In all aspects except minimal education, you are describing our current President, President Obama. Our current President has the temperament, sense of humor, great vision, inability to hate , but above all a keen intelligence which he uses so well. President Obama will be remembered as a truly great President, He has brought our country back from the brink, established a national health care system, brokered contact with long standing opponents. among other achievements. By the end of his second term he will have brokered a workable solution to our undocumented immigrants. We are incredibly fortunate to have this man as our President.
135
Thank you David. It really is a moral issue, isn't it? Lincoln viewed slavery, our largest asset of the time, larger than industry itself, railroads, banking, etc. and sought to dismantle it because it was simply wrong and a direct compromise to our very system of government. Today, our only goal is to make the rich, richer ... at the cost of allowing our infrastructure to decay, health care for only those who can pay an enormous price, education and jobs for a privileged populace. It's still a moral issue. Thank you for pointing that out.
30
David Brooks wrote: "[Lincoln] hoped that if he limited the demand for slaves (by paying people not to keep them) he could drive down the price and render the whole enterprise unprofitable."
Conversely, Doris Goodwin wrote:
Back in March [1862], as foreshadowed in a message to Congress, Lincoln had asked the legislature to pass a joint resolution providing federal aid to any state willing to adopt a plan for gradual abolition of slavery. Lincoln had calculated that "less than one half-day's cost of this war would pay for all slaves in Delaware at four hundred dollars per head," and that eighty-seven days' expenses would buy all the slaves in all the other border states combined. He believed that nothing would bring the rebellion to an end faster than a commitment by the border slave states "to surrender on fair terms their own interest in Slavery rather than see the Union dissolved." [NYTimes, July 13, 1862] If the rebels were deprived of hope that these states might join the Confederacy, they would lose heart.
The proposal depended upon approval by the border-state representatives, who would have to promote the plan in their state legislatures. [T]hey refused to endorse the proposal. Even when Lincoln personally renewed his plea to them on July 12, they argued that "emancipation in any form" would lengthen, not shorten, the war. They insisted that the measure would unjustly punish those who remained loyal to the Union, while the rebellious states retained their slaves.
Conversely, Doris Goodwin wrote:
Back in March [1862], as foreshadowed in a message to Congress, Lincoln had asked the legislature to pass a joint resolution providing federal aid to any state willing to adopt a plan for gradual abolition of slavery. Lincoln had calculated that "less than one half-day's cost of this war would pay for all slaves in Delaware at four hundred dollars per head," and that eighty-seven days' expenses would buy all the slaves in all the other border states combined. He believed that nothing would bring the rebellion to an end faster than a commitment by the border slave states "to surrender on fair terms their own interest in Slavery rather than see the Union dissolved." [NYTimes, July 13, 1862] If the rebels were deprived of hope that these states might join the Confederacy, they would lose heart.
The proposal depended upon approval by the border-state representatives, who would have to promote the plan in their state legislatures. [T]hey refused to endorse the proposal. Even when Lincoln personally renewed his plea to them on July 12, they argued that "emancipation in any form" would lengthen, not shorten, the war. They insisted that the measure would unjustly punish those who remained loyal to the Union, while the rebellious states retained their slaves.
9
Shall we consider this column an allegory?
Because who believes this columnist spends his pre election hours
standing in the night in front of the Lincoln memorial?
His son is in Israel, having joined the military there; his appearances
and columns, should the subject of Israel be in the mix of subjects, is invariably with the Israelis. A still we're to credit that his only thoughts are
about America and her elections? Could we at least post the
subject as "international relations"?
I
Because who believes this columnist spends his pre election hours
standing in the night in front of the Lincoln memorial?
His son is in Israel, having joined the military there; his appearances
and columns, should the subject of Israel be in the mix of subjects, is invariably with the Israelis. A still we're to credit that his only thoughts are
about America and her elections? Could we at least post the
subject as "international relations"?
I
10
You will never hope to get a Lincoln these days, not because there are no intellectual giants in par, but this is the age in the throes of Information and communication technologies (ICT) revolution, shaping our everyday lives both as consumers as well as in the work place and have considerable impact on the political sphere, which is characterized by collective decision-making.
ICT provides information and to communicate it at much higher speed and very economically, leading to a decrease in search and transaction costs. Moreover, ICT also influence the political transaction costs of public policy making. In addition, it could also result in changing the underlying institutions shaping the political process so as to make further improvements possible.
We live in a radically different age than Lincolns. When "we do need someone with a portion of his gifts — someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning" concurrently will also requires a fig leaf, exactly the luxury which stand stripped by the ICT revolution.
ICT provides information and to communicate it at much higher speed and very economically, leading to a decrease in search and transaction costs. Moreover, ICT also influence the political transaction costs of public policy making. In addition, it could also result in changing the underlying institutions shaping the political process so as to make further improvements possible.
We live in a radically different age than Lincolns. When "we do need someone with a portion of his gifts — someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning" concurrently will also requires a fig leaf, exactly the luxury which stand stripped by the ICT revolution.
Thank you for your points about using strategic restraint, being slow to hate, and tamping down passion -- excellent qualities to stress.
8
Whiggish? I'm pretty sure that Lincoln, an admirer of Andrew Jackson, put together the Republican Party to replace the Whigs.
1
I especially agree with David's description of Lincoln's temperament, and how important those characteristics are. Lincoln had a great sense of humor...mostly about himself, and never took himself too seriously or thought too highly of himself. Candidates today, on both sides, are too full of themselves. This makes them prone to lofty, all-encompassing objectives that create too many political enemies on all sides, rather than incrementalists who can get some things done to improve the country.
8
Lincoln was fortunate to be able to excercize his political genius and moral authority at a time before before the common rabble was raised to the level of glib and ignorant participation in the political process.
Pop culture and social media have proved the axiom "an idiot is a genius to another idiot" as evidenced by some of the inferior candidates inhabiting the GOP clown car as we speak.
Pop culture and social media have proved the axiom "an idiot is a genius to another idiot" as evidenced by some of the inferior candidates inhabiting the GOP clown car as we speak.
16
Hillary Clinton is supposed to announce soon that she is running for President. I am announcing why I will not vote for her, and that is how I as a citizen prepare myself for the campaign season. Hillary Clinton recently took responsibility for her husband's sexual problems as she said, "she wasn't paying enough attention to him." or something like that. However, she seems to not take responsibility for having not had enough intelligence to realize that since the 1993 parking garage bomb in the World Trade Center in New York, there are really bad people and groups out there, and to not realize that all embassies need to be not only heavily fortified, and protected outside with heavy military. It might not present the right image and doesn't look good, but after September 11, 2001, we shouldn't be in a state of la la land. She has never taken full responsibility for the request earlier before the siege at Benghazi for more security. Why would Bill's sexual issues be more relevant to her than political ones? That is the million dollar question, and one that each voter should think about as they prepare for the coming political season.
4
Most people who follow Hillary Clinton recognize her as something of a hawk for a Democrat. Your description of her seems to be right out of the right-wing echo chamber. The righties want to somehow blame President Clinton's "sexual problems" on her for political reasons so they echo in the chamber until the righties who live in an alternate universe "believe" them. The same is true for Benghazi. The righties have investigated and investigated their fantasy theories about it, but they have not found any evidence for any of them.
As for the "bad people and groups out there," recall that President Clinton and his counter terrorism chief warned George Bush that Osama bin Laden was the most serious security problem he would face as President. More intent on passing tax cuts for his wealthy base, Bush ignored the warnings, including the daily briefing that warned in the title (so even Bush could see it) that bin Laden was intent on attacking the country with airplanes. His response to the briefer was that the briefer "had covered his a--" and still did not meet with the counter-terrorism principals until after 9/11, despite the repeated pleas of the counter-terrorism chief. Talk about "la la land."
Recall also that the Republican Congress did not fund the amount requested for embassy security and Mrs. Clinton argued that the failure was endangering national security. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/secretary-clinton-house-repu...
As for the "bad people and groups out there," recall that President Clinton and his counter terrorism chief warned George Bush that Osama bin Laden was the most serious security problem he would face as President. More intent on passing tax cuts for his wealthy base, Bush ignored the warnings, including the daily briefing that warned in the title (so even Bush could see it) that bin Laden was intent on attacking the country with airplanes. His response to the briefer was that the briefer "had covered his a--" and still did not meet with the counter-terrorism principals until after 9/11, despite the repeated pleas of the counter-terrorism chief. Talk about "la la land."
Recall also that the Republican Congress did not fund the amount requested for embassy security and Mrs. Clinton argued that the failure was endangering national security. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/secretary-clinton-house-repu...
42
When David Brooks says describes Lincoln as "extremely self-confident but extremely humble", just reading between the lines, does that mean he doesn't think Chris Christie is presidential material ? Also, David says we live in "a partisan time", but I think he knows the "partisans" are all on one side of the aisle, and that unlike in Lincoln's day, money is a dishearteningly big factor in distorting our present-day the political process.
8
"He was deeply engaged, but also able to step back; a passionate advocate, but also able to see his enemy’s point of view; aware of his own power, but aware of when he was helpless in the hands of fate; extremely self-confident but extremely humble." Nice phrase, David. But this doesn't seem to fit anyone from the GOP. Drop Linclon into the present with Boeing/Northrup Grumman/Big Pharma/Big Banks and Citizens United, and write a new column!
7
Brooks has become so false, so clinging to the show of love of America
even as his real passion, whatever Israel wants, that it's nearly
sickening to read his column. But one must.
His son has gone to Israel to join the military there. Fine, if that's where
his heart is...more important than such duty here. Who can argue?
But who cannot consider, and all too many do, that Brook's weekly appearance on the PBS nightly news, as the
sayer for the Republican side of politics in this country seems a compromise, and one of those places where dual loyalty is
all too noticeable.
even as his real passion, whatever Israel wants, that it's nearly
sickening to read his column. But one must.
His son has gone to Israel to join the military there. Fine, if that's where
his heart is...more important than such duty here. Who can argue?
But who cannot consider, and all too many do, that Brook's weekly appearance on the PBS nightly news, as the
sayer for the Republican side of politics in this country seems a compromise, and one of those places where dual loyalty is
all too noticeable.
2
Too bad you didn't write this column in 2000 before your party nominated the reactive and immature legacy candidate George W. Bush or in 2008, before your party nominated the quixotic and seemingly unstable John McCain or in 2012 before your party nominated the feather in the wind and entitled Mitt Romney.
Now we've read your vision of the ideal President, please give that candidate a
name. Because looking at the current Republican field, you seem to be indulging in pure fantasy.
Now we've read your vision of the ideal President, please give that candidate a
name. Because looking at the current Republican field, you seem to be indulging in pure fantasy.
35
Apparently Mr. Brooks' traditions are in form only. By his own admission he does not expect these qualities from a candidate that he will support. Just another milque toast Republican handwringer.
9
Ending slavery "through unromantic, gradual economic means" is a heinous cop-out, worse than letting prosperity trickle down for fear of displeasing the 1%. Delaying justice for the convenience of the culprit is repugnant to all but the tragically debased, one would think.
7
Of course, David, in your heart, you know we have had a unique and special president pretty much like that the past 6 years. Someone without privilege, but with intelligence, compassion, and forward thinking. What we have not had, unfortunately, is a compassionate, unbiased, forward thinking congress. It pains me deeply as President Obama continues to forge ahead in trying to make our world a more peaceful place, that his critics petulantly say, he is only trying to establish himself for the Nobel Peace Prize line. Only a shallow, narrow-minded person could even think such a thing of our president, let alone speak it out loud. BTW - for those of you who think I am a staunch democrat, I am not. I have voted republican as well as democrat. I AM someone who believes that the office of the president and our president (man or woman) should be treated with respect and supported as we attempt to negotiate with the world. President Obama is exactly right when he says that it is that childish discord from Congress that makes us look inept and torn. Only they can fix it.
62
There's an implicit argument in Brooks's column here: A president's personal qualities, not political views or power, are what will land him or her a revered place in history. I agree. The presidency is a stewardship defined by how the Commander in Chief shapes and responds to events that cannot be predicted on election day. Our most successful presidents have all had the judgment to quickly discern what they could control and what they could not - in essence, a certain comfort with chaos. Good humor and personal relationships also are key.
This is what worries me about a Hillary Clinton presidency.
This is what worries me about a Hillary Clinton presidency.
1
After much introspection, I am sad to report I will not be seeking the presidency. It is now abundantly clear I lack the balance to govern wisely. I am far too infused with free enterprise, democracy, human agency, laissez faire belief, et. al. Others will have to take the lead. Unfortunately, no one remains conscious to notice. They are preoccupied with their electronic pacifiers. Oh well..
6
President Obama shares more of Lincoln's attributes than any contemporary president. I find it interesting that this doesn't register with David Brooks.
63
"This Whiggish vision was his north star. He could bob and weave as politics demanded, but his incremental means always pointed to the same transformational end. Any presidential candidate needs that sort of consistent animating vision — an image of an Ideal America baked so deeply into his or her bones as to be unconscious, useful as a compass when the distractions of Washington life come in a flurry."
It sounds like you are writing about President Obama, the sort of transformational person we have needed for quite some time in this Nation. The man your chosen political party has tried all but to destroy.
Honestly, Brooks, you need to get with real people more.
It sounds like you are writing about President Obama, the sort of transformational person we have needed for quite some time in this Nation. The man your chosen political party has tried all but to destroy.
Honestly, Brooks, you need to get with real people more.
48
You've certainly eliminated every republican candidate. You've narrowed the field to Bernie Sanders.
36
Sounds like you're describing President Obama, with the exception that he has had a lot more exposure to literature of all kinds. And what kind of respect has this afforded him from his Republican colleagues and the haters in the populace? Hopefully more than Lincoln ultimately received.
40
Sounds to me like you just described our current President. What we need more than a single individual is a repeal of Citizens United. Then once again we can have a United States. .. http://lstrn.us/1hkN2ll
33
"At least we can find the closest approximation", probably had it in Obama, but the 2016 field...good luck with that!
27
In many ways we, as a nation, have regressed to the point where it is 1860 all over again, and the major issue of the day is State's rights. This may not seem apparent on its face, but I am unaware of any other period in history where our elected representatives have demonstrated such disdain for the office of the Presidency.
It behooves me to say this but I believe our country is as divided today as it was prior to the Civil War, and I am only guessing here, but based on your article you believe Obama is more Buchanan, than Lincoln.
It behooves me to say this but I believe our country is as divided today as it was prior to the Civil War, and I am only guessing here, but based on your article you believe Obama is more Buchanan, than Lincoln.
9
You began this piece with the pronoun "I", and used it three times in the first two sentences. I had to stop reading. I felt overcome by narcissism.
1
In the three sentences of your comment, you refer to yourself, "I", two times. Does that mean you are a narcissist?
5
President Obama holds all these positive attributes and more. Can not David Brooks see thru the darkness?
28
....Lets say the daily viewership of the Times is 2,000,000. Of that number perhaps 1000 will take the time after reading David Brooks intelligent column to express their opinion. There may be a clue here to one part of the problem...
Given the facts that are now the realities facing any candidate for the office of our President we can only wish him or her good luck.
Given the facts that are now the realities facing any candidate for the office of our President we can only wish him or her good luck.
To be honest, does it really matter who gets elected President anymore? Unless we, the voters, start electing actual adults into the House and Senate (and that means State as well as Federal), nothing is going to improve.
16
"Philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning."
Sounds like Barack Obama to me. And the opposition he has had to deal with is not unlike the bitter-enders of the 1860's.
Sounds like Barack Obama to me. And the opposition he has had to deal with is not unlike the bitter-enders of the 1860's.
30
mr brooks....try TRUMAN to emulate
had to make decisions that dealt wight he unknown - atomic bombs, a russian foe, among others... and following a pres. legend- fdr
truman had common sense - no depression or nightmares- just get the facts and be decent in making a decisions
no formal education, no erudition by family name or famous/wealthy relatives
one term and out...yet what he did is still in play today..
lincoln got martyred - that helped the legend - a depressed man with an insane wife and angry congress and divided nation...he did what he could...
both are worthy of emulation in different ways
had to make decisions that dealt wight he unknown - atomic bombs, a russian foe, among others... and following a pres. legend- fdr
truman had common sense - no depression or nightmares- just get the facts and be decent in making a decisions
no formal education, no erudition by family name or famous/wealthy relatives
one term and out...yet what he did is still in play today..
lincoln got martyred - that helped the legend - a depressed man with an insane wife and angry congress and divided nation...he did what he could...
both are worthy of emulation in different ways
3
Truman had two terms, as he filled out nearly all of FDR's fourth, and had the impossible job of filling out Roosevelt's shoes. In his standard Florsheims he did a pretty good job, though nearly all his success was in foreign policy (and a brilliant election campaign in 1948). He certainly did vastly better than Andrew Johnson following Lincoln. Obama had the real crusher -- he had to follow a shallow opportunist who caved both our foreign policy and our economy -- and his election roused not only great (impossible) hope but resurgent (implacable) racism. And he had fewer years with a Democratic Congress than Truman did. Overall he will be judged as a worthy, civilized manager of limited options, so much of his energy drained by the huge effort to clean up Bush's messes. Meanwhile, the Republicans have disqualified themselves as a party of responsible governance.
10
Well, if this is the case, none of the potential frontrunners meet that criteria.
5
So, you want another Obama term. Too bad, he will be sorely missed.
21
A thoughtfully written article that reads like an endorsement of the Obama presidency. (And a welcome one at that.)
24
David, does this mean your not joining the draft Louie Gohmert movement?
3
Mr. Brooks begins his story with the following, "I have two presidential election traditions. I begin covering each campaign by reading a book about Abraham Lincoln, and I end each election night, usually after midnight, at the statue of the Lincoln Memorial."
I assume that Mr. Brooks must then conveniently forget all that he reads and goes back to being a republican - forgetting about Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower or any other Republican who had a vision for ALL Americans other than the Koch-inspired dystopia that today's GOP requries for all republican candidates.
What is the purpose of this article? To try and have us believe in some current republican clown car candidate for POTUS?
David Brooks does his best to drive intelligent readers into the Democratic party. Thank you for that, anyway.
I assume that Mr. Brooks must then conveniently forget all that he reads and goes back to being a republican - forgetting about Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower or any other Republican who had a vision for ALL Americans other than the Koch-inspired dystopia that today's GOP requries for all republican candidates.
What is the purpose of this article? To try and have us believe in some current republican clown car candidate for POTUS?
David Brooks does his best to drive intelligent readers into the Democratic party. Thank you for that, anyway.
28
I see many similarities between Lincoln and Obama. Both went to Washington from Illinois. As president both faced dangerous national crises created by their predecessors, both had to contend with vicious opposition parties committed to obstruction and whose patriotism was suspect, and both exhibited uncommon insight, patience and magnanimity as president.
36
We need a strong, self-confident person with actual experience in vetting, hiring, training, managing and measuring success of people, and firing, if necessary. Honesty, balance and fearlessness to speak while still obeying his or her bosses. Ideology should be eliminated. That of course would bring a wholesale change of personnel in the government. Get it working for us, the people, Democrats and Republicans, white, black and other, not just Democrats. Businesses need to be assisted not crushed. And that's just domestically!
1
Mr. Brooks, I follow your articles religiously, even though I am rarely in agreement with anything the GOP puts out. You are a democrat in gop-clothing.
(OK, so you disagree!)
(OK, so you disagree!)
1
You are Correct, Mr. Brooks. We will not be getting a dreamer. We will likewise not even be getting a leader, someone who will work for all of us, not just some of us We will likely be getting another unprincipled fool. Someone who panders to ignorance and avarice. Someone who represents a forgotten era, like Clinton or Bush. Someone who will promise us better times, but will do his best to make things worse. This great nation has dozens of ambitious fools, clowns and idiots who are thinking of running . They will promise us everything. Will they deliver anything? the answer is a resounding NO! Too bad. So very sad.
2
Whatever are you talking about? Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809 and grew up in Kentucky and Indiana when they were still part of the frontier. Trying to draw parallels between the world of early 19th century America and today's social and political settings is kind of a meaningless comparison. Brooks knows just barely enough raw history to be dangerous with his inferences and tenuous connections. Yes, it would be wonderful to have another Lincoln on the political scene, but I'd be happy with a Franklin Roosevelt or even his cousin Teddy. The point is, we know the cast of characters who will be running in 2016 and none of them approach Lincoln or the Roosevelts in terms of sagacity, empathy, or political ability. And so it goes ...
39
"He saw America as a land where ambitious poor boys and girls like himself could transform themselves through hard, morally improving work. He believed in a government that built canals and railroads and banks to stoke the fires of industry..."
