Obama and Lincoln

Garry Wills has a fascinating essay in The New York Review of Books comparing Barack Obama's race speech to Abraham Lincoln's Cooper Union address. Wills makes the case that though the situation today is of lesser magnitude than the occurrences of 1860, that Obama and Lincoln faced structurally similar challenges of needing to stay true to their promise of change while offering reassurance that they weren't closet radicals.

Of course it should be said that for all Lincoln's greatness, he only got 40 percent of the vote in the 1860 general election, so arguably wasn't all that successful in reassuring people about his views.

Comments

Attached is another slant on the Obama speech.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/12772.htm

Posted by SLC | April 12, 2008 8:48 AM

Well, to be fair Lincoln did much better outside of slave states, where he couldn't be expected to receive any votes (even if he had been on the ballot). In fact, in Northern states he won a majority of the vote.

Posted by arbitrista | April 12, 2008 9:02 AM

Not to mention that there were four candidates running in 1860 (Lincoln, Douglas, Bell and Breckinridge). 40% is not bad in a four-way race, especially when you consider that the two "minor" candidates took something like 30% between them.

Posted by Jason Lefkowitz | April 12, 2008 9:17 AM

Lincoln did about as well as could possibly be expected - he won every free state except New Jersey, and of the slave states, I believe he was only on the ballot in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri.

Jason Lefkowitz - Breckinridge voters would have all gone to Douglas. So, likely, would Bell voters. Bell was the candidate, essentially, of former southern whigs who didn't want to vote for a Democrat. Lincoln wasn't getting any of those votes.

Basically, the situation was that in the south, it was a contest between Breckinridge and Bell (although Douglas made valiant, but unsuccessful, efforts). In the north, it was between Lincoln and Douglas (and Lincoln won handily.)

Only in the border states and out west was there really a multi-candidate west - Douglas, Breckinridge, and Bell were all competitive in the border states (Lincoln was on the ballot, but not really competitive) - and Lincoln, Douglas, and Breckinridge were all competitive in Oregon and California. In most of these states, Douglas and Breckinridge split the Democratic vote, handing the states to Lincoln and Bell (except Maryland and Delaware, where Breckinridge won very narrow victories).

But even if there had been no split, Lincoln would have won - he'd have lost only California and Oregon to the combined votes of the other three, not enough to deny him the election.

Posted by John | April 12, 2008 9:30 AM

Another reason not to vote for Obama.

Lincoln was the first Imperial President, the American Caesar.

Posted by George Shultz | April 12, 2008 9:40 AM

Does this mean Lincoln was the first Starbucks candidate, and he couldn't really compete in the states which mattered?

Posted by El Cid | April 12, 2008 9:51 AM

I always give Matt the benefit of the snark, but it's hip to be ignorantly dismissive of Lincoln these days, so maybe he was serious?

Posted by aleks | April 12, 2008 10:04 AM

Well, when Senator Obama condscendingly lumped all working class Midwestwern whites together as a bunch of xenophobic religious nuts, who desperately cling to their firearms in their cellars, steeping in a brew of helpless frustration, I'm sure he went a long way in reassuring people. Apparently he doesn't even think those folks can read or have televisions, since he was so uninhibited about being patronizing about their dislike of free trade agreements, just after he had finished telling them he largely in agreement.

I have little regard fo Hillary Clinton and John McCain, and thus probably won't vote, but I hope Clinton's campaign runs an ad for the next ten day highlighting Senator's Obama's remarks, educating PA voters as to what Obama thinks of them. I won't say that 100% of the people who run for President with a real chance of winning are loathesome human beings, since I really don't know them, but it sure seems so from afar.

Posted by Will Allen | April 12, 2008 10:26 AM

"he is largely in agreement", of course. I cannot type to save my life. I should learn that the "preview" button is my friend. Sheesh.

Posted by Will Allen | April 12, 2008 10:30 AM

Will Allen,

What did you think of Obama's response to the whole brouhaha?

Posted by Micheline | April 12, 2008 10:42 AM

The difference of course is that Lincoln's "Cooper Union" speech was nor precipitated by discovery that Lincoln's personal Preacher was a ranting pro-slavery individual, nor was Lincoln sitting for 20 years in a church that advocated grievance and racial separatism.

Not so the Black Messiah.

Obama's speech is more like Nixon's "Checkers Speech".

