologically dogmatic nor stubborn.
Post a Comment