Unfortunately, the modern GOP is hell-bent on destroying upward mobility and providing satisfying jobs while at the same time opposed to every effort to improve America's crumbling infrastructure.
I have a New Hampshire primary tradition of my own: I go down to the JFK Library in Boston and pay particular heed to the exhibit on the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brings into sharp focus the importance of prudence and sanity in a President and the high stakes involved in picking a President. Who in the current GOP field can you really trust with the nuclear football?
As for this quote: "someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning", you have described President Obama rather well. While I've been critical of this Administration, in considering what we have to look forward to in 2016, he's looking rather good right now.
Unfortunately, the modern GOP is hell-bent on destroying upward mobility and providing satisfying jobs while at the same time opposed to every effort to improve America's crumbling infrastructure.
I have a New Hampshire primary tradition of my own: I go down to the JFK Library in Boston and pay particular heed to the exhibit on the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brings into sharp focus the importance of prudence and sanity in a President and the high stakes involved in picking a President. Who in the current GOP field can you really trust with the nuclear football?
As for this quote: "someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning", you have described President Obama rather well. While I've been critical of this Administration, in considering what we have to look forward to in 2016, he's looking rather good right now.
21
First of all, slavery was only in small part about profits. It was mainly about the fervent belief that innately superior whites should have total power over innately inferior blacks--anyone with a drop of black ancestry.
Slave owners saw ending slavery as an intolerable insult, not just less profit. That explains 600,000 dead in a Civil War. And how our history has been working out this caste system through generations---still seen now in our current justice system and police abuse scandal.
So who said Lincoln couldn’t be as naïve as anyone else? He may have respected labor, and opposed wealth monopolies, but he had a long evolution on the race issue.
We have to look past Brooks’s long prose which uses his Lincoln lecture to distract us from his real point.
So who do you want for president, David? Obviously a continuation of the rw extremists to block any law that departs from their radical ideology. Another Obama situation of a stuck congress and a no- op democracy.
What a distortion to label those who oppose the right wing as “fervent”. It’s Brook’s Repubs who are fervent ideologues, allied to govt rule by corporation. Imagine using a Lincoln portrait to try to justify that. Brooks gets more devious and transparent with every column.
Brooks, see the Princeton studies by Gilens and Bartels—shows most of our laws ignore the majority wishes, and cater to the 1%. Report on this for next week, along with an apt president.
Slave owners saw ending slavery as an intolerable insult, not just less profit. That explains 600,000 dead in a Civil War. And how our history has been working out this caste system through generations---still seen now in our current justice system and police abuse scandal.
So who said Lincoln couldn’t be as naïve as anyone else? He may have respected labor, and opposed wealth monopolies, but he had a long evolution on the race issue.
We have to look past Brooks’s long prose which uses his Lincoln lecture to distract us from his real point.
So who do you want for president, David? Obviously a continuation of the rw extremists to block any law that departs from their radical ideology. Another Obama situation of a stuck congress and a no- op democracy.
What a distortion to label those who oppose the right wing as “fervent”. It’s Brook’s Repubs who are fervent ideologues, allied to govt rule by corporation. Imagine using a Lincoln portrait to try to justify that. Brooks gets more devious and transparent with every column.
Brooks, see the Princeton studies by Gilens and Bartels—shows most of our laws ignore the majority wishes, and cater to the 1%. Report on this for next week, along with an apt president.
10
After reading this column, I must assume you voted for Obama. Both times.
33
Mr. Brooks,
May I suggest, in this election period, that you put down your books about past presidents and live in the moment, with a full appreciation of the one we have now.
May I suggest, in this election period, that you put down your books about past presidents and live in the moment, with a full appreciation of the one we have now.
26
President Obama is the worst, most biased president in history. You who get stuff from him love him the rest of us...he us a Democrat disaster, respectfully, sir.
1
Attributes? Check. Obama fits the profile right up until the part where he has to function as Lincoln did. That's where the comparison ends.
1
AACNY, yes and we can all thank the Republicans for this. Vote to repeal health care 59 times.
2
Hey Dave: Let me insert my two cents. I can tell you what candidates need - a respect for government and a willingness and desire to serve all facets of society. I can also tell you what elected politicians, as well as SCOTUS justices, need - term limits. Throw in public financing of campaigns only, and severe restrictions on lobbying of congress, and I think you have the beginnings of effective government.
12
Public financing of politics means incumbents will rule forever. Think about it!
Uh, the contrary Ted. Incumbents soak up the most contributions because they have political favors to give out in return. public financing goes out to all candidates, including challengers.
5
Hillary is probably the closest we'll get, her tactical cunning may be as good as Obama's. You have to ask yourself if she suffers from hubris.
3
Lincoln was human and thus fallible. Worshiping him or any other man doesn't allow us to fully examine the results of his policies and ask some tough, but apparently forbidden, questions.
One hundred and Fifty years after the end of the Civil War, the soul of our country is still impregnated with racism. North and south are bifurcated politically on almost every issue. The schism created by 600,000 death appears unbreachable.
And yet in current orthodoxy we never consider the consequences of the decision Lincoln didn't make. What if he'd allowed the south to separate? How long could the south have survived with a slavery dependent agrarian society in a quickly industrializing world? Might the south had come back into the Union willingly and abolished non-economic slavery without soaking our land in blood? Or did the unquestionable need to end slavery make the Civil War inevitable whether it started in 1861 or a decade later?
One hundred and Fifty years after the end of the Civil War, the soul of our country is still impregnated with racism. North and south are bifurcated politically on almost every issue. The schism created by 600,000 death appears unbreachable.
And yet in current orthodoxy we never consider the consequences of the decision Lincoln didn't make. What if he'd allowed the south to separate? How long could the south have survived with a slavery dependent agrarian society in a quickly industrializing world? Might the south had come back into the Union willingly and abolished non-economic slavery without soaking our land in blood? Or did the unquestionable need to end slavery make the Civil War inevitable whether it started in 1861 or a decade later?
4
I would also add one more fact about Lincoln that we need to look for in candidates: he got into politics because he believed in an idea, not just wanting to be famous. Lincoln had settled back into a successful career as a lawyer after losing repeatedly in Illinois state politics. It was only after the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have unleashed slavery across the West, which he felt passionately against, that he re-entered politics.
Which candidates now so clearly represent an idea, rather than themselves?
Which candidates now so clearly represent an idea, rather than themselves?
7
David says "we need ......someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning. ...... Well, at least we can find the closest possible approximation."
Yes, the closest approximation. For me, for the last 8 years, that person has been President Obama. I would LOVE to vote for an intelligent, responsible, honest, moderate, sincere conservative Presidential candidate (I thought e.g., Eisenhower, or Bush SENIOR approximated that). But what were, and still are, the choices on the Republican side? I cannot think of ONE candidate who approximates my wish list. I think McCain & Ron Paul are sincere people but they are EXTREME on militarism & economics respectively.
My guess is that a person with the qualities I described would not be allowed to be a viable candidate by the plutocrats who now run the Republican Party, the media & most of the government. A person like that would be unacceptable to the powers that be because he/she would be difficult to CONTROL. McCain & Ron Paul think for themselves to a great degree but they're so extreme, it may not be necessary to control them. And so we get only candidates like Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Palin, Perry, Bachman, etc. who in my opinion are basically "yes" people, who wouldn't stand up for what's right if they knew what it was, which they don't.
Yes, the closest approximation. For me, for the last 8 years, that person has been President Obama. I would LOVE to vote for an intelligent, responsible, honest, moderate, sincere conservative Presidential candidate (I thought e.g., Eisenhower, or Bush SENIOR approximated that). But what were, and still are, the choices on the Republican side? I cannot think of ONE candidate who approximates my wish list. I think McCain & Ron Paul are sincere people but they are EXTREME on militarism & economics respectively.
My guess is that a person with the qualities I described would not be allowed to be a viable candidate by the plutocrats who now run the Republican Party, the media & most of the government. A person like that would be unacceptable to the powers that be because he/she would be difficult to CONTROL. McCain & Ron Paul think for themselves to a great degree but they're so extreme, it may not be necessary to control them. And so we get only candidates like Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Palin, Perry, Bachman, etc. who in my opinion are basically "yes" people, who wouldn't stand up for what's right if they knew what it was, which they don't.
8
Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for this thoughtful article. It gives us pause as to what could be. Refreshing. Thanks, again.
3
"We will not get a Lincoln."
Too true, unfortunately, as Mr. Lincoln would be deemed far to liberal and progressive for modern times. By both Republicans and Democrats.
It is also worth noting how far the Republican Party has regressed since Mr. Lincoln...
Too true, unfortunately, as Mr. Lincoln would be deemed far to liberal and progressive for modern times. By both Republicans and Democrats.
It is also worth noting how far the Republican Party has regressed since Mr. Lincoln...
4
Agreed. In fact, I was joking to a colleague the other day that we should refer to right wing republican politicians (i.e. the status quo for republican politicians nowadays) as "regressives", akin to the term progressive as applied to what we now refer to as a liberal.
3
I for one hope that our next president has his feet firmly planted in the present with his eyes on the future. We won't get another Lincoln and we shouldn't because, guess what, it's 150 years later. So why shouldn't our next president, for example, be exceptionally well read and educated since there are so many more books and so much information readily available? Or is this a subtle preparation for extolling Scott Walker, the college dropout who feels higher education should be limited to simply to meeting work force needs. Why can't conservatives ever delight in the prospect of a different future?
5
Best of luck in your search for "the closest possible approximation." There's a reason that Lincoln stands out among U.S. presidents: people such as he was are rarities. You may want Lincoln, but no matter which party wins the White House, what you'll get will be a narcissist.
5
Good point. Lincoln was a republican that fought to KEEP the country together. A concept that is anathema to mainstream republican politicians at present.
5
Seems Mr. Brooks is preparing the way to endorse a Democrat for president. None of the current Repiblican contenders come close to meeting his minimum requirements. Unless he means a fundamental vision is code for Fundamentalist vision, golden temperment for gut-feeling, and shrewd stratagy for fear-mongering.
10
I do not agree with Mr. Brooks politically but God bless him, he is a great American. I think his tradition makes him a pretty devout and sincere lover of his country. Keep up the great work, David. We need more people like you who can articulate a point of view without being a snarky, condescending, intolerant, bitter, closed-minded burden.
One cannot help but be staggered by the greatness of Lincoln and Brooks captures some of the qualities that made him a sort of American savior. One of the things I find most hopeful in the story of Lincoln is that against the odds and against a tangle of complex challenges he was able to lead the country through to prosperity. He faced many of the same sorts of hate filled critics that dominate the politcal landscape today and he beat them. That tells me there is hope. No, there will never be another Lincoln but if we can get someone who in some small ways shares his greatness
One cannot help but be staggered by the greatness of Lincoln and Brooks captures some of the qualities that made him a sort of American savior. One of the things I find most hopeful in the story of Lincoln is that against the odds and against a tangle of complex challenges he was able to lead the country through to prosperity. He faced many of the same sorts of hate filled critics that dominate the politcal landscape today and he beat them. That tells me there is hope. No, there will never be another Lincoln but if we can get someone who in some small ways shares his greatness
3
Another eccentric Brooksian piece. "People with similar grades and test scores" are clustered on campuses. Hardly. I found students all over the intellectual map in 40 years of teaching at our state university. Lincoln read few books, so has Rick Perry. One of them was a genius, the other a fool. DO we know that Lincoln's moral vision did not come from his reading? People who suffer from lifelong depression, like myself, have not found any compensating intellectual benefits.
The good part of the essay is his description of the Whiggish vision. But I have to wonder if Lincoln would be a centrist Democrat in our sad and shrunken era.
The good part of the essay is his description of the Whiggish vision. But I have to wonder if Lincoln would be a centrist Democrat in our sad and shrunken era.
6
"Well, at least we can find the closest approximation."
It is impossible for me to imagine any of the current candidates of either major party coming close enough to be described as "an approximation" of Abraham Lincoln. The closest Mr. Brooks will ever see in his remaining lifetime is well into his second term.
It is impossible for me to imagine any of the current candidates of either major party coming close enough to be described as "an approximation" of Abraham Lincoln. The closest Mr. Brooks will ever see in his remaining lifetime is well into his second term.
23
Thank you. Our president gets far too little respect. in the midst of all this disrespect, we are witnessing one of the nation's great presidents.
20
based on your description of lincoln, we have one now. looking at the field of potential 2016 contenders, we're not likely to get another.
23
Lincoln entered Washington D.C. in secret and faced a the task of trying to keep the Southern states from seceding without any luck. The previous President had allowed cabinet members to help prepare the Southern states to go to war and the momentum was just too great. Lincoln was a former lawyer in private practice who became an effective politico and one of the founding members of the Republican Party but he was not a statesman and the country moved into Civil War as he watched helplessly. By the time Lincoln died he had transformed himself into a great statesman and an effective Chief Executive and master politician who had won the Civil War and started the transformation of the country into a strong and enduring union with laws and institutions more egalitarian and with more legal guarantees of individual liberty and stronger democratic institutions than had existed previously. It was one of the greatest transformations in history. Could Lincoln have transformed himself without the Civil War? There is no guarantee that he could have and no assurance that any other leader of his greatness would appear without similar challenges.
6
Well, since none of the candidates qualifies, let's look forward to 2020.
1
It also would help if the next president could fly, and bounce bullets off the big "S" on the front of the suit. Think of the savings from grounding Air Force 1, etc., as well as the savings from not having to turn to the military every time we need a little war.
Once again, Brooks provides little or nothing, thus adding to his standing as a conservative thinker.
Once again, Brooks provides little or nothing, thus adding to his standing as a conservative thinker.
8
Judging by Mr. Brooks's headline, he doesn't even consider what the American people need, just the candidates.
6
We have had just such a thoughtful, restrained, deep-thinking President for more than 6 years now -- and have we appreciated him? You know the answer to that. Perhaps part of the problem is that the nation today is almost as divided as it was then -- although with less reason (what is today's equivalent of slavery? I'm still wondering.).
32
Today's equivalent of slavery, politically, is the influence of religions on the state.
7
Today's equivalent of slavery is the "deep state" (apologies to Andrew O'Hehir, who coined it).
1
An interesting and thoughtful essay. But it leaves me wondering why you have consistently gone for the lesser Lincoln of the two major candidates in all of the elections where you have been writing this column. Or, to put it another way, why you continue to favor the Former Party of Lincoln (GOP or Greedy Old Plutocrats) when it is clear that that party has so clearly separated itself from anything that Lincoln stood for.
15
The current POTUS is an example of patience, fortitude and the ideology of parenting his country. The altruism shown by this POTUS in the face of deplorable adversity by a GOP party that does not resemble in any manner the sweetness of Lincoln's party and is in it for their own gain. Ego's ride the political trails of the GOP, nothing but egos. All talk, no plans, just creating chaos with their obstinate behavior, no growth whatsoever, only keeping the Status Quo, and Lincoln did not respect not adhere to the Status Quo. He was big enough, so much larger than any GOP candidate in today's world, that he forfeited his life for his morals which were universal and not individualistic as are the morals of Cruz, Walker, et al. Not one of them should be allowed to govern in the manner they wish to govern - plutocracy is another nice word for dictatorship of the masses.
When Lincoln prayed, he did not find it necessarily cunning to bring in a television station to film the manner in which he prays to his GOD, as did the mendacious, know nothing at all Teddy Boy I never miss a photo op Cruz, who remains high on the list of the pathetic.
When Lincoln prayed, he did not find it necessarily cunning to bring in a television station to film the manner in which he prays to his GOD, as did the mendacious, know nothing at all Teddy Boy I never miss a photo op Cruz, who remains high on the list of the pathetic.
25
The heirs to Confederacy still fight a philosophical guerrilla war 150 years after the end of the Civil War. Until all people of all backgrounds respect each other with no reservations, the ideological divide will continue. Even had Lincoln lived, he would not have changed hard liners. Only inner change will do that.
6
Lincoln sounds similar to Pope Francis, another man of the people who spent times with an array of characters. Book smarts, street smarts and compassion makes for great leaders.
1
Hmmmm.....interesting perspective...so...since Pope Francis has hinted he may "retire" as a Pope, might he be "drafted" at a convention to run for President ?? The very thought of a Pope/Hillary debate would be intriguing.....while he is on stage, when the debate is over, he could also hear Slick Willlie's confession.
Lincoln was amazing. He was elected President by a fluke as all stars seemed to align in his favor. Once in office, he faced Southern secession, civil war, slavery and handled all.
He was a great story-teller, who leaned to absent-mindedness in family duties.
He had been a country lawyer -- quite successfully -- the regional, backwoods equivalent of the People's rock star.
He went to Washington, only having been previously elected to one term as US Representative. Lincoln had no more experience than G H W Bush. Some Presidents had no governing experience--Taylor, Harrison, Grant, Taft, Hoover, and Eisenhower. The last is a curiosity. Whether in the Army, or in government, Ike's hand was on all controls. He was an exception among the others with no government experience, but like every President he too made mistakes.
Lincoln did the most after life dealt him the stingiest hand.
Elders' habit, now mainly gone, of telling an uncomprehending child he could be President one day, may have got started with Lincoln's example.
He was a great story-teller, who leaned to absent-mindedness in family duties.
He had been a country lawyer -- quite successfully -- the regional, backwoods equivalent of the People's rock star.
He went to Washington, only having been previously elected to one term as US Representative. Lincoln had no more experience than G H W Bush. Some Presidents had no governing experience--Taylor, Harrison, Grant, Taft, Hoover, and Eisenhower. The last is a curiosity. Whether in the Army, or in government, Ike's hand was on all controls. He was an exception among the others with no government experience, but like every President he too made mistakes.
Lincoln did the most after life dealt him the stingiest hand.
Elders' habit, now mainly gone, of telling an uncomprehending child he could be President one day, may have got started with Lincoln's example.
1
Seems like you are describing Barack Obama. He is the most emotionally mature president with the best temperament for the job since Roosevelt and Eisenhower. It seems that the way we choose our presidents these days does not pull for these qualities. How did we get so lucky with Obama? Can we elect him again?
40
Let's just start sporting bumper stickers "Obama in 2016". It'll drive McConnell and Boehner stupid. Oh, sorry, already there.
1
Lawrence Tribe now says Barack Obama was the best research assistant he ever had, even as he goes to court argue for people who want to burn more coal.
I sure had the impression that President Obama had thoroughly researched presidential history for himself after reading "The Audacity of Hope".
I sure had the impression that President Obama had thoroughly researched presidential history for himself after reading "The Audacity of Hope".
1
'But we do need someone with a portion of his gifts — someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning.'
= Hillary Clinton.
I appreciate Mr. Brooks endorsement. She has my vote.
= Hillary Clinton.
I appreciate Mr. Brooks endorsement. She has my vote.
6
If he hadn't kept saying Lincoln, you would think that Brooks was describing Ronald Reagan, from his "golden temperament" to his "consistent animating vision" to his belief in the transformative power of "hard, morally improving work" and being "extremely self-confident but also extremely humble". And yes, all the way down to being an "exceptionally poor hater".
If only we could find candidates of any party with those qualities.
If only we could find candidates of any party with those qualities.
2
Reagan, an "exceptionally poor hater". Here was a President who only mentioned AIDS twice during his tenure, was unpopular with most outside of white America, and allowed his wife to speak for him at critical moments. Really...?
2
Think Iran-Contra!
1
I'll take exception to that description of Reagan. He had little use nor care for the poor, gays and lesbians or blacks.
1
While I thoroughly enjoyed David Brooks's provocative and well-crafted piece, I think that he assumes that anybody could emulate Lincoln in today's world. Frankly, I think that Obama has many of Lincoln's traits, though the unrelenting screams and howls constantly seeking to demonize him make it extremely difficult to appreciate those qualities which he shares with Lincoln. Sadly, nobody could get by with brief, dry speeches these days. Nobody will get any credit for an incremental approach to governance, which is arguably one of Obama's strongest points. And nobody will get any credit at all for being a caring, kind, thoughtful person, full of good will toward others and love for his family and friends. Least of all Obama. I think that he is constantly attacked for not being sufficiently craven and pandering too little, qualities he shares with Lincoln, in my opinion. Long after the howling banshees have vanished into the bowels of history, Obama will be treated kindly and his achievements will be appreciated. The 24/7 news cycle and instant communication systems work strongly against a leader who is reflective, thoughtful, mature, of great wisdom, fundamentally fair and of great personal integrity. I think that Obama's problem is that he is a person of true depth of character, the great majority of whose audiences view things in two dimensions if not one. His best characteristics are invisible to them. Noone planning to stand for office now is his equal.