Meaning he, even more than Nixon, made it not about the things he was caught doing, but "The Greater Perspective Beyond Just the Silly Issue That Nailed Me That I Will Ignore".

Posted by Chris Ford | April 12, 2008 10:44 AM

Right Chris. Nothing in that speech about grievance or racial separatism.

Posted by aleks | April 12, 2008 10:48 AM

Micheline,

Will Allen thinks there must be a way to disingenuously distort that as well, he just hasn't found it yet.

Posted by marcj | April 12, 2008 11:00 AM

Chris Ford believes Obama was put up by anti-Semitic Jews. Or something. My head's still spinning.

Posted by Elrod | April 12, 2008 11:02 AM

Micheline, it was a skilled response, which wasn't surprising, since Obama certainly often displays terrific skills. However, saying a large group of people cling to their religious views, or their culture of firearm ownership, simply out of economic frustration, really does indicate a fundamental contempt, and was quite dumb. Mind you, I think it is quite obvious that the other two people who have a chance to be our next President fundamentally hold the electorate in contempt as well, so I certainly wouldn't single Senator Obama out. I just think theory of Obama Exceptionalism is interesting. With each passing day I find less reason to care who is elected in November.

Posted by Will Allen | April 12, 2008 11:12 AM

"cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Yeah, sure, I've distorted Obama's remarks. You go, ObamaGirllll!

Posted by Will Allen | April 12, 2008 11:16 AM

Somehow, for Will Allen, a deeply religious person active in his church empathizing with other's economic frustrations is calling them gun nuts and wackjobs. If you don't think bitterness and resentment have been playing a big role in politics as of late, you haven't been paying attention. What are so many of the bullshit controversies out there (trying to make English the official language, opposition to the FBI keeping certain types of criminal records that would prohibit criminals from buying guns, rising protectionist sentiment, believing Iraq was behind 9/11, Terri Schiavo and most of all outrage of the supposed War on Christmas) about if not largely about bitterness and resentment?

Posted by Reality Man | April 12, 2008 11:21 AM

I'm an Obama man, and that was certainly a dumb ass thing to say. It's not as bad in context, but then neither was Kerry's seppuku comment about voting to fund he war before voting against it. What matters is the soundbite, and Obama made a great one for his enemies.

Posted by aleks | April 12, 2008 11:22 AM

I'll go take a look at the Wills piece in a minute, but would say right off the bat that Obama's speech made me think of Lincoln immediately, and not for nothing: neither Obama or Edwards have ever made any particular secret of who their main political model/hero is. Lincoln *is* appropriate now, and they came to that conclusion themselves, absent Wills (although maybe they read his Gettysburg book).

I can feel the requisite blogorific argument about the overall merit of Lincoln coming on....an indication that extreme political polarization is either: a.) bearing fruit because we're ventilating issues rather than simply idealizing an Icon, or b.) making us devolve politically - uninventing the wheel, etc. While it's certainly healthy in every sense to sort things out rationally rather than blindly glossing, I would argue that it's fundamentally about b.) rather than a). Paleo and semi-paleo conservatism is all *about* DEVO - that, rather than intellectual hygene for its own sake, is the basic point of it.

The rhetorical tack such people use in books, blogs, etc. is perfectly consistent with their political goals: question ALL assumtions, not for sake of argument, but to actually make argument impossible. If I manage to best you in an argument, you can just question my assumtions. Like a dork, I back up and defend them. You push further and further up the chain of assumtions until argument is literally impossible. I think it's called 'sandbagging'...

Liberals fall for it most of the time, for obvious reasons. Liberals are fairly secure, intellectually, and think that argument will tend to bolster their POV anyway, and besides, it's fun, so bring it on! Some, like perhaps MY, even think that drawing a sharp contrast (which is not quite the same thing as 'polarization', BTW) will necessarily redound in Liberals' favor, ultimately. The truth is that it may so redound and it may not, because this is not, strictly speaking, an ideological discussion in an abstract sense; it's an ideological battle, wherein one side cares about 'winning the argument' and one side cares about winning Power. Like 'Clear Skies', the phrase 'The Party of Ideas' is actually a witticism, because the POI doesn't care about ideas. Postmodern politics on the whole doesn't care about ideas, beyond their immediate utility as products; it cares about power. If it takes 'ideas' to win power, then they invent some ideas; if - to paraphrase Groucho Marx - it takes other, even contradictory, ideas, they use those; if it takes fear, they use that; etc etc. The idea isn't to win an argument - it's to avoid having one.

