November 19, 1863: Gettysburg address
Things fall apart.
I memorized and recited the Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in the fifth grade at Roosevelt Elementary School. Mrs. Mekvold sat at a desk at the front of the room and listened to be sure my classmates and I got the words right.
Abraham Lincoln said that the country gained a new national purpose, one added to those at our founding in 1776. Lincoln said: "We are dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." It is part of the American deal now, he said, because so many people died here for that purpose. The battlefield deaths were the ratifying convention. They must not have died in vain.
Lincoln also said that the fighting and dying was to preserve self-government, "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Self-government was in peril then. Lincoln said the battlefield deaths demonstrated that people would die for that cause, too.
 |
| Hubris |
We learned in the past decade that it wasn't so simple, neither abroad nor at home. Liberal democracy and market capitalism put political equality and self-government at risk. A market economy works well for the people with market power but less well for others, and those others might be half the country, or maybe 90%, or possibly 99%. Those left-out people became frustrated and angry. There is cultural frustration, too. In America, Western Europe, India, Turkey, Brazil, and China, right populist ethno-nationalist attitudes and movements are gaining strength. It turns out the multi-cultural, citizen-of-the-world, post-racial, pro-immigrant "end of history" consensus was not a consensus at all. That fact may have been misunderstood two decades ago, but it unmistakeable now.
Popular government is not an inevitability. In early-1861, after his election, a big segment of Americans--the southern states--took arms against the government in opposition to the election. In 2021, Americans in good standing as tax-paying American citizens--people with careers, wealth, and community status--tried to reverse a presidential election. A majority of GOP voters continue to wish for it and some insist on it. Donald Trump still refers to himself in the present tense as president and GOP officeholders go along.
 |
This blog looks at messaging and leadership. The people who have emerged with the passion and oratorical power to focus and energize Americans are people speaking to their tribes, not the nation. I would welcome another Lincoln, someone who could articulate a unifying national purpose. Joe Biden does not have the skillset for this task. I don't blame him. He never had it and never pretended to have it.
It isn't impossible for that new Lincoln to be a Republican, but he or she would face the uphill task of winning over the people currently feeling most threatened by cultural marginalizing. Liz Cheney is giving it a try. Chris Christie is pretending to but hedging his bets.
The more likely person is a Democrat who speaks of there being no red states nor blue states and whose words and tone project unity. There is a problem with that. We tried it with Obama, and it led to Trump. Maybe we need a long ugly fight before we exhaust ourselves and are ready to return to the unfinished work Lincoln laid out. This is a gloomy look ahead, but I am attempting to be realistic.
17 comments:
Lincoln was a Republican. The party once had values other than greed. It was reviled by racists before the civil rights movement. Then it offered asylum to white nationalists and now they’ve taken it over. The GOP is like the King Lear for our time. What an incredible contrast between Lincoln and Trump!
The best that can be said for Republicans today is that their coup attempt failed – something to celebrate this holiday season.
When you "culturally marginalized" do you mean racist? That's what it sounds like from here.
The Civil War will soon be two centuries past and I would argue it has never been resolved and while the scourge of slavery was abolished the attendant racism has not been scrubbed from the public square. Lincoln did the best he could, but it's clear that our legal system did not receive the reforms needed to insure actual equality under the law.
And now racism has now embedded itself so deeply into our society that most don't or won't even acknowledge it. One needs no more evidence than the sham trial just concluded in Wisconsin.
When our nation lacks an external threat, our people turn to "eating our own." We cannot even agree on whether there actually is a pandemic, let along methods of control. The distraction of an all-engaging international conflict may be the only way to unify this country.
The more likely person is a Democrat who speaks of there being no red states nor blue states and whose words and tone project unity. There is a problem with that. We tried it with Obama, and it led to Trump.
Barack Obama was a stealth liberal like Bill Clinton. Both of them claimed to be centrists, but both of them governed behind the scenes from quite far out onto the left side of the spectrum. This betrayal by both of them led to spectacular losses by Democrats in 1994, and the election of Donald Trump in 2016.
We need an actual, sincere centrist to lead us out of the current polarization. Is our political system capable of producing such a person? Fingers crossed…
And now racism has now embedded itself so deeply into our society that most don't or won't even acknowledge it. One needs no more evidence than the sham trial just concluded in Wisconsin.
Did you watch the videos, Rick? Did you review all of the evidence carefully? How is it that you know so much more about the Rittenhouse case than the jury?
Rosenbaum, the first person shot by Kyle Rittenhouse, menaced him, chased him, and tried to grab his gun. Huber, the second person shot by Kyle Rittenhouse, attacked Rittenhouse with a skateboard while Rittenhouse was on the ground after tripping. Grosskreuz, the third person shot by Kyle Rittenhouse, pointed a loaded handgun at him.
Self defense, in all three cases. So said the jury. I agree.
All four people involved were white. How does the concept of “racism“ even apply? Does the word mean anything more than, “something happened that the left doesn’t like?“
The staunchest leftists here, including Mike and Rick, are almost unadulterated projection. Accuse others of what YOU do, is a longtime mantra on the Left. With Lenin it was a tactic. With so many of today’s leftists, however, it appears to be a subconscious compulsion. Even poor Lincoln is honored only in the breach, not the observance. The loony left is busy taking down even his statues and renaming his schools because he didn’t sound like an MSNBC host on the subject of slavery and race. Lincoln was also suspiciously silent on trans bathrooms and curbside recycling. There can be few more deranged examples of reductionist, revisionist modern leftist excess than cancelling Lincoln.