31
The closest Lincoln approximation, Mr. Brooks? And pigs might fly! Look at the Republican field. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Jeb 'Hispanic' Bush. Do you see even a smidgen of any Lincolnesque attribute? Probably, Scott Walker, without a college degree, comes closest! On Lincoln's 150th death anniversary, I plan to be immersed in a Lincoln biography. I will probably cry too, not for the lost president, but for our lost country.
31
No, not Walker.
He lacks a moral vision. Yes, he has played shrewdly, to divide and conquer, to advance himself AND the agenda of the uber rich at the expense of the citizenry in Wisconsin.
In the meantime, Wisconsin is a changed place, and not for the better. Beware.
He lacks a moral vision. Yes, he has played shrewdly, to divide and conquer, to advance himself AND the agenda of the uber rich at the expense of the citizenry in Wisconsin.
In the meantime, Wisconsin is a changed place, and not for the better. Beware.
2
We've wired our political system to weed out thoughtful people like Lincoln.
5
I look foreword to a future Brooks commentary on the GOP presidential field, as he compares candidates to Lincoln. It should be high entertainment.
Consider the Lincoln-like qualities of prior primary candidates, such as Perry, Santorum, Trump, Cain, Palin, McCain, Paul, etc. I'm confident that the GOP won't disappoint by offering up similar "statesmen" for this election cycle. Strap yourself in..........
Consider the Lincoln-like qualities of prior primary candidates, such as Perry, Santorum, Trump, Cain, Palin, McCain, Paul, etc. I'm confident that the GOP won't disappoint by offering up similar "statesmen" for this election cycle. Strap yourself in..........
6
As a Democrat, I suffer from Obama fatigue; not because of him but because of the political environment created by his being a black president so soon after the Civil War. Lincoln was divisive because of his views on slavery. His election sundered the nation. Let's face it, Obama is divisive because of his race.
I don't believe that Republican members of Congress are racist; but, I do believe that about half of the Republican base is and the implacable opposition and vitriol Congress has let loose on Obama is in tribute to that base.
Like Lincoln, Obama has stood up to that opposition but I can't anymore. As a Democrat, I long for a candidate of the center/left who is a white Protestant male. Such a candidate would lull the GOP partisans into a torpor because there would be no accident of birth to arouse their passions. The President's job would be much easier; making the required skill set less formidable and the political environment less toxic.
I don't believe that Republican members of Congress are racist; but, I do believe that about half of the Republican base is and the implacable opposition and vitriol Congress has let loose on Obama is in tribute to that base.
Like Lincoln, Obama has stood up to that opposition but I can't anymore. As a Democrat, I long for a candidate of the center/left who is a white Protestant male. Such a candidate would lull the GOP partisans into a torpor because there would be no accident of birth to arouse their passions. The President's job would be much easier; making the required skill set less formidable and the political environment less toxic.
1
Mr. Holland, I am a black democrat who shares your views about how Obama's racial status, and not necessarily him, have caused so much animosity during this Presidential cycle. I have no problem with the next President being a white Protestant male who could " lull the GOP partisans into a torpor". But then, as I mentioned earlier, I am a black Democrat. My mother told me before she died that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Not racial, but philosophical. I need, in 2016 a white male, Protestant, heterosexual, environmentalist, statesman that believes that being a Democrat is about more than winning an election.
2
We have the choice between the figureheads representing two barely organized coalitions.
1
Well your assessment may be right, David, but I don't think we can have President Obama for another 8 years.
25
Sounds a lot like Barack Obama to me. Unfortunately there's no one out there who is even close.
32
.....Lincoln was a product of his time....this is a different world. Our candidates reflect post World War11 America. Eisenhower's warning has taken place, now corporations, wealth and special interests rule. It took a long time to get in the hole we are in and no possibility of any quick fix....
8
Brooks uses the Op-Ed section, again, for his personal therapy and personal branding, trying to convince us that, even after shilling for Republican and trying to stop Obama's Burkean incrementalism throughout this presidency, Brooks can still be a high-minded intellectual, reformist, and Lincoln-lover who helps with a class at Yale, no less. Oh please. Can you pat yourself on the back any harder?
Brooks would destroy Lincoln if he were running for president today, as an Independent, or under the Democratic Party banner. He would be called a radical and a threat to the constitution.
Brooks would destroy Lincoln if he were running for president today, as an Independent, or under the Democratic Party banner. He would be called a radical and a threat to the constitution.
11
Don't forget that Brooks is also a purveyor of generalities so broad they almost have no content. And he's allowed to teach a history class at Yale? Amazing.
5
In my opinion, Thomas Jefferson's failure to order the manumission of York for making the Lewis and Clark expedition a success was a revelation of how despicable and duplicitous Jefferson was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_%28explorer%29
Lewis & Clark would have perished without him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_%28explorer%29
Lewis & Clark would have perished without him.
1
In our fractious times, it is good to remember that wisdom rather than perfection led the day. How deeply we lack the voice of wisdom.
1
It is interesting that the three people most prepared to be president, John Quincy Adams, Herbert Hoover and George H.W. Bush were all mediocre presidents.
Lincoln may not have had a lot of formal education. He was, however, like no current Republican. He was not afraid of using government for common purposes, and he was open minded and learned from reality.
Lincoln may not have had a lot of formal education. He was, however, like no current Republican. He was not afraid of using government for common purposes, and he was open minded and learned from reality.
5
Mr. Douthat:
Lincoln remains the gold standard for the office of the Presidency. Now the standard for running for President is gold. Aside from the educational non-requirement there are some obvious parallels with our sitting President, never more evident than the current negotiations with Iran.
On the other hand that lack of a formal education does open the door for a Scott Walker run to the Whitehouse. And I suppose that being free to control your own labor might be construed as the "right" to work that conservatives use to hamstring unions I'm pretty sure that Lincoln wouldn't have an anti-union bone in his body.
But, I must be in error to sugest such a connection. you would never advocate for someone lacking in that most important Lincolnian trait: humility.There isn't much of that to be found in American politics today,
especially on the right. The one political figure who exhibits that trait is sitting in the oval office right now.
Lincoln remains the gold standard for the office of the Presidency. Now the standard for running for President is gold. Aside from the educational non-requirement there are some obvious parallels with our sitting President, never more evident than the current negotiations with Iran.
On the other hand that lack of a formal education does open the door for a Scott Walker run to the Whitehouse. And I suppose that being free to control your own labor might be construed as the "right" to work that conservatives use to hamstring unions I'm pretty sure that Lincoln wouldn't have an anti-union bone in his body.
But, I must be in error to sugest such a connection. you would never advocate for someone lacking in that most important Lincolnian trait: humility.There isn't much of that to be found in American politics today,
especially on the right. The one political figure who exhibits that trait is sitting in the oval office right now.
9
"Philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning." I couldn't agree with you more; that weeds out the current GOP Presidential candidates and succinctly describes President Obama.
31
President Obama, a leader Brooks has held in contempt for the past six years, is not only Lincoln-like in many of the qualities he describes in this column, he has faced the most obstacles to success as president since Lincoln. True, FDR faced a Great Depression, but he had huge majorities in both houses of Congress and an abiding love of the majority of people. Lincoln faced a disintegrating nation in 1861 because of hot-heated, slave-loving secessionists in the South. Obama faced a conspiracy on the right to render him a failure from day one. And these conspirators drove relentlessly toward that end. Recently they teamed with a foreign leader to try to undermine a nuclear deal with Iran, anything to keep Obama from reaping the rewards of shrewd diplomacy.
How can Brooks not see how foolish he looks in not recognizing the Lincoln-like qualities of the man we have in the White House and in not seeing his chosen party as mirroring those who tried to bring the him and the Union down.
How can Brooks not see how foolish he looks in not recognizing the Lincoln-like qualities of the man we have in the White House and in not seeing his chosen party as mirroring those who tried to bring the him and the Union down.
33
I’m sorry to break this to Mr. Brooks, but President Lincoln is dead, and he is not coming back. Mr. Lincoln was a man for his times, and he rightly takes his place on the short list of our greatest presidents, but whether the man (and I am talking about the man, not the myth) would be right for these times, who can say? In any event, a certain political party seems to constantly yearn for elusive golden eras of days gone by and now embraces the hagiography of Ronald Reagan more than that of Lincoln. I dare say that same party would just as soon embrace the second coming of Jefferson Davis if it meant the downfall of Barack Obama.
10
Sadly, NONE of the current candidates have these qualities.
too bad for us.
too bad for us.
No Lincoln, Ghandi, Christ or even their own Saint Ronald could survive the republican thugs and vandals occupying the Congress today. No president before Obama has been so reviled and hated just because of who he is and what he looks like and what he is named and what he knows. No individual has suffered the multitude of slings and insults and constant harangue and right-wing lies and fantasies and conspiracy theories dished out daily on Fox, Limbag and other radical right common 'taters.
Moony Mr. Brooks sounds here as if he is talking to 3rd graders on heavy doses of Valium, little tykes who can't tell a bozo from a crazy from a wacko from a lying sack.
That the republicans, and Mr. Brooks, and anyone with even one-quarter wit, could subscribe to a party that includes and gives credence to the likes of Trump, Cruz, Jindal, Santorum, Ryan, McConnell, Bonor, Bachman, Gomert, and on and on, defies comprehension.
That Mr. Brooks' party could so drag down President Obama while electing, supporting, and still worshiping the myriad of unqualified and exuberantly stupid republicans in Congress, not to forget W and Cheeney, is repulsive in the extreme and those who spew against Obama should be treated with the scorn and derision they deserve.
Moony Mr. Brooks sounds here as if he is talking to 3rd graders on heavy doses of Valium, little tykes who can't tell a bozo from a crazy from a wacko from a lying sack.
That the republicans, and Mr. Brooks, and anyone with even one-quarter wit, could subscribe to a party that includes and gives credence to the likes of Trump, Cruz, Jindal, Santorum, Ryan, McConnell, Bonor, Bachman, Gomert, and on and on, defies comprehension.
That Mr. Brooks' party could so drag down President Obama while electing, supporting, and still worshiping the myriad of unqualified and exuberantly stupid republicans in Congress, not to forget W and Cheeney, is repulsive in the extreme and those who spew against Obama should be treated with the scorn and derision they deserve.
24
Ahhh David, you're quite the jokester, anticipating a Lincolnesque figure to emerge from this century's republican party. Haven't you noticed David? The GOP is into either of two models of government: 1) Anarchy, and 2) a new royal system that envisions two classes--the royals (1%ers) and the serfs. Lincoln-like figures don't figure prominently in those scenarios.
11
Mr Brooks, Sir:
From your pen to God's ears. If only....
From your pen to God's ears. If only....
Guess who will be celebrating the 150th anniversary of Lincoln"s assassination. Yes,you got it, his one party, the Obama haters.
7
We've had a "Lincoln" for six years. You haven't really appreciated him.
31
Hillary Clinton fits your criteria, DB.
4
Today, Abraham Lincoln would be called an anti-federalist.
2
I am sure that Brooks isn't suggesting that we close all schools and give young people five or six fundamental books from which to learn. As we know, there are people, perhaps not too many, who have both the persistence and the intelligence to do so, but it doesn't work as a general concept. I wonder what history would have said if Lincoln had lost the war. He would be considered as kind, compassionate man who tried his best but was, in the end, a failure. We are immensely grateful that he did not. A point to remember is that leaders have to be blessed with an historic emergency in their times that will allow them to revel their strengths, Lincoln, FDR, Churchill were all given that chance and they triumphed . Nowadays, we are fighting over the sex lives of people and whether we should go to sustainable energy. Very important issues, to be sure, but hardly the stuff that creates myths. The present group of contenders have as their goal the undoing of the safety net of the poor. Hardly an elevated ambition. So, Mr. Brooks, you are destined to keep on looking.
3
"...people should be free to control their own labor."
Somehow, in all this, it is this phrase that strikes me as an important principal to be cherished in any future President. I seriously doubt,however, that there is, among the gathering field of candidates Democrat or Republican, any one who would hold and cherish this thought. All of them seem to me to be intent on advancing the principal of corporate personhood, and gathering about it all the historic civil rights of this nation as if individual citizens were not the supreme concern of a democracy and its government. Corporations and the oligarchs they spawn are becoming superior citizens of the new corporatist state that we have become. And that state is hell bent on denying, first and foremost, our freedom to control our own labor and to be justly compensated for it.
Somehow, in all this, it is this phrase that strikes me as an important principal to be cherished in any future President. I seriously doubt,however, that there is, among the gathering field of candidates Democrat or Republican, any one who would hold and cherish this thought. All of them seem to me to be intent on advancing the principal of corporate personhood, and gathering about it all the historic civil rights of this nation as if individual citizens were not the supreme concern of a democracy and its government. Corporations and the oligarchs they spawn are becoming superior citizens of the new corporatist state that we have become. And that state is hell bent on denying, first and foremost, our freedom to control our own labor and to be justly compensated for it.
1
I can't wait for the column where Brooks endorses one of these republican dwarves and then has to explain how they are the most like Lincoln.
5
I notice you failed to mention honesty, honor or integrity. Surly you know these traits, as requisites, would invalidate all current democrat pretenders, most republicans and have Obama, both Clinton's, Harry Reid and Eric Holder, to name a few, in permanent incarceration.
1
obama is an exceptionally honorable man.
3
The problem is Lincoln never went up against the likes of Ted Cruz and obstructionists bowing to corporate shells. We need to marry the depth of Lincoln with the passion and downright aggression of LBJ
Mr. Brooks writes: "But we do need someone with a portion of his gifts — someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning."
We also need a president that is willing to engage with the opposite party in a way that empowers that party. Empowering doesn't mean capitulation. Rather, empowering means recognizing that the other party's perspective is just as valuable as one's own. It means respecting the other party's views and needs, and seeking the path that will address some of the needs of both parties. Our system of government requires compromise.
Only when all three branches embrace compromise will we as Americans progress as a society.
We also need a president that is willing to engage with the opposite party in a way that empowers that party. Empowering doesn't mean capitulation. Rather, empowering means recognizing that the other party's perspective is just as valuable as one's own. It means respecting the other party's views and needs, and seeking the path that will address some of the needs of both parties. Our system of government requires compromise.
Only when all three branches embrace compromise will we as Americans progress as a society.
2
Perhaps Mr. Obama failed to do this. Inside Washington reality is different from what leaks outside the Beltway but it seems to me that Obama's initial forays were pretty moderate although they were portrayed by whining spin doctors and on FUX News differently. They health of the nation, especially long term, seems to be way down on the list of factors deciding Party positions. With the faction driven decisions now in vogue the American Republic experiment is failing. Too bad.
As it is, the big money and apparatus of both parties will give us two candidates who want to be President and nothing more. What is it that Jeb and Hillary want to do for the country, other than appealing to their respective bases?
"We live in a partisan time, with movements who treat trimmers, compromisers and incrementalists harshly." And which party has done the most to create this environment? Which party's candidates run on promises to never compromise?
"He believed in a government that built canals and railroads and banks to stoke the fires of industry." Which party sees government as the problem, not the solution?
"He saw America as a land where ambitious poor boys and girls like himself could transform themselves through hard, morally improving work." Which party demonizes the poor (think Reagan's untrue "welfare queen" story) and works to defund programs like Head Start and SNAP which help the poor improve their lot in life?
The sad answer to these questions is the party of Lincoln... The poor man must be weeping in his grave.
"He believed in a government that built canals and railroads and banks to stoke the fires of industry." Which party sees government as the problem, not the solution?
"He saw America as a land where ambitious poor boys and girls like himself could transform themselves through hard, morally improving work." Which party demonizes the poor (think Reagan's untrue "welfare queen" story) and works to defund programs like Head Start and SNAP which help the poor improve their lot in life?
The sad answer to these questions is the party of Lincoln... The poor man must be weeping in his grave.
I wonder if Mr. Brook, in his "Grand Strategy" class, he has his students follow Mr. Lincoln's educational path or the current one he seems to hold in such low regard. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that his assignments are not based around meeting an "astounding array of characters" but, instead, text based. Just something to think about Mr. Brooks.
1
Lincoln was a man of qualities well matched to the needs of his time. But much of his perceived greatness is just that, the match of the man to his times. The ultimate sign of that greatness is that even before he was sworn in his very presence determined the fate of the nation. The South had already decided what this man would do before he did anything and started the process of secession.
We do not need this Lincolnesque faculty in our next president. As with every aspect of the famous Chinese curse we would be well advised to not try to live in exciting times.
What we need is a president that will keep us out of trouble, both internationally and here at home, for another term or two. Not someone who, with hubris, will try to turn the ship of state hard right or hard left.
That is the least we can do for our grandchildren.
We do not need this Lincolnesque faculty in our next president. As with every aspect of the famous Chinese curse we would be well advised to not try to live in exciting times.
What we need is a president that will keep us out of trouble, both internationally and here at home, for another term or two. Not someone who, with hubris, will try to turn the ship of state hard right or hard left.
That is the least we can do for our grandchildren.
2
This is an insightful portrait of Lincoln but I must take issue with Brooks'denigration of book learning. Anyone who has read the Lincoln-Douglas debates will recognize immediately how much more literate Lincoln (and his nineteenth century audience) was, compared to our contemporaries. Brooks elides the number of books assigned to students today with the number actually read, which is surely much fewer. This is especially strange given his parting lament over the influence of television on our political "discourse."
2
Brooks writes, "This year, Lincoln’s strategic restraint is the most necessary of his traits. We live in a partisan time, with movements who treat trimmers, compromisers and incrementalists harshly."
“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”
― Otto von Bismarck.
I have to agree with Mr Brooks that whatever our differences we need to choose our next president wisely. We should look to elect a "Great Compromiser." He or she should be able to wear the moniker as a badge of honor and not have to hide it as if it were a "scarlet letter."
“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”
― Otto von Bismarck.
I have to agree with Mr Brooks that whatever our differences we need to choose our next president wisely. We should look to elect a "Great Compromiser." He or she should be able to wear the moniker as a badge of honor and not have to hide it as if it were a "scarlet letter."
4
The next president's need to "perpetually disappoint" their fervent base is, I have no doubt, based on the rational assumption that Ms. Clinton will be the next president. If this country completely loses it's mind and Mr. Bush somehow falls off another hanging chad into the White House, that need to disappoint would most assuredly disappear with the speed of a Miami summer storm.
4
Your conclusion pre-empted my question: Could he have survived "the 24/7 self-branding campaign environment."
1
What we really need is another Franklin Roosevelt at this juncture in our political life. We need someone who will fight to reverse the decline of our middle class and the takeover of our nation by corporate interests and the plutocrats who run them. Lincoln faced very different problems and handled them as best he could for his times, but the economic and social situation that Roosevelt faced was much like our own. Actually, we could have used a Roosevelt seven years ago, and some of us thought we were getting one with President Obama. Even now, looking at the potential candidates, one comes up empty-handed. The Republicans are part of the corporate system, and even Hillary Clinton is too closely aligned with Wall Street. We need someone with a vision for change, such as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. And don't say that neither could really get anything done; that's what they said about FDR when he took office.
4
roosevelt was not universally admired at the time, and today, looking back we are watching the highlight reels. he did nothing to advance civil rights,turning a blind eye to lynching, interned japanese americans and tried to add seats to the supreme court, and the recovery to the depression took over a decade. of course he did great things. obama is too - he just doesn't have the advntage of a sepia toned glow yet.
David,
You think our problem is we're reading too much? As a recent graduate, I'd say about 5% of assigned reading is actually read. Of that 5%, 4% is read by kids strung up on adderal. Our problem is, no one actually reads, but everyone refers. Therefore, we get a referral society, a referral politics, a referral life, where we think we know the facts/argument/experience, but we are in fact impostures.
Too much reading is the opposite of our problem.
Nick
You think our problem is we're reading too much? As a recent graduate, I'd say about 5% of assigned reading is actually read. Of that 5%, 4% is read by kids strung up on adderal. Our problem is, no one actually reads, but everyone refers. Therefore, we get a referral society, a referral politics, a referral life, where we think we know the facts/argument/experience, but we are in fact impostures.
Too much reading is the opposite of our problem.
Nick
1
oops- David made a little slip. Whiggish history isn't about the Whigs. It is a contextual frame of events by historians who interpret history as inevitable progress towards a liberal and progressive end. It is a liberal point of view. Surely Brooks can't be speaking with admiration of that quality, can he? It also isn't necessarily flattering to interpret history as a chain of self- improving and self-correcting events since who says that all history is inevitability getting better and better?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
So either Brooks doesn't know what the word really means or doesn't know its undesirable connotation. Either way, it is a little Red Sea/Dead sea conflation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
So either Brooks doesn't know what the word really means or doesn't know its undesirable connotation. Either way, it is a little Red Sea/Dead sea conflation.