Posted by jonnybutter | April 12, 2008 11:26 AM

It was dumb. His point (that politicians like George Bush and Hillary Clinton have won elections promising to do things to help bring jobs to small town America and then when in office push for abolishing the estate tax or making bankruptcy laws harsher) would have held up perfectly well without the reference to guns and religion. On the other hand, I have a bridge to sell to anybody that thinks McCain or Clinton somehow are egalitarians who represent the common man.

Posted by Ron | April 12, 2008 11:32 AM

Somehow, Reality Man can't comprehend the reality that a lot of people in the areas Obama was referencing might, ya' know, "cling" to their religion or views on firearm ownership, and vote accordingly, because, ya' know, they think these issues are very important in any context. Sheesh, Reality Man, can't even comprehend the reality that he condescends as well!

Posted by Will Allen | April 12, 2008 11:32 AM

Aleks,

Lately, Obama has been saying things that got him in trouble like the abortion comment and this one. I think in this instance Obama needs to work the refs and force the cable networks to play the comment in its entirety. If I were Obama I would use this moment to talk how survey after survey show Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are now.

Posted by Micheline | April 12, 2008 11:34 AM

The difference of course is that Lincoln's "Cooper Union" speech was nor precipitated by discovery that Lincoln's personal Preacher was a ranting pro-slavery individual,

If you'd bothered to understand the analogy, Lincoln was trying to reassure people that he was not crazily anti-slavery, not that he was not secretly pro-slavery. The proper analogy was if his personal preacher was a ranting abolitionist. If you'd said that, though, you'd have made your point look stupid.

Posted by John | April 12, 2008 11:34 AM

"Somehow, Reality Man can't comprehend the reality that a lot of people in the areas Obama was referencing might, ya' know, "cling" to their religion or views on firearm ownership, and vote accordingly, because, ya' know, they think these issues are very important in any context. Sheesh, Reality Man, can't even comprehend the reality that he condescends as well!

Posted by Will Allen | April 12, 2008 11:32 AM"

OMG Obama said "clings!" He's anti-dryer sheet! Snuggles is gonna be so pissed! I noticed how you cited just part of the whole conversation out of context. Obama was explaining why people are angry. However, to make your point you have to pretend that those parts didn't happen. I'm guessing you are just looking for a reason to be outraged.

Posted by Reality Man | April 12, 2008 11:39 AM

I think brevity when using the bandwidth of others is a virtue, but fine, here we go......

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

.....hence Obama discounts the possibility that a whole lot of people might hold strong views on, and have their vote informed by, religion or firearm ownership, simply on the merits of those issues themselves, seperate from any economic context. He condescends. A lot.

Posted by Will Allen | April 12, 2008 11:50 AM

Will Allen, you're taking a maximalist reading. His point wasn't about why people support NRA gun positions or are religious. He was talking about the role that economic insecurity play in voting and creating anger. Did he say that bitterness are the only reason people hold certain positions? Nope. If he had said that people only support the NRA out of economic grievances, then you would have a point. However, he didn't say that and the fact you are pretending he did says more about you than Obama.

Posted by Reality Man | April 12, 2008 12:04 PM

Reality Man, if Obama thinks there are other reasons besides economic frustration regarding why many people have their vote informed by their religion, or views on firearm ownership, then he would have been well served by not saying that a very large, ill defined, group of people "cling" to their religion or views of firearm ownership as a way to explain their frustration. It was really an obnoxiously stupid thing to say, and you really have to be in the tank for Obama to not acknowledge that. Just because you suppport a candidate doesn't mean you have to defend every last thing he says.

Posted by Will Allen | April 12, 2008 12:23 PM

"Reality Man, if Obama thinks there are other reasons besides economic frustration regarding why many people have their vote informed by their religion, or views on firearm ownership, then he would have been well served by not saying that a very large, ill defined, group of people "cling" to their religion or views of firearm ownership as a way to explain their frustration."

He was endorsing their frustration and saying they should be frustrated. It's Clinton and McCain who are now saying they shouldn't be frustrated. Guns and god were simply two examples he gave for how people channel this frustration, not the primary reason they are religious or support the NRA. In addition, his point was about part of the reason people vote on these cultural issues is because DC and local politicians don't respond to their economic problems, so why not vote on cultural ones? He was attacking political elites who haven't responded to economic issues, not the voters. He could have easily instead have said (to pick two random examples) that people channel this frustration into opposing gay rights and illegal immigration.