Race on the brain is perhaps the biggest and most destructive leftist tell today. Yes, a white kid shooting three white guys, killing two, is of course indicia of white supremacy and that deeper than deep, no-see-um “systemic” racism. MLK’s “Dream” vision of color-blindness is now itself an obstacle to racial progress! What was once rather quaintly known as “actual” racism has waned dramatically in the last half-century, so the accusations of those who batten upon it become correspondingly more shrill, nebulous and fanciful. Obama spoke in unifying terms in the speeches which made him, but after taking office became the avatar of the new race determinism. He needed that to beat Romney.
Rick, even accepting for the sake of argument that race is properly central to the Rittenhouse trial, I’m happy and prepared to deal with any specific examples you’d offer of the laughable leftist conceit that it was a “sham” trial. What leftists really object to is the perceived “team” loss, with facts and law mere details or afterthoughts. After the OJ verdict, even ingratiating, patronizing white leftists were appalled at black Americans dancing and high-fiving in the streets because “We won!”. Now they join wholly in outcome-based assessments of criminal justice, in terms of groups and historical balance-sheets, not individual cases and facts. That’s truly un-American. A Cultural Revolution, if you will.
In November, bowl session, I feel a football example would be useful to describe the political playing field. Taking the Pew Poll and laying it flat and marking the chalkline yardage markers with the labels from Pew Poll, the goal lines become "progressive left" and the other "faith and flag conservatives" and the fifty yard line "stressed sideliners". The game ball is now placed on the 50-yard line with roughly an equal number of players on either side representing balance. Any movement is the direction of one goal or another provokes an immediate retaliation and an intensification of defensive plays with the outcome that the ball remains "stuck" some where between the 40-yard line in the conservative direction. The longer the game goes on with out noticeable movement the greater the frustration in the stands. Every play is called foul. Long arguments ensue and tempers flair in the stands of the opposing team. Cheers of celebration shout out from the other side. Eventually a play is called by an all-star quarterback, who is amazingly capable leader, that drives almost to the goal line but is again challenged only to be called back on a "technicality". Frustration hits a high note at the unfairness and teams pour on to the field and a mallee occurs resulting in deaths and hospitalization among the teams, the referees and the spectators. Media sources replay the scene over and over with their side's point of view highlighted and magnified. People from both sides decide to take matters into their own hands and the violence begins to look more and more like a civil war. Lost is the rulebook for the game. One side decides the rules are only for holding them back from their goal, which is so close. Presently we are here on the 40-yard line conservative. What will we do this political season when both sides cry out that ALL will be lost if they are defeated and the other side wins. We MUST win at all cost say both sides! At ALL COSTs they all echo.
What we have here are examples of a Republican Party that's run so amuck that even President Obama seems far left to them. Since their party's behavior is so indefensible, they're left with lobbing weapons of mass distraction: voter fraud, CRT, LGBTQs in the bathroom etc. As the saying goes: If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
Good work Peter. Your blog today was well thought out and well presented. Not so much the comment section. It by and large sounds like a bag full of cats, loud noise and little content.
Good description of the current polarization by John F. Reminds me of a quote from Catch-22:
“What if everyone did that?“
“Then I’d be a damn fool to do anything different.”
I keep hoping that a leader will come along can lead us out of this polarization.
At the risk of adding to the caterwaul, there's an excellent book that makes it more understandable why racism remains such a hot topic in the U.S. It's called The 1619 Project: A New American Origin Story.
Anonymous at 6:30–
Sideshow Bob’s dumb sister, Nikole Hannah-Jones, claims in the 1619 Project, among other toxic idiocies, that the Revolutionary War was was fought to preserve slavery in the colonies.
In school I read the prominent—and legitimate—scholar and historian from the far Left, Gordon Wood. The Matt Damon’ character cites Wood by name in the film “Good Will Hunting”.
Wood, along with multiple—legitimate—historians, black included, called crapola on that and other gross 1619 Project errors. Hannah-Jones rejected such critiques as from old white men.
Today the 1619 Project is part or soon to be part of K-12 curricula across the U.S. Ignorant garden variety leftists of all colors and stripes now reflexively cast opposition as—guess!—racist.
I agree with Mike T. that John F. did a nice job with that football analogy—inside the box. Trouble is, today’s leftists consider the game itself to be a sinister, corrupt cesspit of white supremacy.
Michael:
The problem is that most Republicans doubt President Obama’s citizenship, believe that climate change is a hoax, think Russian election meddling is fake news, consider COVID-19 no big deal and insist the 2020 election was stolen.
In order to be less polarized, we’d have to live on the same planet.
TO: Mike (the other one)
"Many" is a much more appropriate adjective than "most", unless you provide citations to back up your claim.
Aliases and nom-de-plumes seem to be necessary for commentary on most forums and blogs these days, as we might otherwise trigger someone.
I'm going to sign this with my real first name, but it will be obvious, then, why I simply do not use my first name - it's too common for my generation.
That M2inFLA alias? Yes, MM or M-squared in Florida
I still retain my M2inOR alias to use when needed.
Mike
M2inFLA
Check it out yourself. Here's a start:
https://news.yahoo.com/poll-two-thirds-of-republicans-still-think-the-2020-election-was-rigged-165934695.html
Mike,
Thank you.
Many of us know how polling works these days.
Mike
Obama's election brought out the racists in this country.
Trump welcomed that because he knew he could exploit that for his personal gain. And he still has.
The US needs to elect better leaders, which requires more educated voters.
Post a Comment