1
Mr. Brooks tries to tell us how devoid of sense is a political system that manages however often to choose as presidential candidates, persons of low caliber: intellectually, philosophically, and in any way important for what is needed in a president.
That seems to be the political system we have, that consistently results in a person without enough moral integrity, not to be so controlled by the industrial-military complex, and most abominably, also by special interest groups instead of a person who cares very deeply about the country's common good and its future. Plus, we need people who don't cave into their own arrogance, hubris, obstinacy, and tendency to self-serving or simply serving some 'party interest'.
The best potential candidates in fact are the first to be 'weeded out'.
What might be better would in fact be a kind of democratic process of elimination, which would start by giving anyone say with a high school education and being a U.S. citizen, a chance to compete in a kind of GRE (Graduate Record Examination) for the Presidency. The top 15% among these would then meet for a period of months to devise a new test with even higher standards, and then administer that test, resulting in a top 15%.
This process would continue, and perhaps take 2-3 years. The result would be a field of perhaps ten candidates. These could then run in a general election for president, and a second election could usually decide the winner.
That seems to be the political system we have, that consistently results in a person without enough moral integrity, not to be so controlled by the industrial-military complex, and most abominably, also by special interest groups instead of a person who cares very deeply about the country's common good and its future. Plus, we need people who don't cave into their own arrogance, hubris, obstinacy, and tendency to self-serving or simply serving some 'party interest'.
The best potential candidates in fact are the first to be 'weeded out'.
What might be better would in fact be a kind of democratic process of elimination, which would start by giving anyone say with a high school education and being a U.S. citizen, a chance to compete in a kind of GRE (Graduate Record Examination) for the Presidency. The top 15% among these would then meet for a period of months to devise a new test with even higher standards, and then administer that test, resulting in a top 15%.
This process would continue, and perhaps take 2-3 years. The result would be a field of perhaps ten candidates. These could then run in a general election for president, and a second election could usually decide the winner.
Mr. Gerson has described President Obama to a "T".
4
I do believe you mean David Brooks. And Brooks does describe President Obama to a T.
5
An inspirirational book about Lincoln is ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER. Boy, we sure could use this Abe to cull the herd of presidential candidates, especially those that never seem to die.
1
"This education gave him a moral vision that emerged from life, not from reading."
You mean "not from reading--all and sundry." The complete works of Shakespeare would be a lot of reading--read carefully. So too the Bible--read as the moral evolution of a people--and the evolution of its gods--personifications of ideals.
Also Lincoln was a lawyer--the British common law tradition (incorporated into US law) was another a great literary educator.
You mean "not from reading--all and sundry." The complete works of Shakespeare would be a lot of reading--read carefully. So too the Bible--read as the moral evolution of a people--and the evolution of its gods--personifications of ideals.
Also Lincoln was a lawyer--the British common law tradition (incorporated into US law) was another a great literary educator.
1
One has to wonder in reading this essay why David Brooks remains a conservative Republican.
The type of presidential candidate that Mr. Brooks is describing presently occupies the White House. But unlike in the Lincoln era there is no compromise, incrementalism, moral vision or any other intent other than to satisfy their fervent base with ideology and their 1% bosses amongst present day Republicans in Congress. This would have made governing as impossible for Lincoln as it has made it for Obama. There is no way to deal with a party that takes the position with respect to everything you say or propose of "No". There is no successful strategy to deal with a party that openly expresses its hatred for you and is not ashamed to publicly profess that even in your State of the Union address. What kind of party throws the president under the bus by inviting Netanyahu to address Congress on the eve of a deal with Iran. I don't recall Lincoln's opposition party making his defeat its number one priority. Today Lincoln would have sunken back into a deep depression.
So Mr. Brooks please write an essay that expresses your criteria for a candidate for US congress. We are all waiting.
The type of presidential candidate that Mr. Brooks is describing presently occupies the White House. But unlike in the Lincoln era there is no compromise, incrementalism, moral vision or any other intent other than to satisfy their fervent base with ideology and their 1% bosses amongst present day Republicans in Congress. This would have made governing as impossible for Lincoln as it has made it for Obama. There is no way to deal with a party that takes the position with respect to everything you say or propose of "No". There is no successful strategy to deal with a party that openly expresses its hatred for you and is not ashamed to publicly profess that even in your State of the Union address. What kind of party throws the president under the bus by inviting Netanyahu to address Congress on the eve of a deal with Iran. I don't recall Lincoln's opposition party making his defeat its number one priority. Today Lincoln would have sunken back into a deep depression.
So Mr. Brooks please write an essay that expresses your criteria for a candidate for US congress. We are all waiting.
10
America may have reached the point where the more compelling issue is not the person so much as the process by which they are chosen and the environment in which they function politically. Our political culture becomes ever more diametric, demagogic, and controlled by powerful brokers and agendas far removed from the experience, attitudes, and legitimate interests of the common citizen.
A Lincoln would be left trampled in the dust long before the first primary.
A Lincoln would be left trampled in the dust long before the first primary.
1
"You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time." - Abraham Lincoln
Too bad the Republicans are trying to fool all of the people all of the time. To mention Honest Abe in the same breath with the current Republican party is absurd. Which Republican - actually any candidate today - can have the "Honest..." in front of his or her name? Maybe Elizabeth Warren? I fear what the cesspool of vipers of the GOP would do to her if she runs.
3
Having read so many of the pieces in which David has focused on the pace of cultural change and the huge differences in the world compared with even a decade or two ago, it strikes me as somewhat bizarre - bordering on intellectual dishonesty - that he would even contemplate this kind of a comparison.
Much of what David describes about the forces which shaped Lincoln - his lack of formal education, his access to a few seminal works of literature rather than a broad swath of the Western Tradition, the opportunity to do "hard, morally improving work" (itself a product of his blue-sky frontier environs), even the even temperament required to succeed in a community where most interactions were face-to-face rather than mediated by electronic communications - are quite literally anachronisms. We simply don't live that way anymore, so citing them is ludicrous.
This is another of those cliched, pastoral fictions to which conservatives are so fond of writing odes whenever they need a premise for rejecting modernity. This is a dangerous, even corrosive, habit - taken to its extreme, we get groups like ISIS, who imagine some perfect past in which harmony prevailed and mankind lived in blessed spiritual communion with the cosmos. Which is to say it's pure fantasy.
The lack of people like Lincoln in today's politics is not because of some human failing, but because our progress has changed the environment. The notion that the two are unconnected is pure snake oil.
Much of what David describes about the forces which shaped Lincoln - his lack of formal education, his access to a few seminal works of literature rather than a broad swath of the Western Tradition, the opportunity to do "hard, morally improving work" (itself a product of his blue-sky frontier environs), even the even temperament required to succeed in a community where most interactions were face-to-face rather than mediated by electronic communications - are quite literally anachronisms. We simply don't live that way anymore, so citing them is ludicrous.
This is another of those cliched, pastoral fictions to which conservatives are so fond of writing odes whenever they need a premise for rejecting modernity. This is a dangerous, even corrosive, habit - taken to its extreme, we get groups like ISIS, who imagine some perfect past in which harmony prevailed and mankind lived in blessed spiritual communion with the cosmos. Which is to say it's pure fantasy.
The lack of people like Lincoln in today's politics is not because of some human failing, but because our progress has changed the environment. The notion that the two are unconnected is pure snake oil.
1
An hour after my bafflement at David Brooks seeming depiction of Barak Obama as the the perfect Lincolnesque presidential candidate, it dawned on me! He thought we would see that he was depicting JEB BUSH! A perusal of the NYT comments gives him an F for his effort.
6
Lincoln ran for office at a time where he was able to face his opponent have a debate and express his policy. Teh Public was not propagandized with media entertainers, talking heads, millions of dollars of advertising, public relations people, emphasis on demeaning the individual and not deal with policy, the candidates had to take positions and justify them. No, even Lincoln would become a product to be sold by the backers and special interests today. Different times David.
Strange as this truth might seem, the closest we have to what we actually need is Bernie Sanders. Beyond that, Lincoln could not have been what he was without the grassroots abolitionist movement that came up from below, powered by moral outrage, a wave that eventually remade what was possible in Lincoln's thought and action.
4
This was a head-turner, David. I am certain you are describing most of the very traits of Barack Obama that have been so viciously reviled by Republicans. Welcome to the Democratic side of the aisle!
9
Aw, David, you are such a romantic. Today's candidates are not about patriotism, principle or even ideology. Were it so, Congress would work. Rather, politics is about glitz and blitz and money and power and how to snooker more voters than the other guy, by any available means. Once elected, government works for the money that bought it.
3
One of these days, I'd like to see some historian compare the planners/calendars of various presidents, or even governors, side-by-side. The object would be to assess just how much time for reflection and perspective was available to leaders at different times. Was Lincoln's era like an episode of "West Wing", where seemingly every waking minute was an onslaught of competing distractions ("Walk with me")? Or did he have the luxury of being able to ponder major concerns in a more focussed manner? Are the candidates we might have now easily up to Pres. LIncoln's standards, as a thinker and human being, but largely prevented from realizing those virtues in any measure by the sheer breakneck pace of contemporary politicing, whether on the nomination or campaign trail, or in the office itself?
David, am I understanding you RIGHT!
Are you calling for repeal of 22nd amendment and reelection of Obama for the third term !!!?
Or how else can you have anyone of the paid and owned by deep pockets running candidates, Saudi owned Hillary or super PAC owned Republican candidate to be, come close to the integrity of the one and only "Honest Abe"?
Are you calling for repeal of 22nd amendment and reelection of Obama for the third term !!!?
Or how else can you have anyone of the paid and owned by deep pockets running candidates, Saudi owned Hillary or super PAC owned Republican candidate to be, come close to the integrity of the one and only "Honest Abe"?
7
It is time to undo Lincoln's greatest mistake - keeping the south. They have been a stone around our collective necks since before the revolution.
Having fought the south lincoln should have shipped save holders to the arab slave markets which still operate today. and then cut the south free.
The "south shall rise again" crowd (gop) is determined to destroy the nation.
what a tragic mistake
Having fought the south lincoln should have shipped save holders to the arab slave markets which still operate today. and then cut the south free.
The "south shall rise again" crowd (gop) is determined to destroy the nation.
what a tragic mistake
3
There is another parallel: Lincoln and Obama are the Presidents most subject to racist attack by their opponents, perhaps along with FDR.
51
David Brooks wrote: "[Lincoln] hoped that if he limited the demand for slaves (by paying people not to keep them) he could drive down the price and render the whole enterprise unprofitable."
Conversely, Doris Goodwin wrote:
Back in March [1862], as foreshadowed in a message to Congress, Lincoln had asked the legislature to pass a joint resolution providing federal aid to any state willing to adopt a plan for gradual abolition of slavery. Lincoln had calculated that "less than one half-day's cost of this war would pay for all slaves in Delaware at four hundred dollars per head," and that eighty-seven days' expenses would buy all the slaves in all the other border states combined. He believed that nothing would bring the rebellion to an end faster than a commitment by the border slave states "to surrender on fair terms their own interest in Slavery rather than see the Union dissolved." [NYTimes, July 13, 1862] If the rebels were deprived of hope that these states might join the Confederacy, they would lose heart.
The proposal depended upon approval by the border-state representatives, who would have to promote the plan in their state legislatures. [T]hey refused to endorse the proposal. Even when Lincoln personally renewed his plea to them on July 12, they argued that "emancipation in any form" would lengthen, not shorten, the war. They insisted that the measure would unjustly punish those who remained loyal to the Union, while the rebellious states retained their slaves.
Conversely, Doris Goodwin wrote:
Back in March [1862], as foreshadowed in a message to Congress, Lincoln had asked the legislature to pass a joint resolution providing federal aid to any state willing to adopt a plan for gradual abolition of slavery. Lincoln had calculated that "less than one half-day's cost of this war would pay for all slaves in Delaware at four hundred dollars per head," and that eighty-seven days' expenses would buy all the slaves in all the other border states combined. He believed that nothing would bring the rebellion to an end faster than a commitment by the border slave states "to surrender on fair terms their own interest in Slavery rather than see the Union dissolved." [NYTimes, July 13, 1862] If the rebels were deprived of hope that these states might join the Confederacy, they would lose heart.
The proposal depended upon approval by the border-state representatives, who would have to promote the plan in their state legislatures. [T]hey refused to endorse the proposal. Even when Lincoln personally renewed his plea to them on July 12, they argued that "emancipation in any form" would lengthen, not shorten, the war. They insisted that the measure would unjustly punish those who remained loyal to the Union, while the rebellious states retained their slaves.
The lead in to this opinion describes Barack Obama perfectly.
4
No, we won't come close to finding any approximation of Lincoln in our next president.
2
By Mr. Brooks' Lincoln testimonial, he should adore the current presidency and despise the previous one. Can the writer be that oblivious to his own contradictions?
2
One can grow up under an intellectual tradition that values holding mutually contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
All the commenters saying that this article describes Obama exemplify what is really what is wrong with our presidency. Voters who are blinded by the allure of celebrity rather than by experience and proven leadership skills are the ones responsible for our decline in the world.
2
Mr. Brooks provides a distorted picture of Lincoln. He didn't read much literature (and I doubt any of the candidates today do either and most of them wouldn't considering going to see a Shakespeare play as a source of pleasure) but he was well read in history especially U.S. history as witnessed by many of his speeches such as his 1860 one at Cooper Union.
And as to his not being able to make it in politics in the modern day of TV, I always remember Gore Vidal saying that this was a complete myth and that Lincoln, due to his wit, could have hosted the Tonight Show.
Finally, Mr. Brooks doesn't mention that in the modern day Mr. Lincoln wouldn't even be considered for the presidency for another reason. During a period of his early life he became severely depressed and his friends were so worried that he was suicidal that they kept a round-the-clock watch on him. Today no doubt they'd demand he see a psychiatrist which would in the eyes of many, especially modern day Republicans, would disqualify him from high office.
And as to his not being able to make it in politics in the modern day of TV, I always remember Gore Vidal saying that this was a complete myth and that Lincoln, due to his wit, could have hosted the Tonight Show.
Finally, Mr. Brooks doesn't mention that in the modern day Mr. Lincoln wouldn't even be considered for the presidency for another reason. During a period of his early life he became severely depressed and his friends were so worried that he was suicidal that they kept a round-the-clock watch on him. Today no doubt they'd demand he see a psychiatrist which would in the eyes of many, especially modern day Republicans, would disqualify him from high office.
What position do you imagine Lincoln would have taken on today's burning issues? Immigration, marginalizing the 99%, entering war after war against the will of the people, tax regulations that favor the rich and cripple the middle class? Lincoln was a RINO!
5
Is this the same Lincoln who chose Andrew Johnson as his running mate on a "Unity Ticket"?
The Andrew Johnson widely regarded as the worst president in US History?
Yes, even worse than G. W. Bush. And by so selecting a former slave-holding, southern Democrat as running mate, may also have served to bring about his own assassination by a Southern sympathizer. Johnson's ascension to the Oval Office assured the failure of Reconstruction - a sin for which the nation continues to pay unto this very day.
BTW, David , nice little plug for yourself finding a way to mention that you "help out" at Yale......and then stating:
"Most of Lincoln’s efforts were designed to tamp down passion for the sake of sustainable, incremental progress."
Ironically, your description of Lincoln's measured temperament sounds very much like that of the present occupant of the White House whom you and your party so disdain.
The Andrew Johnson widely regarded as the worst president in US History?
Yes, even worse than G. W. Bush. And by so selecting a former slave-holding, southern Democrat as running mate, may also have served to bring about his own assassination by a Southern sympathizer. Johnson's ascension to the Oval Office assured the failure of Reconstruction - a sin for which the nation continues to pay unto this very day.
BTW, David , nice little plug for yourself finding a way to mention that you "help out" at Yale......and then stating:
"Most of Lincoln’s efforts were designed to tamp down passion for the sake of sustainable, incremental progress."
Ironically, your description of Lincoln's measured temperament sounds very much like that of the present occupant of the White House whom you and your party so disdain.
3
Restraint is important, but not the most important characteristic needed. Obama has been restrained for most of his time in office. But he has been opposed since 2010 by a Congress that shows absolutely no restraint. The next president needs the ability to label these guys as the buffoons that they are.
4
Mr. Brooks: Can you claim with a straight face that you believed in 2008 and 2012 that John McCain and Mitt Romney possessed more of these gifts you describe than Barack Obama? Or that George W. Bush came out ahead of either Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry in 2004 in the same way?
Or is this just the type of doubletalk you use before voting (and campaigning in your column) in a purely partisan manner? This all makes it hard to take you seriously.
Or is this just the type of doubletalk you use before voting (and campaigning in your column) in a purely partisan manner? This all makes it hard to take you seriously.
7
Lincoln's greatest desire was for the unity of America. Sadly, the vision of today's country espoused by one of our two major parties is disunity, with its formulation of "makers vs. takers," its binary division of society into those who deserve and those who don't, its refusal to compromise, its unending assault on federal safety nets. I've been an admirer of Obama, but if a Republican candidate (Jeb Bush?) emerges who can steer "the party of Lincoln" away from its present destructive divisiveness, I'd be inclined to vote for that candidate.
Agree with you.Likely,the next President,whomever it is ,isn't going to be a divisive as Obama.Maybe lean us in the direction of a free people and away from govt dictatorship.
Obama isn't divisive. Quite the opposite. It's the Republicans that are consciously tearing the country apart for perceived political gain in a nation that has lost the capacity to think clearly. These people would have been locked in the basement 40 years ago - by Republicans.
4
The 2016 election results are not in doubt. The Dems win.
Electoral Arithmetic-
1. Electoral votes needed to elect a president: 270
2. Current solid red state Republican electors: 102
3. Current solid blue state Democrat electors: 246
The Republicans have to find 168 more electors from the swing states.
The Dems only need to find 24.
The Republican Party will lose again and will blame:
- the liberal media
- massive vote fraud (but will still not be able to find actual evidence of it)
- their candidate who wasn't conservative enough
http://www.redstate.com/diary/6755mm/2013/08/10/can-any-republican-win-2...
Electoral Arithmetic-
1. Electoral votes needed to elect a president: 270
2. Current solid red state Republican electors: 102
3. Current solid blue state Democrat electors: 246
The Republicans have to find 168 more electors from the swing states.
The Dems only need to find 24.
The Republican Party will lose again and will blame:
- the liberal media
- massive vote fraud (but will still not be able to find actual evidence of it)
- their candidate who wasn't conservative enough
http://www.redstate.com/diary/6755mm/2013/08/10/can-any-republican-win-2...
What WE need is candidates who will eliminate special interest legislation from being even possible.
1
When I read between the lines, this spells "Scott Walker Endorsement".
1. Not overly bookish (Eagle Scout, High School Grad) but fond of the Bible, especially Reagan's.
2. Known for firm hand re: organized labor. "He believed slavery was wrong in part because people should be free to control their own labor"
3. Appearance. "A person with his face could not survive the TV age". (We'll see!)
1. Not overly bookish (Eagle Scout, High School Grad) but fond of the Bible, especially Reagan's.
2. Known for firm hand re: organized labor. "He believed slavery was wrong in part because people should be free to control their own labor"
3. Appearance. "A person with his face could not survive the TV age". (We'll see!)
19
I'll add some updated for modern times:
4. Always looking out for the "little guy" like the Koch brothers, his prominent backers.
5. A gifted speechwriter. Example, explaining how he could take on terrorists, becasue after all he dealt with the labor unions.
4. Always looking out for the "little guy" like the Koch brothers, his prominent backers.
5. A gifted speechwriter. Example, explaining how he could take on terrorists, becasue after all he dealt with the labor unions.
1
This is the kind of "logic," that had people, in Lincoln's day, attacking Frederic Douglass and Emancipation on the grounds that they were destroying the economy built by decent white people, and helping black people take over America.
I thought the same thing, but then I remembered that Lincoln signed the Morrill Act creating the state land grant colleges and quickly realized that Mr. Brooks was definitely not talking about Scott Walker.
1
Brooks isn't describing anyone in the GOP, certainly not any of its potential 2016 candidates, but nor is he describing President Obama. Obama's cavalier respect for the truth and complete inability to judge and deal with the most pressing issues of our times did two things: it decimated the once-ascendant Democratic Party (the party best suited to de with the most pressing issues of our time) and punted the problems down the road. Say what you want about the Affordable Care Act, but it wasn't incremental progress that addressed the nation's biggest priorities, and it wasn't worth sacrificing the Democratic majority. Lincoln made bold, but wise, progress and left his party in good shape after he was gone. Democrats need to come to terms with the fact that they will be cleaning up Obama's mistakes for years to come and that Obama's tenure was a great opportunity lost.