"It was really an obnoxiously stupid thing to say, and you really have to be in the tank for Obama to not acknowledge that. Just because you suppport a candidate doesn't mean you have to defend every last thing he says.

Posted by Will Allen | April 12, 2008 12:23 PM"

It was not that politically smart (but he probably doubted anyone from Huffington Post had a tape recorder there). However, that doesn't make your interpretation any less wrong. The point wasn't about god and guns, but you keep on pretending it is so you can be mad about something.

Posted by Reality Man | April 12, 2008 12:42 PM

when Senator Obama condscendingly lumped all working class Midwestwern whites together as a bunch of xenophobic religious nuts, who desperately cling to their firearms in their cellars, steeping in a brew of helpless frustration, I'm sure he went a long way in reassuring people.

Obama was partially, exactly, right, and Will proves his point. Since it wasn't obvious to people like him, Obama explained the next day that he was talking about voting issues. He was saying that people were cynical about voting economic issues because they didn't think either party was going to do anything to help them (and who could blame them?). So, people voted about these other things - emotional things; issues which the government can't - unlike managing the economy - really do that much about. Will proves him right by responding emotionally - the 'cynicism' of bruised idealism. He is describing you, Will. You can't 'bring' yourself to vote for anyone.

Obama is not calling you a fool. He is accurately describing a situation, and you *yourself* are, in your heart of hearts, drawing the conclusion that you are an fool. That stings. Of course you can't assume responsibility for your own foolishness and gullability, as pardonable as they are, since that would take character and true citizenship. So, as always, someone else must take the blame.

Posted by jonnybutter | April 12, 2008 1:12 PM

Will Allen, personally, I think Obama's talk of people reacting to hard times by retreating to their guns was a dog-whistle for Christians by coming out against idolatry and false religion that Republicans offer. It has always been clear to me that the Republican party is effectively selling a pagan religion to the likes of Fred, et. al. for those with gun, violence, and torture fetishes. That does line up with the casting of Bush as a Nero/Caligula-like figure.

Posted by Tyro | April 12, 2008 2:04 PM

Johnnybutter, Reality Man, I'm not religious, and don't own a firearm presently. Believe it or not, you can think Obama said an exceedingly stupid thing, and not be mad about it. I'm not mad, nor are my feelings bruised. What is with the overweening need to make assumptions about people you don't know? Are you trying to emulate your candidate?

Reality Man, you are rationalizing. Obama idientifies a very large ill defined group as "clinging" to their faith, and holding strong views on firearm ownership, because of their economic frustration, instead of simply assuming, as a non-condescending person would, that they "cling" to those beliefs simply because they are deeply held, independent of other issues.

Posted by Will Allen | April 12, 2008 4:04 PM

Will Allen, go up to an evangelical and ask him if he believes in "religion." He'll say, "I don't have a religion I have a relationship."

The less sophisticated-- which are, let's be honest, most media personalities and bloggers and commenters -- seem to have missed the anti-idols dogwhistle that Obama used.

If you look at your problems and run to those who tell you that the most important thing is your gun, yeah, that's idolatry.

Posted by Tyro | April 12, 2008 4:20 PM

Yes, Tyro, you are extremely sophisticated.

Posted by Will Allen | April 12, 2008 4:23 PM

This discussion is ridiculous. Obama's every sentence is being searched for a politically incorrect comma or semicolon. So he expressed himself badly on April 6, 2008, which as Will Allen says "was quite dumb". So it was, and so what. For Christsake, Jesus said things that were more controversial than that. Meanwhile Bush proudly says he was aware of torture talk in the White House and approved of it, and everybody yawns and goes back to the "Obama said some people are bitter!" blogs because hey, that's what's really important.

And all of this is reason to say, "With each passing day I find less reason to care who is elected in November."

As for me, with each passing day I think we are all doomed. Incapable of even going to the voting booth to put an end to this nightmare.

Posted by Hans B | April 12, 2008 8:06 PM

I'm not religious, and don't own a firearm presently.

LOL! Why not shut the fuck up, then? If you're not part of this particular group of people, how can you possibly speak on how they've been offended?

