The title will turn off many - who think oh just another dreamy eyed obamabot. But I have been reading the 2005 book by Doris Kearns Goodwin called Team of Rivals (this got a lot of press recently) - which is a study of how Lincoln used his political skills to keep together a fractious political coalition - that in the end kept the Union together and allowed victory in the civil war.
Granny Doc's pixie dust diary inspired me to think through this comparison more closely.
I think there are enough parallels in the current situation and that which existed in the 1850's to make this a useful comparison. For those who like politics and history, follow the jump.
First, can anything today compare to the American Civil War?
Yes, not because of the abolition of slavery, but because Lincoln saw the war as a fight to preserve the essential question of whether a freely elected popular government as embodied in the declaration of independence and the constitution, could in fact survive. In the 19th century, there were no other popular democracies. Lincoln's core belief was that the civil war was a fight to preserve the idea of democracy as set forth in the American revolution.
Our movement - the net roots and progressives - clearly sees our struggle as a fight to preserve basic democracy and constitutional protections against those who would make the constitution an Orwellian figurehead used to hide the fact that all power was concentrated in the hands of the executive. Cheny's view of democracy is no different than that of a white slave owner-- he believes that popular power has no right to exist.
We see lying media, corporate concentration, the willingness of so many public figures to ignore reality in favor of myths, spin, and a deliberate attempt to stupefy americans as an assault on the necessary foundations of true democracy.
Second: was the political situation during the run up to the civil war clear to those participating?
No. Outside of the South which was irrevocably committed to perpetuating a slave based society, the north and the northwest was fractured. There were plenty of strong abolitionists - but they were a minority except in a couple of states, and any national politician who ran on an abolitionist platform would lose. Secondly, the majority of people in the North, given a choice, would not fight for the abolition of slavery. They would fight, however, for the preservation of the union -- to continue what had been started 85 years before. But to win the election of 1860, the new republican party had to unite machine bosses, abolitionists, and gain enough votes in border states which had slaves--which Lincoln did with great political skill.
Lincoln realized that great changes in public attitudes required time to ripen -- based on the experiences people actually had.
Lincoln was extremely consistent in his beliefs - from the time he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate to when he was nominated and elected. He believed that slavery was incompatible with the promise of the declaration that all men are created equal, and with his belief that free labor (no bondage, caste, servitude) was the economic strength of the country. But he had to be dragged by events to the realization that slavery must be abolished by executive proclamation.
So on to the comparison:
Lincoln's two great strengths were the consistency of his core beliefs, and his ability to listen to other ideas without deriding his opponents. He won over political enemies, and the trust of disparate factions by his consistency, honesty, and his knack for knowing when to make a political compromise.
Obama has shown many of the same qualities.
Lincoln's core beliefs were far more radical than the general population in the North - but as events unfolded, his beliefs - both in the sanctity of the union to preserve democracy, and in the abolition of slavery - became the standard beliefs of the nation.
Obama's core beliefs are similarly radical - no lobbysts, the role of govenment is to serve the people, and that America is strengthened by immigrants, by diversity - by enabling all people to have equal opportunity - which echo's Lincoln's core concept of equality.
He is a radical American - in that his politics are a throwback to the core beliefs of this country, and that makes a sharp contrast between him and politicians who have no core beliefs except a desire for power, and to represent their friends, their class or their benefactors.
Lincoln was virulently attacked by abolitionists, who despaired of him every taking a moral stand. Yet when he decided on the emancipation proclamation, he said that it would mark his name in history more than anything had ever done or could ever do.
So Obama, to be successful, will have to make many political compromises. But his compass (belief and his morality) are pointed in the right direction - towards a restoration of American progressive democracy.
So, I would recommend others read this book - it illustrates a key radical idea, and offers some glimpse of the promise that a successful Obama candidacy, and its subsequent growth into a progressive majority in America, might actually mean.