12
@ Maverick
You'd have to wonder why if he's decimated the once ascendant Democrat party he's the first Democrat since FDR to receive over 50% of the popular vote in two successive elections.
You'd have to wonder why if he's decimated the once ascendant Democrat party he's the first Democrat since FDR to receive over 50% of the popular vote in two successive elections.
1
I'd lov to see you prove so much as ONE of these bizarre claims, starting with the bit about health care and affordibility NOT being a vital national priority.
2
Nor is he described Her Royal Clintoness or any other Democrat.
1
There will always be great personalities to lead a nation. However, I wonder it is the nature of the constituents. Maybe I am just an elitist but it occurs to me mob rules these days. The more extreme, the better. To be clear, individually people are fine; but somehow they become rabid as a collective. And money seems to be a way to corral them together. If we can solve this problem, maybe the next Lincoln will emerge. In the mean time, all things being relative, President Clinton and President Obama seem to be the better of the lot in recent times
Mr. Lincoln was a legal advocate on retainer for the Illinois Central Railroad, the biggest of industries in 19th century America. Mr. Brooks childish Lincoln fantasy is oddly out of place in the New York Times.
1
So David, I'm sure most readers like myself read your column breathlessly waiting to see which President in all US history you thought was closest to the general perception of Lincoln-but you ducked out. Certainly not Jefferson, slaver to the end. Reagan who is the modern father of America's declining middle class? FDR? Well, maybe. How about Obama? Certainly the most intelligent, even tempered and broadly informed of ANY president. Nahhhhhhhh.
At least probably not a single American would name either of the Bushes. Wanna try three strikes and you're out?
At least probably not a single American would name either of the Bushes. Wanna try three strikes and you're out?
2
I'll settle for "fact based" as a starter for a President, which excludes the current incarnation of the Republican Party. Let's see, if we listen closely to them, we'll hear that tax cuts increase revenues, Fannie and Freddie (not Wall St. investment banks) were the primary cause of the crisis, climate change is neither risky nor man-influenced, Obamacare is a job-killer and deficit-driver, income inequality is desirable, and both hyperinflation and debt crises are imminent (since 2009).
With a record of wrong like that, it's a wonder that anyone admits to being a Republican. Yet the media continues to prop them up. Over 200 people have announced for President. How about covering them?
With a record of wrong like that, it's a wonder that anyone admits to being a Republican. Yet the media continues to prop them up. Over 200 people have announced for President. How about covering them?
1
Maybe if Lincoln had studied a little more he would have discovered that America was supposed to develop not by providence but by design. The civil war is still being fought because providence has led us to believe that somehow the wrongs we perceive in society will go away with the passage of time.
I have watched my Quebec evolve from a rigid ultra-conservative church dominated hierarchical society into a democracy in less than 70 years. The nature of society is written in binding legislation that demands equality and social justice. Providence is for religious institutions and in our secular society the unknowable realm is for those that choose perception over reality.
We will have no civil war the ballot box is our providence.
The USA continues to demand that its political class be nothing more than puppets on a string the last President who chose to defy the wealth and power that runs America was Jimmy Carter, until America decides on whether it really wants to join the 21st century it will continue to flounder. America doesn't need a Messiah or a strong leader it needs a team of draftsmen to draw up plans. I was an adult when Reagan took office he was as real as John Wayne, Roy Rogers and Errol Flynn who were great actors, Reagan was a COWARD playing a hero and now providence has given us the UnUnited States of America.
The Whigs gave Ireland the Starvation how many will have to die because Sir Robert Peel was too wishy washy and we want Lord John Russell.
I have watched my Quebec evolve from a rigid ultra-conservative church dominated hierarchical society into a democracy in less than 70 years. The nature of society is written in binding legislation that demands equality and social justice. Providence is for religious institutions and in our secular society the unknowable realm is for those that choose perception over reality.
We will have no civil war the ballot box is our providence.
The USA continues to demand that its political class be nothing more than puppets on a string the last President who chose to defy the wealth and power that runs America was Jimmy Carter, until America decides on whether it really wants to join the 21st century it will continue to flounder. America doesn't need a Messiah or a strong leader it needs a team of draftsmen to draw up plans. I was an adult when Reagan took office he was as real as John Wayne, Roy Rogers and Errol Flynn who were great actors, Reagan was a COWARD playing a hero and now providence has given us the UnUnited States of America.
The Whigs gave Ireland the Starvation how many will have to die because Sir Robert Peel was too wishy washy and we want Lord John Russell.
2
Did Mr. Brooks just write a cheeky essay describing Barack Obama cloaked as a piece on LIncoln?
2
Yes he did!
1
All this does is reinforce the fact that the world of today is vastly different from the world in Lincoln's day. Human nature may be the same, and there are virtues that will always be desirable, but beyond that, as a practical matter, all bets are off.
Mr. Brooks is attempting to tell us how devoid of sense is a political system that manages too often to choose as presidential candidates, persons of low caliber: intellectually, philosophically, and in any way important for what is needed in a president.
That seems to be the political system we have, which has consistently resulted in only persons who can be controlled by the industrial-military complex, and most abominably, also by special interest groups instead of persons who care about the country's common good and its future.
The best potential candidates in fact are the first to be 'weeded out'.
What might be better would in fact be a kind of democratic process of elimination, which would start by giving anyone say with a high school education and being a U.S. citizen, a chance to compete in a kind of GRE (Graduate Record Examination) for the Presidency. The top 15% among these would then meet for a period of months to devise a new test with even higher standards, and then administer that test, resulting in a top 15%.
This process would continue, and perhaps take 2-3 years. The result would be a field of perhaps ten candidates. These could then run in a general election for president, and a second election could usually decide the winner.
That seems to be the political system we have, which has consistently resulted in only persons who can be controlled by the industrial-military complex, and most abominably, also by special interest groups instead of persons who care about the country's common good and its future.
The best potential candidates in fact are the first to be 'weeded out'.
What might be better would in fact be a kind of democratic process of elimination, which would start by giving anyone say with a high school education and being a U.S. citizen, a chance to compete in a kind of GRE (Graduate Record Examination) for the Presidency. The top 15% among these would then meet for a period of months to devise a new test with even higher standards, and then administer that test, resulting in a top 15%.
This process would continue, and perhaps take 2-3 years. The result would be a field of perhaps ten candidates. These could then run in a general election for president, and a second election could usually decide the winner.
well...
interesting to think about Mr. Brooks lauding President Lincoln,
certainly one of this country's first "federal" presidents...
urging 'national' goals that were quite contradictory to local/state separatist notions...all for the betterment of the common good...
and Brooks' reference to the transcontinental railroad building is truly fascinating:
in at least two, quick takeaways:
one, active "federal" involvement in 'infrastructure' building,
two, the desperate need and use-of immigrants to make the actual construction possible...
hmmmm
and about those "debt-funded" - investments that he initiated?
President Lincoln, above all else, was committed to a "future" very-progressive america...
the present batch of republican presidential candidates have completely opposite mandates, particularly in their focus to return this nation to a pre-Lincoln era...
perhaps, Brooks might suggest a Lincolnesque reading list for his preferred party to undertake as pre-qualification for obtaining the nomination?
interesting to think about Mr. Brooks lauding President Lincoln,
certainly one of this country's first "federal" presidents...
urging 'national' goals that were quite contradictory to local/state separatist notions...all for the betterment of the common good...
and Brooks' reference to the transcontinental railroad building is truly fascinating:
in at least two, quick takeaways:
one, active "federal" involvement in 'infrastructure' building,
two, the desperate need and use-of immigrants to make the actual construction possible...
hmmmm
and about those "debt-funded" - investments that he initiated?
President Lincoln, above all else, was committed to a "future" very-progressive america...
the present batch of republican presidential candidates have completely opposite mandates, particularly in their focus to return this nation to a pre-Lincoln era...
perhaps, Brooks might suggest a Lincolnesque reading list for his preferred party to undertake as pre-qualification for obtaining the nomination?
2
David, take a leap. Give us a Republican Presidential candidate that most closely approximates the sainted Lincoln. Your loyal readers are all anxiously awaiting. Still waiting!
3
Or a Democrat that is any closer to Lincoln - none of those either.
"We cluster our students on campuses with people with similar grades and test scores."
That sentence, I believe, accurately describes the background of most of our presidential candidates. Whether they were clustered in cloisters or cloistered in clusters, it seems to me that what was done to them in an Ivy League school needs to be undone before they should even think about running for high office. Had Lincoln went to such a school, he wouldn't have been president. He likely would have been a better lawyer or a teacher. This piece is a good description of the man who rose from a humble beginning to become one of our best presidents. Good article.
That sentence, I believe, accurately describes the background of most of our presidential candidates. Whether they were clustered in cloisters or cloistered in clusters, it seems to me that what was done to them in an Ivy League school needs to be undone before they should even think about running for high office. Had Lincoln went to such a school, he wouldn't have been president. He likely would have been a better lawyer or a teacher. This piece is a good description of the man who rose from a humble beginning to become one of our best presidents. Good article.
What a candidate needs is a lot of money and a share of the base that is verifiably committed to them. Add a skin that is thick, especially if it is female or black. A clean twitter history, plus lot of luck--to avoid open mouths and open mikes. The idea that the right-wing machine is going to extol what moralists might agree are virtues is sadly out of touch--or deliberately distractive.
Some of what Mr. Brooks says about Lincoln very much applies to President Obama. When you read his two books about his early childhood you understand his introspective nature , the struggles he went through personally to understand his own nature. President Obama has the power in his rhetoric to rise to great heights, but in general he has a quieter , more thoughtful aspect which some have criticized as diffidence. But in his own way he has stood up to monstrous unjustified criticism and still maintains the courage to lead a extremely divided country and create initiatives which are bold such as his opening to Cuba and agreement with Iran showing restraint where others would have resorted to brute force. President Obama took over his office when our economic system was about to melt down from an incompetent previous President and yet steadily he has worked to rebuild our economy with a stimulus that while not big enough was the best he could get politically passing Dodd Frank and providing millions with health care. Perhaps we are too close to President Obama each with our own prejudices especially Republicans who can not acknowledge his strength, but I hope that Mr. Brooks and the rest of us come to see the truth of President Obama. He is not Lincoln, no one is as Mr. Brooks says, but each person has their strengths and weaknesses and President Obama has many more of the former than the latter.
5
For Brooks to claim that Lincoln was a "gradualist" when considering emancipation is false. As early as 1861 the first of the Confiscation Acts became Union policy. This began when three slaves escaped to Union lines and General Butler refused a rebel request to return "property" to its rightful owners. The slaves were declared to be contraband of war and on Aug. 1861 they were declared as "persons" who could be emancipated. In March 1862, Lincoln signed a bill nullifying the fugitive slave law. By July 1862 the second Confiscation Act created a law designed to destroy slavery and directly emancipated slaves within Union lines. Brooks also omits Lincoln's most important quality--his sense of justice. Lincoln demanded that the South exchange black Union POW's for white Confederates. However, their policy was that captured blacks be returned to slavery and refused to honor Lincoln's request but would continue to repatriate white POW's. Lincoln refused and ended the policy of prisoner exchange. Here is Witts's (Lincoln's Code, pg. 263) explanation: By insisting on nondiscrimination Lincoln's code had a part in a humanitarian disaster. 55000 died in the camps, but many would have been saved if the exchanges had continued. For Lincoln, humanitarian suffering was sacrificed to serve cause of justice for black soldiers. Lincoln was subjected
to vicious criticism for taking this stand. These wrenching moral choices is what marks him as our greatest president.
to vicious criticism for taking this stand. These wrenching moral choices is what marks him as our greatest president.
1
Learn more history: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union” A Lincoln (1862). Personally he strongly opposed slavery, but was quite prepared to take a very gradual approach if that would have saved the lives cost by the war. Even the Emancipation Proclamation only freed some of the slaves - those in areas not controlled by the Union.
The most telling observation in Brooks' column, today, is this: "We live in a partisan time, with movements who treat trimmers, compromisers and incrementalists harshly." These adjectives, somewhat euphemistic, would seem to describe those who want to "trim" programs such as the deficit and the size of government as well as social safety-nets, Social Security, the ACA (although repeal is the more accurate intent), food stamps, and women's personal healthcare; compromisers in the Republican party are invisible as they oppose and denounce anything our president attempts just because he is our president, a twice-elected Democrat, and incrementalists, a likely dig at the incredibly rapid transition in American attitudes towards the GLBT segment of our society and same-sex marriage;in short, we should be moving much more slowly, baby steps, in providing equality as the courts find state bans decidedly unconstitutional. Subtle as a freight train, Mr. Brooks. He also asserts that "candidates who don't have a contradictory temperament have no way to check themselves and thus dangerous." This, ironically, applies to every Republican candidate, formally announced and planning to do so. And learning Brooks "helps with" a Grand Strategy class at Yale is alarming. Is he a T.A.? Harrumph! Of course not. And with whom does he compromise in the class at Yale? The Bush family are Yale products. Should we be worried?
1
What is Lincoln's real legacy memorial?
Along with his American compatriot Jefferson Davis, Abraham Lincoln managed to kill 750,000 of his fellow Americans in about 4 years. That is more Americans who have died than in all of America's other wars combined. Putting that casualty in a contemporary perspective context requires multiplication by 10 because there were only 30 million Americans. And about 4 million of those Americans were Black African Americans who were denied their humanity as persons because they were deemed chattel property slaves.
Great American Presidents tend to be defined by crisis-revolution, civil war, regional or world war. Abraham Lincoln was only elected President of the United States one time. And he did not win by a landslide that time. Nor did he win the second time by national acclamation in an election by less than the United States.
Out of his context and time a one time elected U.S. Congressman rural rube like Lincoln may never have been elected to any office or been a failure. The notion that the American political system is a meritocracy rests in denial of the persistence of mostly white male plutocrats living in the White House. Lincoln's "genius" benefits from knowing the outcome of his actions.
What candidates need are great challenging times. Along with the wisdom, character, courage and luck to deal with the uncertain future effectively.
Along with his American compatriot Jefferson Davis, Abraham Lincoln managed to kill 750,000 of his fellow Americans in about 4 years. That is more Americans who have died than in all of America's other wars combined. Putting that casualty in a contemporary perspective context requires multiplication by 10 because there were only 30 million Americans. And about 4 million of those Americans were Black African Americans who were denied their humanity as persons because they were deemed chattel property slaves.
Great American Presidents tend to be defined by crisis-revolution, civil war, regional or world war. Abraham Lincoln was only elected President of the United States one time. And he did not win by a landslide that time. Nor did he win the second time by national acclamation in an election by less than the United States.
Out of his context and time a one time elected U.S. Congressman rural rube like Lincoln may never have been elected to any office or been a failure. The notion that the American political system is a meritocracy rests in denial of the persistence of mostly white male plutocrats living in the White House. Lincoln's "genius" benefits from knowing the outcome of his actions.
What candidates need are great challenging times. Along with the wisdom, character, courage and luck to deal with the uncertain future effectively.
Lincoln's real legacy is 2 things: the ending of our original sin at the penance of 750,000 of our souls. There was no other way to get there and no way to avoid it once the south started secession (before Lincoln was inaugurated). The South fired first and fought for only one state's right, the power to own other humans. And 2: the alternative was not the strong modern US we have, but at least 2 and probably more nations with European-like animosities -- and, of course, the continuation of slavery which remained very profitable and was a more productive agricultural labor system than the South had for the next 100 years.
Lincoln's genius and perseverance for the good of the nation in spite of the cost is self-evident.
Lincoln's genius and perseverance for the good of the nation in spite of the cost is self-evident.
I hadn't known that Lincoln opened fire on Fort Sumter after forcing theSouth to secede. thanks.
"But we do need someone with a portion of his gifts — someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning". Maybe that person is right in front of our eyes and we have not recognized him. He is Barack Obama, maybe not so much tactically cunning, but we have many others who are cunning to fill in that "gift".
5
Alas, this election will be between "none of the above" and "the lesser of two evils".
3
Many comments have well taken points about how Lincoln would not be electable in today's political world. But he was also known as a spellbinding storyteller, and many of his stories elucidated important ideas. And when attacked he could reply with humor which destroyed the attack and made the attacker look foolish. Imagine such a candidate today charming audiences this way. This is what makes Bill Clinton so likeable, and Clinton was not as sophisticated at this as Lincoln. Lincoln was like a Will Rogers of his time, and Rogers wasn't much to look at either.
31
Or we could keep Obama four more years .
11
ovomit is doing his best to make America a lifeless burning wreck by 2016. His work appears to be almost finished, time to rebuild!
" a fundamental vision, a golden temperament and a shrewd strategy for how to cope with the political realities of the moment.".... " someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning". Thank you for describing why we are so fortunate to have Barack Obama as our president.
3
For all his intellectual gifts, Mr Brooks seems woefully unable to perceive the world about him. "...someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning..." is the very definition of Barack Obama, and Mr Brooks, who probably lives within a hour's walk of the White House, is so far out of the loop that he can't see it.
2
Mr. Brooks,
"...we do need someone with a portion of his gifts — someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning."
How great that we are fortunate enough to have a president who meets those needs, not just a portion of them. And that's what eats at his far less talented opponents.
As a life-long, active Republican, I find those currently in charge as an embarrassment. Their main goal is to deny the President the slightest accomplishment and American's best interests are secondary to that. Their antics of late are beyond belief. I so wish that we could rename these vestiges of our once great Party "The No-Nothings II" and reclaim and restore the traditional Republican Party.
"...we do need someone with a portion of his gifts — someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning."
How great that we are fortunate enough to have a president who meets those needs, not just a portion of them. And that's what eats at his far less talented opponents.
As a life-long, active Republican, I find those currently in charge as an embarrassment. Their main goal is to deny the President the slightest accomplishment and American's best interests are secondary to that. Their antics of late are beyond belief. I so wish that we could rename these vestiges of our once great Party "The No-Nothings II" and reclaim and restore the traditional Republican Party.
4
I like reading Brooks' column, but I'm always amazed at the blinders he must wear when it comes to contemporary politics.
Take a look at the current line-up of presidential candidates and potential candidates. Not one of them comes close to meeting the Lincoln-centered criteria offered here. That's certainly true of the demagogues and panderers on the Republican side, but it's even true of Hillary Clinton.
Any yet, right now, we have a president in office who has shown all the qualities Brooks lionizes in this wistful essay. But instead, Brooks has recently been taking cheap shots at Obama. Criticism is fine and welcome, but give credit where credit is due.
And, take off those blinders.
Take a look at the current line-up of presidential candidates and potential candidates. Not one of them comes close to meeting the Lincoln-centered criteria offered here. That's certainly true of the demagogues and panderers on the Republican side, but it's even true of Hillary Clinton.
Any yet, right now, we have a president in office who has shown all the qualities Brooks lionizes in this wistful essay. But instead, Brooks has recently been taking cheap shots at Obama. Criticism is fine and welcome, but give credit where credit is due.
And, take off those blinders.
5
The anti-Slavery President should make all Republicans proud, especially during a time when votes for American jobs are very much needed -- stop outsourcing and anti - union hegemony.
Let's put honest Abe back in Republican business.
Let's put honest Abe back in Republican business.
Lincoln succeeded because he lived in a world that did not care from where you came or how much you knew about the wide world beyond the place in which you were living. It cared about what you did and how well you did what you had agreed to do. There were many men with little education and fewer advantages than most people who were successful in the more established and prosperous part of the early to mid U.S. like that. What is remarkable about Lincoln is how he was able to change and to grow smarter and more erudite throughout his life while deepening his spiritual appreciation of life even as he enjoyed more and more power and wealth. He did not play the crucial role in establishing our form of government and the crucial implementation of it's institutions as did Washington, Adams and Jefferson but this country would not be as free and resilient a polity without Lincoln having served as he did and when he did. Lincoln was one of those geniuses who mankind sees maybe a handful of times per century.
1
I hope we never have to face in this country the sort of bloody crisis that called for a leader like Lincoln or FDR. Plus slavery needed to be ended, and not gradually. We would not have tolerated a gradual liberation of concentration death camps.
Brooks describes Lincoln as possessing: "a fundamental vision, a golden temperament and a shrewd strategy for how to cope with the political realities of the moment." Sounds a whole lot like President Obama and Hillary Clinton. No Republican springs to mind.