What is with the overweening need to make assumptions about people you don't know?

Wise words, Will. Maybe you should take a moment to reflect on them.

Posted by scythia | April 12, 2008 10:28 PM

I'm not religious, and don't own a firearm presently.

LOL! Why not shut the fuck up, then? If you're not part of this particular group of people, how can you possibly speak on how they've been offended?

What is with the overweening need to make assumptions about people you don't know?

Wise words, Will. Maybe you should take a moment to reflect on them.

Posted by scythia | April 12, 2008 10:29 PM

"Reality Man, you are rationalizing. Obama idientifies a very large ill defined group as "clinging" to their faith, and holding strong views on firearm ownership, because of their economic frustration, instead of simply assuming, as a non-condescending person would, that they "cling" to those beliefs simply because they are deeply held, independent of other issues.

Posted by Will Allen | April 12, 2008 4:04 PM"

Let's put it this way. Here are two propositions:

1) One motive for why people cling to certain beliefs, like gun ownership and strong religious observance, has to do with economic grievances and a lack of belief in the US government helping them out economically.

2) People have motives for believing such things besides 1) above.

Are these statements contradictory? No. Did Obama say that the only reason people believe certain things had to do with bitterness over poor economic conditions? No. Then why are you pretending he did? To come to the conclusion you did with your total lack of doubt would require inserting words into the Obama quote that aren't there.

Posted by Reality Man | April 13, 2008 1:22 AM

Well, gosh, Reality Man, maybe when you only mention one reason people tend to think you are implying that you think it is the only reason, especially in regards to something as personal as religous beliefs. A sure way to insult someone is to assert that they cling to their religous beliefs not out of profound faith, but rather out of economic frustration.

Scythia, the only assumption I've made is that Senator Obama said a pointlessly stupid thing. If you wish to cling to the belief that it was competent campaigning, well golly gee, you just go right ahead.

Posted by Will Allen | April 13, 2008 2:44 AM

the belief that it was competent campaigning, well golly gee

Campaigning ain't just kissing babies and lavish bland praise on the locals. It's about framesetting, and controlling the boundaries of debate.

Obama's response to this has been top-notch. He's not backing down from his statement. He's taking responsibility for it, and defending his position-in an intelligent appeal directly to the voters.

This is strength, and regardless of whether people agree with what he's saying, when they watch him on TV, they will perceive him as strong.

One of the more persistent political memes out there is that Democrats are "weak." Obama's actions are contradicting this perception, which will be important in the general election.

This dissonant effect probably also has something to do with his crossover appeal to normally non-Democratic voters.

Obama's pushing the conversation, and with his methodology of cutting coherent, watchable speeches, he's even pushing the means of communication.

This is in contrast to HRC, who routinely adopts Republican frames, because they're already established and easy to exploit, rather than take the time to think of and sow her own.

As other commentors pointed out: Notice how Obama tactic reinforces his overall campaign narrative (Culture in Washington is corrupted and we need popular change) while HRC's response undermines her Pennsylvania strategy?

This is how winners win. This is strong campaigning. Gaffes are going to happen to everyone. It's in responding to missteps that a candidate is defined in the popular perception.

And by the way-even though I didn't quote it, excellent use of the word "cling." That's how you anchor, baby. The talking point isn't a hammer, it's a needle-you gotta thread it in.

Peace.

Posted by scythia | April 13, 2008 3:43 AM

"Well, gosh, Reality Man, maybe when you only mention one reason people tend to think you are implying that you think it is the only reason, especially in regards to something as personal as religous beliefs. A sure way to insult someone is to assert that they cling to their religous beliefs not out of profound faith, but rather out of economic frustration."

Once again, the point wasn't explaining why people are religious. Did he say that they are only religious for economic reasons? Nope. You jump to the conclusion that because he mentioned one reason, that's the only reason he believes they have to be religious. You keep on having to use the word "only" to make your point. However, Obama didn't use the word "only." That's your word and you have to keep on using it because it's the only way your complaint makes any sense. If it was a hot day in July in Phoenix and someone said that it was hot because it was the middle of July, would they be denying that they were in Phoenix and the existence of global warming? Only an idiot would think that. Have you ever had a conversation with a person? Because it sure sounds like you don't know how people interact in the real world.

Posted by Reality Man | April 13, 2008 4:42 AM