History will look as kindly upon President Obama as it has on President Lincoln. The issues of climate change and containment of nuclear weapons alone will cement this President's reputation. Add to those achievements the enactment of the ACA, saving the auto industry, and pulling the economy back from the brink of a second great depression, President Obama's place in history is secure. [Republicans will rue the day they dubbed the ACA "Obamacare."]
History will look as kindly upon President Obama as it has on President Lincoln. The issues of climate change and containment of nuclear weapons alone will cement this President's reputation. Add to those achievements the enactment of the ACA, saving the auto industry, and pulling the economy back from the brink of a second great depression, President Obama's place in history is secure. [Republicans will rue the day they dubbed the ACA "Obamacare."]
5
Seems David wants a different Republican Party than we have today because there are no Republican Presidential candidate that could even marginally compared to President Lincoln.
1
"I begin by reading a book about Lincoln not because it’s fair to hold any of the candidates to the Lincoln standard, . . . "
Why is it not fair to hold every candidate to the LIncoln standard, Mr. Brooks?
If it's not fair to hold every candidate to the Lincoln standard, why bother reading a book about Lincoln at the start of each campaign? To gauge how many moral and ethical compromises, how many rationalizations you will have to make, on the way to supporting the candidate your perceived loyalties will compel you to endorse?
Maybe, along with reading a book about Abraham Lincoln, you should start the upcoming campaign by also reading a book about George W. Bush. Perhaps you can then give some further (or any) thought to how "fair" we should be to our Presidential candidates, Mr. Brooks.
Why is it not fair to hold every candidate to the LIncoln standard, Mr. Brooks?
If it's not fair to hold every candidate to the Lincoln standard, why bother reading a book about Lincoln at the start of each campaign? To gauge how many moral and ethical compromises, how many rationalizations you will have to make, on the way to supporting the candidate your perceived loyalties will compel you to endorse?
Maybe, along with reading a book about Abraham Lincoln, you should start the upcoming campaign by also reading a book about George W. Bush. Perhaps you can then give some further (or any) thought to how "fair" we should be to our Presidential candidates, Mr. Brooks.
4
On the theme of Lincoln as autodidact, it might also be noted that, while working as a lawyer on the Illinois circuit, Lincoln carried Euclid's "Elements" with him until he could (as he put it) "demonstrate with ease all the propositions in the six books." That shows genuine rigor of mind.
1
"Any presidential candidate needs that sort of consistent animating vision — an image of an Ideal America baked so deeply into his or her bones as to be unconscious." While this is a quotable quote, is Mr. Brooks aware that all history, including the history of America, is in constant flux? In the geopolitical and cultural reality of constant motion, the idea of a leader's unconscious branded permanently with an "ideal" of America, could be counterproductive. Firstly because ideals, like reality, are supposed to change, or be "baked" in the crucible of the times, not remain constant. Secondly, what is the American "ideal"? What has been the "ideal" yesterday can't be the ideal of today and the future, can it? Thirdly, Barack Obama already bears an imprint of a leader with portions of the Lincoln temperament and strategy skills. Why can't you say that Mr. Brooks? Are you morphed into such a Conservative?
1
We need a candidate who says what s/he means and means what s/he says.
The idea that political pundits speak about "appealing to the base" during a primary and then "pivoting" to the middle during a general campaign is at the heart of the matter of our broken system.
The idea that political pundits speak about "appealing to the base" during a primary and then "pivoting" to the middle during a general campaign is at the heart of the matter of our broken system.
3
David Brooks! This column really sums it up for me. In President Obama, we currently do have a president who shares many of Lincoln's extraordinary qualities. Would Honest Abe have suffered the same obstructionist hectoring that unfolds daily now? Maybe you could discuss this with your students at Yale.
5
Writing about Lincoln is an easy choice. The perennially renewing literature on him, such as the recent "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin, and also recently the Spielberg movie "Lincoln", have made us familiar with his vision, steadfastness and maneuvering genius. Is there a president who has something to teach us we don't already know? Come on, David.
How wonderful it would be if we could but find these Lincoln-like qualities in any of our current politicians or future Presidents. The "Ideal American" image you refer to has boiled down to two very partisan mind-sets and arriving at them is done with money. Even the image of a political tactician is tainted. The old shoe about "the best Congress money can buy" is alive and well in America.
If you are looking for something to read, may I suggest "Green Eggs and Ham" or "Winnie the Pooh."
If you are looking for something to read, may I suggest "Green Eggs and Ham" or "Winnie the Pooh."
1
What Brooks is calling for seems like our current President who has shown all these attributes
7
Perhaps one of Lincoln's greatest traits was not to determine events but rather to let events shape policy. Maybe this was possible in an age whose fastest communication was by telegraph and where events had to be seen from a distance. What America needs in the second decade of the twenty-first century are not leaders looking back but one looking forward, not leaders to divide but to unite, persons of substance rather than politicians for sale.
2
"But we do need someone with a portion of his gifts — someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning."
We certainly do. And any of these qualities would be of great value in Congress as well, along with a bit of courage. Imagine if a single influential Republican during the Obama administration had done what Democratic Congressman John Ganson did in 1863. Ganson visited the White House one day and told Lincoln: “Though I am a Democrat, I imperil my political future by supporting your war measures."
If only a single Republican had chosen to support President Obama on any initiative over the past six years--including those that the GOP had previously supported that the president eventually embraced.
We certainly do. And any of these qualities would be of great value in Congress as well, along with a bit of courage. Imagine if a single influential Republican during the Obama administration had done what Democratic Congressman John Ganson did in 1863. Ganson visited the White House one day and told Lincoln: “Though I am a Democrat, I imperil my political future by supporting your war measures."
If only a single Republican had chosen to support President Obama on any initiative over the past six years--including those that the GOP had previously supported that the president eventually embraced.
7
Don't give up. Don't ever give up. That is the only advice I give to our next president. America is worth it. Our civilization is steadily advancing. Most things are getting better and some things need to be left behind.
9
"Never give up. Never surrender"?. This isn't "Galaxy Quest". Our corporate overlords stole the 2000 election and our supreme court codified their takeover. We are steadily advancing -- to state fascism.
1
This is a far different world than the one in which President Lincoln lived. Americans need a President who can deal every day with the complex problems within America and dangers created from conflicts abroad. Above all the next President must remain positive about the policies s/he puts in place and America's future in a changing world.
4
Lincoln was a Republican, which Republicans like to remind us every four years. And the party of Lincoln now is a mean-spirited, nasty, party that is only interested in war as a first resort, not rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, denying science, and turning a blind eye to social injustice, be it the Justice Department report on Ferguson or women not being paid equally for equal work (Republicans always argue it would be bad for business).
You write a column like this and yet you're still a Republican, David. How can that possibly be?
You write a column like this and yet you're still a Republican, David. How can that possibly be?
75
@V
It was also the party of the progressive TR but he's been airbrushed out of the Republican group like one of those photos from Stalinist Russia.
It was also the party of the progressive TR but he's been airbrushed out of the Republican group like one of those photos from Stalinist Russia.
24
They can't airbrush TR off of Mount Rushmore!
1
The Democrats and Republicans have gradually changed places since the Civil War. Which goes to show how worthless party labels actually are. I think the shift began primarily with FDR, and particularly accelerated in the 1960s. But the Republican party's original roots were specifically in the abolitionist movement.
And if Lincoln were alive today, his every utterance would be held against him - e.g., when he said that although he defended the right of every man to the fruits of his labour, he didn't consider the black man the social equal of the white; his entertaining a proposal at one point to repatriate all freed slaves to Africa, and saying at another that his goal was to preserve the union and that if necessary, if he could do that without freeing a single slave he would do it. Not to mention that questions would be raised about his mental state (depression), his health (I believe he had Marfan's Syndrome), and his relationship with his law partner. His face would be the least of his problems in the Internet age.
And if Lincoln were alive today, his every utterance would be held against him - e.g., when he said that although he defended the right of every man to the fruits of his labour, he didn't consider the black man the social equal of the white; his entertaining a proposal at one point to repatriate all freed slaves to Africa, and saying at another that his goal was to preserve the union and that if necessary, if he could do that without freeing a single slave he would do it. Not to mention that questions would be raised about his mental state (depression), his health (I believe he had Marfan's Syndrome), and his relationship with his law partner. His face would be the least of his problems in the Internet age.
1
The party who claims Lincoln bears no resemblance to Lincoln. In fact, Lincoln seems to transcend parties. There are parallels between Pres. Obama and Lincoln. Both were and are blindly hated by their opposition, and both seem to find forgiveness for those who hate them. Both had/have a vision of an America that treated all fairly. If Mr. Brooks were the compassionate, intelligent man he'd like us to believe he is, then he too would see those parallels. He throws the same complaints at Obama as those who opposed Lincoln.
Pres. Obama has many of the traits we all yearn for in a President. He had the misfortune of being born half/black which is much harder to overcome in this country than anything else.
Pres. Obama has many of the traits we all yearn for in a President. He had the misfortune of being born half/black which is much harder to overcome in this country than anything else.
28
I agree that we could use another Lincoln (or Washington who was great in different ways) but I wonder if the times will allow for it. This is an age of immediate gratification, supper fast news, and constant babble. Could a Lincoln survive and thrive in it? Or would it cast him aside. I fear the times may make the rising of such a man in politics all but impossible. But the times were radical and tough in the late 1850's, so there is hope yet.
2
You can be sure that if Washington was in office there would be no AIPAC around to control the US Congress and meddle in foreign policy!
A president's qualities show forth when they fit the times. We appreciate FDR's qualities against the background of the crises he faced (Hoover, much the opposite); same for Lincoln.
Lincoln and what we view as his best qualities could not be transplanted to present times -- even though we can indeed learn from him.
Focusing upon the gauzy past with the benefit of hindsight blinds us to what we actually have in the present. Even if a president DID share Lincoln's qualities, they would not necessarily be recognized as such in present circumstances; they might even be characterized as faults.
Perhaps it is always thus.
Nevertheless, Lincoln was so deeply hated by his opposition that he was portrayed as an ape, among other things. Maybe there's a clue in there.
Lincoln and what we view as his best qualities could not be transplanted to present times -- even though we can indeed learn from him.
Focusing upon the gauzy past with the benefit of hindsight blinds us to what we actually have in the present. Even if a president DID share Lincoln's qualities, they would not necessarily be recognized as such in present circumstances; they might even be characterized as faults.
Perhaps it is always thus.
Nevertheless, Lincoln was so deeply hated by his opposition that he was portrayed as an ape, among other things. Maybe there's a clue in there.
9
Mr. Brooks is absolutely correct when he states that we "will not get a Lincoln" because of the TV age and the continuous media coverage. Instead, we have somewhat photogenic (telegenic?) candidates who are surrounded by media advisers, pollsters, fund raisers, sound bite experts, and ideology wonks. What hath God wrougnt?
4
We won't get a Lincoln because the American people don't deserve him. Obama comes closest, however. It's a miracle he was elected, but as far as Congress, we got what we deserve.
We have president with more of Lincolns qualities than any other we have had: Barak Obama.
53
Wow, I think David Brooks accidentally just wrote an encomium to Obama.
58
Congratulations: you've approximately described Obama
56
Unless the biographers are wrong, Lincoln loved learning. He read the books he had. Is Brooks (who reads a book about Lincoln as a prelude to a Presidential election) trying to craft a better-sounding version of the popular anti-intellectual argument so popular with many? "Common sense" as preferable to book learning? I opt for someone who loves learning and who applies sweeping knowledge to a modern world view. I wonder how many Shakespeare plays Scott Walker has read more than once?
24
I thought the same thing Elizabeth-- this treatise gives Brooks the chance to support the uneducated Scott Walker as the GOP candidate. "he Sir, is no Abe Lincoln."
Nope. We need a computer that can generate random numbers. That way we can select all representatives, democratically, by electing anyone out of the pool of everyone....by randomly selecting them. Either that, or make voting a requirement.
4
Looking at candidates from Mr. Brooks party we can be certain they are philosophically grounded-- a clear vision where the rich get richer, the summers get hotter/the winters get colder, diverse populations are denied fundamental rights, and we fight eternal wars. Oh, I forgot: all citizens are equal in their right to carry a gun. Fortunately for the country none of the candidates possesses the emotional maturity or tactical acumen to carry their vision out on the national level.
17
Ageism stands in the way of a modern day Lincoln who is not owned by special interests and big donors.
Mr.. Brooks, his name is Gov. Jerry Brown, an intellectual with a strong record who can think on his feet.
Mr.. Brooks, his name is Gov. Jerry Brown, an intellectual with a strong record who can think on his feet.
14
Lincoln would have permitted slavery to remain if it meant preserving the union.
Like Obama, Lincoln tried reaching across the aisle to work with the other side. Lincoln picked a Democrat as his running mate (Johnson). Obama sought to fete his defeated opponent (McCain) and even suggested a dinner every four years to salute the defeated candidate.
I wonder how many Democrats met in smoke filled steak houses in on inauguration night, 1861, to plot the demise of the Lincoln presidency.
Like Obama, Lincoln tried reaching across the aisle to work with the other side. Lincoln picked a Democrat as his running mate (Johnson). Obama sought to fete his defeated opponent (McCain) and even suggested a dinner every four years to salute the defeated candidate.
I wonder how many Democrats met in smoke filled steak houses in on inauguration night, 1861, to plot the demise of the Lincoln presidency.
24
We have him...his name is Barack Obama.
75
"We do need someone with a portion of his gifts — someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning."
This is precisely why we won't get another Lincoln. No one with vested interests (the money needed to support a viable campaign today) would contribute a cent of their unbridled (and too often unearned) wealth to elect a president who would govern with a moral compass akin to Lincoln's. It would be contrary to their ultimate goal, that of amassing great fortunes, the load being on the backs of the least powerful. You know, the very people Lincoln worked so hard to give voice.
Equality is not on the agenda today, short and simple.
This is precisely why we won't get another Lincoln. No one with vested interests (the money needed to support a viable campaign today) would contribute a cent of their unbridled (and too often unearned) wealth to elect a president who would govern with a moral compass akin to Lincoln's. It would be contrary to their ultimate goal, that of amassing great fortunes, the load being on the backs of the least powerful. You know, the very people Lincoln worked so hard to give voice.
Equality is not on the agenda today, short and simple.
9
I'm sorry, Mr. Brooks, but, of all the political personalities active in America at this time, the one who best fits the personality profile you've given in this column is Barack Obama. He doesn't fit it perfectly, of course, but he comes a whole lot closer than the embittered losers who drive the Republican Party. What can you say for a political party that is almost ashamed to remember that Lincoln was its first president?
99
And as Mr. Brooks chose not to mention, Lincoln had no problem going against the Constitution when he felt it was in the best interests of the country. Most prominently, he suspended Habeas Corpus and didn't mind having those who opposed his policies thrown in jail without any charges being bought. Perhaps Mr. Brooks would respect Obama more if he did things like that.
... a moral vision that emerged from life...
He sees America as a land where ambitious poor boys and girls like himself can transform themselves through hard, morally improving work.
He believes in a government that builds infrastructure to support the needs of industry and the people.
He believes slavery is wrong in part because people should be free to control their own labor.
He is deeply engaged, but also able to step back; a passionate advocate, but also able to see his enemy’s point of view; aware of his own power, but aware of when he is helpless in the hands of fate; extremely self-confident but extremely humble.
Many of his efforts are designed to tamp down passion for the sake of sustainable, incremental progress.
We've still got him for another year and a half, but partisans will do their best to thwart him at every turn.
I can't believe Mr. Brooks didn't recognize he was describing President Obama.
He sees America as a land where ambitious poor boys and girls like himself can transform themselves through hard, morally improving work.
He believes in a government that builds infrastructure to support the needs of industry and the people.
He believes slavery is wrong in part because people should be free to control their own labor.
He is deeply engaged, but also able to step back; a passionate advocate, but also able to see his enemy’s point of view; aware of his own power, but aware of when he is helpless in the hands of fate; extremely self-confident but extremely humble.
Many of his efforts are designed to tamp down passion for the sake of sustainable, incremental progress.
We've still got him for another year and a half, but partisans will do their best to thwart him at every turn.
I can't believe Mr. Brooks didn't recognize he was describing President Obama.
253
He does see it but was afraid to say it!
I think if you read the lines he was saying just that!
I think if you read the lines he was saying just that!
I think that he does. I think that he is disappointed that President Obama has not accomplished more and has not been able to bridge the partisan divide. What he fails to see or acknowledge is that his own party is the reason for it. Pride and hubris is a difficult thing to get under control and conservatives seldom care to admit error.
1
While there is much to admire about Lincoln, today's leader must be considered in a totally different milieu.
It is the environment of the sound-bite, the instant analysis of any decision, the pressure of immediate success and the realization that our economy and our position in the world are threatened from both domestic and foreign concerns.
I do believe there are people in this land who possess the characteristics to thrive in this environment - sadly, they are deciding not to enter "the arena" as they have concluded that the deleterious aspects of doing so outweigh the potential good they may accomplish. And who can blame them......
It is the environment of the sound-bite, the instant analysis of any decision, the pressure of immediate success and the realization that our economy and our position in the world are threatened from both domestic and foreign concerns.
I do believe there are people in this land who possess the characteristics to thrive in this environment - sadly, they are deciding not to enter "the arena" as they have concluded that the deleterious aspects of doing so outweigh the potential good they may accomplish. And who can blame them......
12
The need for cross-disciplinary idea-coordination has never been greater.
But it is pointless to pursue something by any process that will be inherently self-defeating.
But it is pointless to pursue something by any process that will be inherently self-defeating.
What candidates need is the ability to listen, to speak truth to power, to tell us what we need to hear in a way that we can understand it, and they need to understand, as Obama does, that they have to represent ALL Americans, not just the ones who vote for them. The rest, to paraphrase a Jewish rabbi, is commentary.
14
That leaves out every Republican in Congress. But, then, every American, if he is honest, has known this for some time. Next up, Hillary Clinton and after her Corey Booker and then Deval Patrick.
7
Why can't we go directly to Deval Patrick?
He would make an excellent President with none of Hillary's baggage!
He would make an excellent President with none of Hillary's baggage!
Lincoln was compassionate. That's just one of his qualities that separate him from the G.O.P. of today.
13
"He believed slavery was wrong in part because people should be free to control their own labor."
Awe yes, the romanticized, simplistic version of Lincoln's racial equality attitude.
His thoughts on inter-racial marriage, for instance:
"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man."
I understand that he lived in different times, but I also think that if we are going to put historical figures up on pedestals, they should be better than that. There were many many abolitionists living in his era that thought slavery was a moral abomination - Lincoln was not one of them.
Awe yes, the romanticized, simplistic version of Lincoln's racial equality attitude.
His thoughts on inter-racial marriage, for instance:
"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man."
I understand that he lived in different times, but I also think that if we are going to put historical figures up on pedestals, they should be better than that. There were many many abolitionists living in his era that thought slavery was a moral abomination - Lincoln was not one of them.
4
Yes and Jesus told the slaves to obey their masters!
Your point?
Your point?
I can't find a reputable source for that quotation. All the top sites Google coughs up are white-supremacist. Snopes doesn't have it at all.
I don't doubt that by our standards, he comes up short - just as I shudder to think what our descendants 150 years from now will make of us. The wonder of it is that despite his flaws, he managed to do what he did, and that 150 years later all of us perfect, flawless people, of whatever colour, may sit in our comfortable rooms at peace, pounding out our rebukes.
I don't doubt that by our standards, he comes up short - just as I shudder to think what our descendants 150 years from now will make of us. The wonder of it is that despite his flaws, he managed to do what he did, and that 150 years later all of us perfect, flawless people, of whatever colour, may sit in our comfortable rooms at peace, pounding out our rebukes.
I'm going to post this again.
I can't find a reliable source for this quote. The only sources I can find are white-supremacist websites. Could someone please provide an authentication?
Admittedly Lincoln had other flaws. Although he was for abolition, he did say outright - in the Lincoln-Douglass debates - that he did not consider blacks and whites to be social equals. He also considered the possibility of repatriating freed slaves en masse to Africa. Moreover, he was prone to depression; forensic medicine has diagnosed him as a possible case of Marfan's syndrome. Let's set aside that he suspended habeas corpus; it was wartime. He'd have too much baggage to be elected, or even nominated, today.
I'm very uncomfortable with all the Obama-olatry on this thread, though.
I can't find a reliable source for this quote. The only sources I can find are white-supremacist websites. Could someone please provide an authentication?
Admittedly Lincoln had other flaws. Although he was for abolition, he did say outright - in the Lincoln-Douglass debates - that he did not consider blacks and whites to be social equals. He also considered the possibility of repatriating freed slaves en masse to Africa. Moreover, he was prone to depression; forensic medicine has diagnosed him as a possible case of Marfan's syndrome. Let's set aside that he suspended habeas corpus; it was wartime. He'd have too much baggage to be elected, or even nominated, today.
I'm very uncomfortable with all the Obama-olatry on this thread, though.
Sounds like Brooks is describing President Obama. Certainly no republican of recent memory.
65
I think you're ignoring the reality of politics today. For better and worse, this is not Lincoln's America. The people aren't as divided against each other now, but the political process is built on dividing us. If Lincoln were elected today, he would pursue the same policies of privatization, militarization & corruption that are the price of entry for national politicians. If he were a Democrat, he would be demonized by the GOP & their media as a dangerous radical & half the country would continue to enjoy their perpetual public rage. If he were a Republican, he would pursue the same policies with a different, more crudely expressed spin, & Democratic politicians would mostly go along. Those of us who wish for something better would in the one case defend him against something worse, and in the other rest silently seething.
Aren't we getting just a little weary of the categorical left-right slandering? No, Brooks is not a tool of right wing zealotry and if you apply what he is saying to the potential candidates of both parties, you'll likely make better (at least more rational) choices. And it doesn't require you to make the same choices he would.
I'm as susceptible as anyone to engage in political demagoguery because I fear the future for my children, and I have to constantly remind myself to step back from political warfare. The mutuality of political engagement is just incompatible with the tactics of warfare. How can one argue with the proposition that we should choose a president with vision who is intelligent, compassionate and a skilled politician?
I'm as susceptible as anyone to engage in political demagoguery because I fear the future for my children, and I have to constantly remind myself to step back from political warfare. The mutuality of political engagement is just incompatible with the tactics of warfare. How can one argue with the proposition that we should choose a president with vision who is intelligent, compassionate and a skilled politician?
3
Very intereating, isn't it, that Brooksie would use the term 'cunning' (cited by one of the on-line dictionaries as an ANTONYM of the word 'Honest') to refer to one of the traits needed by a presidential candidate. Can we infer that Brooks is advocating candidates are also DIShonest? Just what America needs?
3
I'd like to hear Brooks on "the noble lie" espoused by the neocons, method of government promoted by Leo Strauss for the US.
Does Brooks reject such lies?
Does he reject those who promote such lies as a method of government?
That would mean rejecting much of the Republican Party today, the whole of W's Admin to start.
Does Brooks reject such lies?
Does he reject those who promote such lies as a method of government?
That would mean rejecting much of the Republican Party today, the whole of W's Admin to start.
From "Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis: "That is the key to history. Terrific energy is expended-civilisations are built up--excellent institutions devised; but each tie something goes wrong. Some fatal flaw always brings the selfish and cruel people to the top and it all slides back into misery and ruin. In fact, the machine conks. It seems to start up all right and runs a few yards, and then it breaks down. They are trying to run it on the wrong juice. That is what Satan has done to us humans."
Both David and his detractors are equally delusional. Humans are fundamentally flawed and, left to their own devices, the same result will occur with the United States.
Both David and his detractors are equally delusional. Humans are fundamentally flawed and, left to their own devices, the same result will occur with the United States.
1
Bill: Fundamentally flawed, of course. Different explanations--original sin versus neurobiology and evolutionary biology (the primitive brain versus the thinking brain). The same result has already occurred with the US. Laissez faire is the antithesis of self-control, but on a larger scale. Nothing can go wrong in America, and if it does, the market will fix it?--Cf Californian drought.
Saying that Lincoln didn't have formal education is like saying that Socrates never studied philosophy. He was a successful corporate lawyer of his day - a time before much of the formal education we have now existed.
He was cautious in that his most important acts, such as the Emancipation Proclamation, were supported by legal authority as opposed to revolutionary fervor. As far as 'ringing phrases go,' 'Now, henceforth and forever free' is good enough for me.
And to say that his 1st inaugural address was 'dry and legal' misses the point that it sets forth his vision of majoritarian rule and how to cope with bad Supreme Court decisions.
He was cautious in that his most important acts, such as the Emancipation Proclamation, were supported by legal authority as opposed to revolutionary fervor. As far as 'ringing phrases go,' 'Now, henceforth and forever free' is good enough for me.
And to say that his 1st inaugural address was 'dry and legal' misses the point that it sets forth his vision of majoritarian rule and how to cope with bad Supreme Court decisions.
5
Well said, David....but you left out one, important desideratum. We need a president who can tell us what we need to hear, not what we want to hear.
Today's contenders are owned by their parties and the billionaires who fund them. Lincoln was his own man.
There are no such men any longer. Nor women, either.
Today's contenders are owned by their parties and the billionaires who fund them. Lincoln was his own man.
There are no such men any longer. Nor women, either.
63
There are plenty of such men and women. None can rally hundreds of millions of dollars in donor support before they declare. That requires selling the soul.
1
That ownership is why Pence signed a law that every business supporter tried to kill - right.
1
What Mr. Brooks isn't honest about in this column is that the public has no memory. Lincoln lived in a different era. I invite all of the regular readers of Mr. Brooks's columns to look at his writings about George Bush during Bush's presidency. You'll not find one critical word, but will find column after column of admiration and PR against the judgments of the public and the pundit class. His farewell column to Bush is a hallucinatory scene with Bush seated between the busts of Churchill and Lincoln; perhaps that is what David means by "closest possible approximation."
9
Congratulations, David. Your description of Lincoln just eliminated every single member of the Republican Party.
"He believed in a government that built canals and railroads and banks to stoke the fires of industry." Your party now believes that all of this should be privatized, with government having no role.
"he was an exceptionally poor hater" Your party now lives on nothing but hate.
"able to see his enemy’s point of view" Your party now says that anyone who disagrees with them in any way must be crushed by any means.
"It’s easy to be a true believer, or to govern or campaign with your pedal to the metal all the time. It’s much harder to know when to tap on the brake and when to step on the gas. [...] Most of Lincoln’s efforts were designed to tamp down passion for the sake of sustainable, incremental progress. " Meanwhile your party holds 50 votes to repeal the ACA, while making speeches advocating war with Iran.
"He believed in a government that built canals and railroads and banks to stoke the fires of industry." Your party now believes that all of this should be privatized, with government having no role.
"he was an exceptionally poor hater" Your party now lives on nothing but hate.
"able to see his enemy’s point of view" Your party now says that anyone who disagrees with them in any way must be crushed by any means.
"It’s easy to be a true believer, or to govern or campaign with your pedal to the metal all the time. It’s much harder to know when to tap on the brake and when to step on the gas. [...] Most of Lincoln’s efforts were designed to tamp down passion for the sake of sustainable, incremental progress. " Meanwhile your party holds 50 votes to repeal the ACA, while making speeches advocating war with Iran.
33
Golly, David, maybe we should keep Obama. He's philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning. On top of that he has a lot of experience.
29
Lincoln, with all his flaws (don't we all?), was an honest man, and did his business in search of the truth; he remained grounded and was not afraid to get his hands dirty in the political fray, and knowing that defeat is temporary, and edifying, when hard work and persistence and courage changed things for the better, in his case, saving the country from itself, as it engaged in slavery, a contradiction of its own terms regarding justice and liberty for all. Today's politicians are different, as a good portion of them have forgotten their stated mission, to serve the public; not themselves nor their party first, in detriment of the common good. Today's society deserves better, and Lincoln seems an excellent read. Now, try convincing our politicians.
2
I think most don't want to end up dead?
The phrase "Morally improving work" struck me as odd. You sound as if you just stepped off the Mayflower at Plymouth Rock. There are many purposes to work, but moral improvement is not one of them. We know too many people who work hard and are morally degenerate. Look a Congress for, example.
4
Congress works hard?
1
Carter had these qualities.
9
Does cash prevent an
Abraham Lincoln or does
gerrymandering?
Abraham Lincoln or does
gerrymandering?
4
In the end, though, Lincoln was wrong about slavery and the abolitionists and Radical Republicans were right. Trying to nudge it into oblivion did not work, and would never have worked. Even the Emancipation Proclamation accomplished nothing by itself - no slave was freed until Federal armies marched through the Deep South to execute that mandate.
Lincoln accomplished an incredible task, maintaining a fragile political coalition and fractious populace through four years of bloody war with no end in sight. For that we remember and celebrate him. But we should not celebrate his gradualist approach to ending the greatest crime in American history. Even Lincoln had his flaws.
Lincoln accomplished an incredible task, maintaining a fragile political coalition and fractious populace through four years of bloody war with no end in sight. For that we remember and celebrate him. But we should not celebrate his gradualist approach to ending the greatest crime in American history. Even Lincoln had his flaws.
7
No, Lincoln was right. We'd all have been better off if his idea had been used, to buy the slaves with the proceeds of long term bonds.
We'd have been spared a long war, hundreds of thousands killed, and a region destroyed, with all the stored up hatreds that produced.
We'd have been spared a long war, hundreds of thousands killed, and a region destroyed, with all the stored up hatreds that produced.
"a passionate advocate, but also able to see his enemy’s point of view"
Which is anathema to the current Republican party. At least a Republican president (or Hillary) will see enemies. Everywhere.
"devise a legislative strategy that can consistently get a House majority and 60 Senate votes"
Considering that the Republican leadership in the House cannot guarantee a consistent majority and that the senate and house caucuses aren't, you know, on speaking terms this seems to be a somewhat forlorn hope.
Which is anathema to the current Republican party. At least a Republican president (or Hillary) will see enemies. Everywhere.
"devise a legislative strategy that can consistently get a House majority and 60 Senate votes"
Considering that the Republican leadership in the House cannot guarantee a consistent majority and that the senate and house caucuses aren't, you know, on speaking terms this seems to be a somewhat forlorn hope.
2
OK, we can't have another Abraham Lincoln in the 2016 White House. How about another Barack Obama? He possesses many of the Lincolnesque qualities you describe, plus a few of his own.
One quality shared by both men: sanity. I know this doesn't play well on 24/7 cable network news but it promotes peaceful conflict resolution and, mirabile dictu, global survival.
One quality shared by both men: sanity. I know this doesn't play well on 24/7 cable network news but it promotes peaceful conflict resolution and, mirabile dictu, global survival.
178
"We need someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning." Sounds pretty close to our current President!
175
It interests me what names David Brooks chose to highlight on Abraham Lincoln’s (apparently narrow) reading list. Shakespeare we’d expect, and, not surprisingly, Brooks has chosen King James Bible. But while most of us today have narrowed down the list of important 19th-century American authors to just a few — Dickinson, Poe, Whitman, Melville — one of Lincoln’s best loved writers was Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.
“The Building of the Ship,” a poem about a vessel named the UNION constructed with “cedar from Maine and Georgia pine,” brought the sentimental Lincoln to tears as he faced civil disunion. The meaning is straightforward: conquering fear through collective strength. Lincoln must have found courage as Longfellow’s "Ship of State," carrying humanity's “hopes of future years," was launched into the unknown. In our time, we could just as well rename the ship Planet Earth where it concerns the international scope of our apprehensions.
“The Building of the Ship,” a poem about a vessel named the UNION constructed with “cedar from Maine and Georgia pine,” brought the sentimental Lincoln to tears as he faced civil disunion. The meaning is straightforward: conquering fear through collective strength. Lincoln must have found courage as Longfellow’s "Ship of State," carrying humanity's “hopes of future years," was launched into the unknown. In our time, we could just as well rename the ship Planet Earth where it concerns the international scope of our apprehensions.
1
Lincoln's image was forged in the the crucible of our Civil War. Perhaps it would take another to see such an icon arise? No one could have known Lincoln the man would become the symbol. He was certainly vilified during his own times. So maybe based on some vague analogy we could use another such historical fixture, but given what cemented that image, I would prefer not to be around for the events.
"He hoped that if he limited the demand for slaves (by halting the spread of slavery and by paying people not to keep them) he could drive down the price and render the whole enterprise unprofitable."
Brooks disingenuously implies that if only the Abolitionists had not been so hotheaded over slavery we could have avoided the bloody Civil Way just to free a generation - or two - of human beings working under the whip of Simon Legrees and their ditzy cotillion hopping Scarlett O'Haras.
There IS scholarly controversy over whether a Civil War was "necessary" and whether "things" would have been better (for whom, Kemosabe?) if there had not been an abolitionist movement.
Funny thing, though, nearly all of the academic historians who Monday morning quarterback in favor of gradualism have been from the South.
Remember, even the Founding Fathers thought that slavery would desiccate more or less on its own.
Turns out they were very wrong on the supposed timeline - by several generations.
"Too bad, Johnny, not this year. Maybe your grandchildren will be free, though you won't know who they are because Master Simon will have long since sold off them and their parents - separately."
Particularly reprehensible, intellectually, is Brooks' deliberately chosen rhetoric juxtaposing the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 with chronologically unsourced references to Lincoln's earlier, gradualist views on the elimination of slavery.
Yale allows this sort of intellectually sophistry?
Brooks disingenuously implies that if only the Abolitionists had not been so hotheaded over slavery we could have avoided the bloody Civil Way just to free a generation - or two - of human beings working under the whip of Simon Legrees and their ditzy cotillion hopping Scarlett O'Haras.
There IS scholarly controversy over whether a Civil War was "necessary" and whether "things" would have been better (for whom, Kemosabe?) if there had not been an abolitionist movement.
Funny thing, though, nearly all of the academic historians who Monday morning quarterback in favor of gradualism have been from the South.
Remember, even the Founding Fathers thought that slavery would desiccate more or less on its own.
Turns out they were very wrong on the supposed timeline - by several generations.
"Too bad, Johnny, not this year. Maybe your grandchildren will be free, though you won't know who they are because Master Simon will have long since sold off them and their parents - separately."
Particularly reprehensible, intellectually, is Brooks' deliberately chosen rhetoric juxtaposing the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 with chronologically unsourced references to Lincoln's earlier, gradualist views on the elimination of slavery.
Yale allows this sort of intellectually sophistry?
6
"It’s easy to be a true believer, or to govern or campaign with your pedal to the metal all the time. It’s much harder to know when to tap on the brake and when to step on the gas." This passage (as well as most of the column) seems to reflect the President we already have who has been hampered and stymied by a party of "true believers" with the "pedal to the metal all the time." In other words, Mr. Brooks has offered a well thought out argument for why we should not elect any of the Republican candidate clowns who have already started pandering to the "true believers" of the Tea Party and religious right.
10
Reading the comments section of David Brooks' column is the real pleasure for me. How can he keep writing this stuff in the face of so many people who can see right through him? Must have a heck of an ego. But, no, he even complained of the mean commenters. Chutzpah?
13
Brooks speaks of "strategic restraint." We currently have a president who, by all logic, should be filled will raging passion, yet is so pragmatic he has many on the left in knots because he won't get ugly. In the face of a party whose leaders could not even pause to celebrate with the nation the inauguration of its first black president before conspiring to block all legislation he would propose, and in the face of a 24-hour news network dedicated to his demise, he went on to pass health care legislation, save the economy (yes, see Europe, which adopted Republican-like measures) and went on to win the next election, surely we can agree that if restraint is the hallmark of a great president, Obama has succeeded handsomely.
21
Lincoln! I'd settle for Nixon from the Republicans at this point. Engaged with China, wanted a better healthcare initiative than what he got, at least supported clean air and water, food inspection, social security and other 'provide for the general welfare' type things; the yotzes running now all support policies that would 'decrease the surplus population.'
9
"I'd settle for Nixon"
That's sick!
It is even sicker that it's true.
It is sickest of all to me that I agree.
That's sick!
It is even sicker that it's true.
It is sickest of all to me that I agree.
Nixon would be considered a radical left winger by today's GOP standards. Sad really.
Reminding ourselves of the words and work patterns of inspired men and women, of people who faced incredible adversity but who nevertheless survived or even prevailed, can give us some benchmarks of what to look for in deciding whom to vote for next. In my opinion, Brooks is on the right track. Just because no one looks like another Lincoln doesn't mean we won't get someone worthy, and we know that he was not viewed as a very attractive candidate by very many voters before 1858 and the debates with Douglas.
As an aside, I disagree with Brooks on what Lincoln's chances might be in our own times. His sense of humor and ability to articulate important ideas in a very few words might well serve his cause, as of course would his innate understanding of what makes Iowa tick.
As an aside, I disagree with Brooks on what Lincoln's chances might be in our own times. His sense of humor and ability to articulate important ideas in a very few words might well serve his cause, as of course would his innate understanding of what makes Iowa tick.
Unfortunately, we've just experienced nigh on 8 years of compromises offered and turned back, rational argument rejoined by hysterical denunciations and counter-factual proclamations that are refuted by high school science .
And now we Democrats will devolve to the same level of demagoguery , arcane parliamentary obstruction, and failure to recognize that when the majority of the voting population supports a President's agenda --the minority needs to honor that mandate, while criticizing and proposing improvements.
Just what was so awful about this President's policies that was worth burning down the house?
And now we Democrats will devolve to the same level of demagoguery , arcane parliamentary obstruction, and failure to recognize that when the majority of the voting population supports a President's agenda --the minority needs to honor that mandate, while criticizing and proposing improvements.
Just what was so awful about this President's policies that was worth burning down the house?
7
Your description of President Lincoln's personality traits reminded me very much of President Obama - and reinforced how much I appreciate him.
22
Sounds like Obama fits the bill the best of all current politicians (except his first Inaugural Address).
10
I recently visited the National Portrait, and do not understand contemporaneous and ongoing references to Lincoln's physical appearance.
Lincoln's face is beautiful, the face of compassion, experience, intelligence.
Yes, rugged (no botox) and rough, but preferred by this writer to the 'beauty' of the B grade actor and the Marboro cowboy we have recently suffered under, two incredibly hypocritical men?
Lincoln's face is beautiful, the face of compassion, experience, intelligence.
Yes, rugged (no botox) and rough, but preferred by this writer to the 'beauty' of the B grade actor and the Marboro cowboy we have recently suffered under, two incredibly hypocritical men?
6
I see Obama as a president who is similar to Lincoln.
19
I don't - and I voted for him twice (though admittedly a fair amount of that was voting against his opponents).
It sounds like he's also describing Obama or FDR. And does Brooks know Lincoln regularly breached his beloved constitution of 1789 several times during his first year in office. The emancipation proclamation btw was an executive order.
59
What, John? Hasn't you learned anything?
it was an executive order supported by his military authority to put into effect measures to prevent slaves from being coerced into building fortifications for the Confederacy.
@Dinos Gonatas
Er..it also actually made the eradication of slavery an explicit war aim.
Er..it also actually made the eradication of slavery an explicit war aim.
We will get to choose between whomever the Koch Bros. like best, and whichever Dem Wall Street does not threaten to pull campaign funds from.
Of course, things could be worse, since Sen. Cotton obviously wants to be POTUS someday, whose Harvard thesis regarding the intellectual superiority of office-holders is widely quoted:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/magazine/tom-cotton-is-not-mailing-it-...
along with his disdain for the Federalist papers, and his views of women as ' the problem ':
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/15/1371153/-Tom-Cotton-sociopath-b...
The voters in 1860 were lucky to have Lincoln to choose.
Of course, things could be worse, since Sen. Cotton obviously wants to be POTUS someday, whose Harvard thesis regarding the intellectual superiority of office-holders is widely quoted:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/magazine/tom-cotton-is-not-mailing-it-...
along with his disdain for the Federalist papers, and his views of women as ' the problem ':
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/15/1371153/-Tom-Cotton-sociopath-b...
The voters in 1860 were lucky to have Lincoln to choose.
6
Something unmentioned by Mr Brooks was Lincoln's communication skills. Even now, his Second Inaugural and the Gettysburg Address resonate with Americans of all ideologies. He was able to take all those gifts previously mentioned and distill them into heartfelt speeches of simplicity but great emotional and philosophical depth, a rare skill.
And, by so doing, he changed the method of political discourse. It has been noted that at Gettysburg, the noted orator Edward Everett gave the standard two hour stemwinder common for the time, with high flown, classical rhetoric, none of which is remembered. Lincoln's talk was so quick and simple the photographer taking a picture of it wasn't set up yet when he sat back down. And politicians of all stripes have striven for the compact. insightful, and honest but deeply philosophical impact of that ever since.
So yes, we need a president with all those gifts. But, if the last several years have proven anything, it is that a modern day executive needs far more than that. In Lincoln's day the federal bureaucracy was relatively small and press coverage was not as intensive. Successful presidents must be good administrators to control the bureaucracy, and must be able to handle the modern press. Execution is key to enabling vision.
Abraham Lincoln was possibly the greatest President we ever had, exactly the man needed for his times. But his skills, as great as they were, would not be sufficient for the modern presidency.
And, by so doing, he changed the method of political discourse. It has been noted that at Gettysburg, the noted orator Edward Everett gave the standard two hour stemwinder common for the time, with high flown, classical rhetoric, none of which is remembered. Lincoln's talk was so quick and simple the photographer taking a picture of it wasn't set up yet when he sat back down. And politicians of all stripes have striven for the compact. insightful, and honest but deeply philosophical impact of that ever since.
So yes, we need a president with all those gifts. But, if the last several years have proven anything, it is that a modern day executive needs far more than that. In Lincoln's day the federal bureaucracy was relatively small and press coverage was not as intensive. Successful presidents must be good administrators to control the bureaucracy, and must be able to handle the modern press. Execution is key to enabling vision.
Abraham Lincoln was possibly the greatest President we ever had, exactly the man needed for his times. But his skills, as great as they were, would not be sufficient for the modern presidency.
5
The greatest thing about President Kennedy was that he gave speeches like that.
One of the greatest things about FDR was that he went past the great speeches he did give also to touch people with "Chats" in simple language. That is what made him our greatest, among a handful of true greats.
One of the greatest things about FDR was that he went past the great speeches he did give also to touch people with "Chats" in simple language. That is what made him our greatest, among a handful of true greats.
Lincoln also faced a rabid opposition party based in the South and politicians who refused to compromise.
Lincoln also governed during a time of civil war.
I am constantly astounded how Brooks refuses to except the obvious parallels with today and the party of no that has captured the party of Lincoln and rendered it unrecognizable from the time of his hero.
The author is a study in cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance.
I just do not get Brooks.
Lincoln also governed during a time of civil war.
I am constantly astounded how Brooks refuses to except the obvious parallels with today and the party of no that has captured the party of Lincoln and rendered it unrecognizable from the time of his hero.
The author is a study in cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance.
I just do not get Brooks.
120
Hey, Brooks gets paid big bucks no matter how inconsistent and deliberately uninformed he is. That says it all, no?
1
David Brooks is paid to promote the Republican Party. The Republican Party has destroyed the American democracy. What else do you need to know about David Brooks?
33
I hope both the Democrats and Republicans are able to nominate a candidate with a portion of Lincoln's skills.
Commenters should note that Lincoln was opposed almost on all sides. The extremists in the Republican party disliked and opposed him as much as pro-slavery Democrats.
Commenters should note that Lincoln was opposed almost on all sides. The extremists in the Republican party disliked and opposed him as much as pro-slavery Democrats.
1
Circumstances made Lincoln what he was, when he was.
Babe Ruth could not hit today's pitchers. Bob Cousy could not make the NBA. Harry Truman could not get elected today. Nor could Ike.
The Republican Party today is mostly made up of region that was fighting Lincoln's Union Army. These are not Republicans. These are RINO-TeaParty-Dixiecrats. They would not appreciate being aligned with Lincoln today. Things changed the past 30-40 years.
Babe Ruth could not hit today's pitchers. Bob Cousy could not make the NBA. Harry Truman could not get elected today. Nor could Ike.
The Republican Party today is mostly made up of region that was fighting Lincoln's Union Army. These are not Republicans. These are RINO-TeaParty-Dixiecrats. They would not appreciate being aligned with Lincoln today. Things changed the past 30-40 years.
41
Thanks, David. Your opinions are fun to read because they are different than the reliably partisan pieces that so many of your fellow opinion writers provide.
6
Yet Brooks reliably supports the GOP, which has made a 180 degree turn from what it was when Lincoln was President.
On everything from race to good government.
~
On everything from race to good government.
~
1
" What Lincoln had in fullness...fundamental vision, a golden temperament and a shrewd strategy for how to cope with the political realities of the moment."
I'm not sure if you realize it but you have just described President Obama and it's no coincidence that he too has been an avid reader of Lincoln.
I'm not sure if you realize it but you have just described President Obama and it's no coincidence that he too has been an avid reader of Lincoln.
21
Sounds like President Obama to me David. Imagine what could've been had he not been disrespected and unfairly attacked during the past years.
34
Gayle, Right! A criminal waste of opportunity!
1
Visiting the Lincoln Memorial after midnight? Presumably after supporting George W. Bush and Mitt Romney during the campaign? Sounds like a case of bad conscience. (Nixon made at least one nocturnal visit.)
David Brooks many years ago made a Faustian bargain with the Republican party. For apparent importance and prestige, he had only to sell his soul. But every other column, or thereabouts, he tries to cut a deal to get it back. After a mean-spirited condemnation of the poor, after a defense the .01%, after a denial of gay rights, and after another bid to just give war a chance--then comes the new age soul-craftsman who combines polling data with pop psychology to make pitches for becoming a real person, overcoming fear, realizing one's potential, and so forth.
David Brooks needs to sit down and have a talk with himselves. There's still time to amend that Faustian deal--you know, like they're doing with that "Religious Freedom" bill in Indiana.
David Brooks many years ago made a Faustian bargain with the Republican party. For apparent importance and prestige, he had only to sell his soul. But every other column, or thereabouts, he tries to cut a deal to get it back. After a mean-spirited condemnation of the poor, after a defense the .01%, after a denial of gay rights, and after another bid to just give war a chance--then comes the new age soul-craftsman who combines polling data with pop psychology to make pitches for becoming a real person, overcoming fear, realizing one's potential, and so forth.
David Brooks needs to sit down and have a talk with himselves. There's still time to amend that Faustian deal--you know, like they're doing with that "Religious Freedom" bill in Indiana.
17
So we need another Barack Obama.
38
If David is right, we might have plenty of Lincolns, only they don't look enough like Ronald Reagan for the public to be unrepulsed by them.
Well said, David. Why don't you throw your hat in the ring?
1
At last, a clear statement of conservative thinking: "...not because it’s fair to hold any of the candidates to the Lincoln standard..." The present can never be as good as the past?
Then, a condemnation of American thinking on education: "Today we pile on years of education. We assign hundreds of books over the years..." But David will begin his thinking on the presidential campaign by reading a book...
Then he says he hopes for "someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning," but he fails to say that such a person must also be a sub-par Republican--because we already have such a mature philosopher in the White House, and David excoriates him at every turn.
Then, a condemnation of American thinking on education: "Today we pile on years of education. We assign hundreds of books over the years..." But David will begin his thinking on the presidential campaign by reading a book...
Then he says he hopes for "someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning," but he fails to say that such a person must also be a sub-par Republican--because we already have such a mature philosopher in the White House, and David excoriates him at every turn.
17
Let's just say it up front: Lincoln was a Republican, but his party was only in name the same party that we see today.
If President Lincoln had to deal with today's Republicans in Congress, things would not have been pretty for him during the time leading up to the Civil War. Today's Republicans in Congress would have likely written an open letter to Jefferson Davis, telling him not to negotiate with Lincoln, because Lincoln would be out of office soon, and they would be there a long time after his term has ended.
If President Lincoln had to deal with today's Republicans in Congress, things would not have been pretty for him during the time leading up to the Civil War. Today's Republicans in Congress would have likely written an open letter to Jefferson Davis, telling him not to negotiate with Lincoln, because Lincoln would be out of office soon, and they would be there a long time after his term has ended.
12
One can be certain that just as AACNY posits that " Obama is no Linclon" there were plenty of Lincoln's contemporaries who asserted that " Lincoln is no Washington or Jefferson". That many hating and vilifying a president as they live through his term can be so certain about his fate and supposed meager legacy,it is important to remember those premature judgements often have no bearing on how history will judge. Think Harry Truman, for example, the " bankrupt haberdasher" who wasn't even liked by members of his own party, and now even a darling of some Republicans.
When Brooks implores that a president have a " golden temperament", an image of an Ideal America", be " self confident" but " humble",and have " strategic restraint", I see plenty of that in Obama. And it is patent silliness to argue that he is a president without accomplishments, no matter how he may lack LBJ's effective imperiousness and Bill Clinton's cunning. But even there Obama can be both shrewd and resolute.
When Brooks implores that a president have a " golden temperament", an image of an Ideal America", be " self confident" but " humble",and have " strategic restraint", I see plenty of that in Obama. And it is patent silliness to argue that he is a president without accomplishments, no matter how he may lack LBJ's effective imperiousness and Bill Clinton's cunning. But even there Obama can be both shrewd and resolute.
19
Mr. Brooks says that we need a president "philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning". Isn't just what we have in President Obama? Of course we do, but unfortunately he has had to deal with an opposition philosophically volatile, emotionally immature, and tactically foolish.
60
In your lifetime have you ever lived with such uncertainty in the USA, and the world being such a dangerous place?
Who would get the credit if we had outstanding economic growth in the USA and America was thought highly of around the world, especially after those 8 years of war with GWB as president?
Who would get the credit if we had outstanding economic growth in the USA and America was thought highly of around the world, especially after those 8 years of war with GWB as president?
I think we have that man now but we are too stupid to recognize it, appreciate him and give him the support to change our country and the world. What a waste; only history will understand and acknowledge.
51
Some of the commentators missed one of barbs thrown here by Brooks: Lincoln's lack of formal education. He didn't need that book larnin' in cloistered academic halls to be a great president. We are implicitly invited to contrast this the current president, a law professor with a degree from Harvard.
There's the veiled anti-Obama barb.
A few paragraphs down, we read that Brooks is helping to teach a class at Yale.
And there's the trademark right-wing hypocrisy.
There's the veiled anti-Obama barb.
A few paragraphs down, we read that Brooks is helping to teach a class at Yale.
And there's the trademark right-wing hypocrisy.
27
@G fagin: Perhaps Brooks is going to hitch his wagon to Walker's 'star' who did not get a college degree. I've heard people use Lincoln's experience in somehow saying Walker was the same. The same as Lincoln? Um....no. I don't think so. It's a sacrilege to compare Walker to Lincoln.
Why is that hypocritical? Brooks is not claiming that he should be president.
So someone like Barack Obama? Couldn't agree more.
Just wait a hundred years when people are reading books about President Obama before covering presidential elections.
Just wait a hundred years when people are reading books about President Obama before covering presidential elections.
44
I was going to write something similar but you beat me to it. While it is true Obama had a Columbia and Harvard education, where did he go after that? That's right, to the streets and neighborhoods of Chicago where he spent yeaesr "in daily contact with an astounding array of characters".
It's true the country needs someone like Obama and thank God we have him now.
It's true the country needs someone like Obama and thank God we have him now.
4
Mr. Brooks -- Will you please answer these commenters who argue that Barak Obama is the modern-day Abraham Lincoln that you seek? Are there not strong similarities between Mr. Obama and Mr. Lincoln -- beyond the fact that both were lawyers and state legislators and U.S. Senators in Illinois? Did not Mr. Obama bring a vision to office in terms of, say, big ideas like establishing national healthcare or building military coalitions that changed the way we think about those issues? And is not the opposition toward Mr. Obama -- the antagonism and open hatred he faces from Republicans and Tea Partiers -- just as blind and irrational as what Mr. Lincoln faced? So how about it, Mr. Brooks -- is not Mr. Obama the candidate you seek?
74
@Jeremy Mott: I was very much an Obama supporter and voted for him twice. And then the drone killings and the national surveillance squashed a lot of my good feelings for him. BUT now that he has been in office, under incredibly difficult circumstances for these many years because of the intransigence of the traitors who call themselves Americans (from Obama's inauguration night on forward), he has earned my utmost respect. He was the president at the right time. Unfortunately, the hatred emanating from the right has stopped him in very sad ways for this country. I hope to god they do not stop the Iranian deal.
A commenter said yesterday that it was Obama that crashed the economy. Obama! No, it wasn't Bush's fault. It was Obama. My god, the ignorance he's up against.
A commenter said yesterday that it was Obama that crashed the economy. Obama! No, it wasn't Bush's fault. It was Obama. My god, the ignorance he's up against.
2
WHAT THIS NATION NEEDS . . .
Our public educational system has deteriorated badly, we are left with a electorate where the priority of preparing our citizens with basic and comprehensive courses in the arts and sciences for life as a citizen. Rather it has morphed to work needs.
Also, don't tell the public that 10% more students have received a high school diploma during the past decade. The value of the currency is often never mentioned. So, the B.A. of today is equlvelant to the high school "sheepskin" of half a century ago.
Sans a well informed electorate, very little else matters. My mother who was graduated from secondary school (circa, 1930) knew far more about the government than the college graduates I have taught at a CUNY senior college today.
Only a minority of Americans can recite the three branches of government; only half of a random sample of South Carolinians could name the vice-president of the U. S.
So, what matters for 2016 is how much money each potential candidate can raise ... and give to "Madison Avenue" to use for ads to give to the unwashed ... on behalf of the one tenth of the "1%."
Then, we have two halves of one party to select the "leader of the free world" to represent their interests. (See Franks' book. "What's the Matter With Kansas?")
It is clear to me that the wealthy and corporate interests don't want an educated electorate. Just say: 'We need to have freedom.'
The candidates we need must emanate from a well informed public. Then...
Our public educational system has deteriorated badly, we are left with a electorate where the priority of preparing our citizens with basic and comprehensive courses in the arts and sciences for life as a citizen. Rather it has morphed to work needs.
Also, don't tell the public that 10% more students have received a high school diploma during the past decade. The value of the currency is often never mentioned. So, the B.A. of today is equlvelant to the high school "sheepskin" of half a century ago.
Sans a well informed electorate, very little else matters. My mother who was graduated from secondary school (circa, 1930) knew far more about the government than the college graduates I have taught at a CUNY senior college today.
Only a minority of Americans can recite the three branches of government; only half of a random sample of South Carolinians could name the vice-president of the U. S.
So, what matters for 2016 is how much money each potential candidate can raise ... and give to "Madison Avenue" to use for ads to give to the unwashed ... on behalf of the one tenth of the "1%."
Then, we have two halves of one party to select the "leader of the free world" to represent their interests. (See Franks' book. "What's the Matter With Kansas?")
It is clear to me that the wealthy and corporate interests don't want an educated electorate. Just say: 'We need to have freedom.'
The candidates we need must emanate from a well informed public. Then...
11
Just could not quite do it could you David? Write the words that had to have occurred to you in some fashion when you penned this piece: "much like the president we have now."
109
Brooks spins a nice yarn, full of warm fuzzies from the past, which is interesting in that his party has a blatant disregard for history (and science). Greed is what invigorates his party, and an inflated ego that they somehow invented capitalism and deserve more than others. His fellow Republicans like the spoils of war (without fighting themselves), offshore banking, outsourcing jobs, armaments and pillaging the planet because "we built it."
32
Thank You, David; your second paragraph had me marveling yet again that this year's cycle of 12 little GOP nightcrawlers have the hubris to think they should be running for President of the United States.
We have Jeb Bush, the Hispanic; Scott Walker, who announced yesterday that he has Alzheimer's; and who else? I've forgotten. Some foreigner from Canada with beady eyes who looks like Bill Murray's stupider younger brother, yet another lunatic doctor from Texas (doctor from Texas is kind of an oxymoron, at this point); the GOP's other token Hispanic, from the Resentful Right-Wing-Exiles-Who-Left-Cuba-Because-Castro-Wouldn't-Let-Them-Exploit-The-Country-For-Their-Own-Personal-Benefit community in Florida.
And some others, I'm sure. Some bug-eyed guy from South Carolina, and a turtle from Kentucky.
Really, it's going to be quite the entertaining spectacle to see this menagerie of the mediocre parading across the country's corporate media bitstreams.
We have Jeb Bush, the Hispanic; Scott Walker, who announced yesterday that he has Alzheimer's; and who else? I've forgotten. Some foreigner from Canada with beady eyes who looks like Bill Murray's stupider younger brother, yet another lunatic doctor from Texas (doctor from Texas is kind of an oxymoron, at this point); the GOP's other token Hispanic, from the Resentful Right-Wing-Exiles-Who-Left-Cuba-Because-Castro-Wouldn't-Let-Them-Exploit-The-Country-For-Their-Own-Personal-Benefit community in Florida.
And some others, I'm sure. Some bug-eyed guy from South Carolina, and a turtle from Kentucky.
Really, it's going to be quite the entertaining spectacle to see this menagerie of the mediocre parading across the country's corporate media bitstreams.
89
This is the best description of the candidate list I have yet to see. Delusional, every one. Will there be enough delusional voters?
I like David Brook's thoughts on a presidential candidate emulating Abraham Lincoln but there is a basic flaw in this philosophy. It assumes a candidate with these qualities will get elected. The Supreme Court's " Citizens United " decision destroyed the the ability of the electorate to exercise a true democracy to elect such a candidate and the court put the power of elections in the hands of those with the most wealth. Unlike Lincoln's time it is no longer possible to elect candidates with true moral visions for the people but only to elect those who will further the agenda of the rich and powerful. David's thoughts are good but have no bearing on the " new democracy".
153
And the really sad but telling thing is he knows it and still waxes eloquent about the likes of a Lincoln.
1
So you are voting for Hillary next year? She's from Illinois and is a moderate Republican in Democrats clothing.
8
Does anyone believe that David Brooks goes to the Lincoln Memorial every presidential election night?
That sounds to me like hooey of the Applebee's salad bar variety.
That sounds to me like hooey of the Applebee's salad bar variety.
12
After last week's column he may have Washington's eligible in mud there to meet him --- he might even have the not-so-eligible.
"...the next president will have to perpetually disappoint the fervent..." Mr. Brooks, this excerpt by itself disqualifies any Republican for consideration in 2016. If America's 16th president worked to build a consensus, to move government along by degrees, so has America's 44th. Republicans, Mr. Brooks, in their panic, threw in their lot with the extreme right fringe; this narrow seam in the party's thin fabric is what defines it. None of the legion of GOP/TP'ers now on display is truly capable of moderation. In truth, most, if not all of them, resent the 16th president's legacy because of his greatest achievement: holding the center. No president can succeed governing from the extremes. Republicans will attempt to dress themselves up as reasonable concerned, compassionate. Voters will see through the ruses. Your party of Lincoln is fueled by: the stridency of a Rush Limbaugh; oiled by a factually-challenged Fox News; is awash in a heaving sea of anonymous political action committee money that no one knows where it comes from; is nourished by the venom of the serpentine ALEC; is afforded legal cover by an ideological Supreme Court. Mr. Brooks, if you'd read your own newspaper, you'd discover that the sitting president pretty much owns all of the admirable qualities of President Lincoln that you argue must be in the make-up of No. 45. One wonders if you've been paying attention the last six years.
47
Politics aside (for the moment) that paragraph on Lincoln's temperament is a beautiful piece of writing; e.g., 'radical self-honesty' and 'an exceptionally poor hater'. Nice work.
6
In the famous bedroom scene of "Hamlet," our hero is alone with his mother and two pictures, one of his late, murdered father, and the other of his usurping, fratricidal uncle, now his step father. Hamlet shows his mother one picture and then the other. "Have you no eyes?" he asks. "You gave up this for this?"
David Brooks clearly has a picture of Lincoln before him, as he goes to great pains to explain. But he also has Cruz, Cristie, Perry, Rubio, Bush, Walker, Paul, and, yes, Hillary. He also has Obama.
Have you no eyes, Mr. Brooks? No ears?
David Brooks clearly has a picture of Lincoln before him, as he goes to great pains to explain. But he also has Cruz, Cristie, Perry, Rubio, Bush, Walker, Paul, and, yes, Hillary. He also has Obama.
Have you no eyes, Mr. Brooks? No ears?
11
"Most of Lincoln’s efforts were designed to tamp down passion for the sake of sustainable, incremental progress.:"
Today's world is the polar opposite of that in the time of Lincoln. "tamping down passion" is hardly what I'd call any of our politics today.
Mr. Brooks also leaves out an important factoid in assessing what's needed in presidential candidates: the tenor of the times. Each age is different. Each age poses huge challenges. He's right to say Lincoln couldn't survive our times, but our times aren't capable of producing a Lincoln either.
Not only are today's candidates forced to deliver sweeping visions--not incremental changes--but these visions are often delivered with the highest degree of emotions. Introspection, thought, clarity of vision, and the inability to hate--who represents those qualities today?
Finally, Lincoln never had to face the raw and pernicious influence of super PACs who routinely buy elections for their varied business constituencies, primarily energy and finance. Lincoln's America was caught up in huge issues of social justice yet still embedded in simpler, more rustic times.
I maintain that one can't simply pluck a great President out of the past and demand those quality in today's politicians. Lincoln' wouldn't survive the primary process today. He wasn't for sale, and today's candidates are.
Today's world is the polar opposite of that in the time of Lincoln. "tamping down passion" is hardly what I'd call any of our politics today.
Mr. Brooks also leaves out an important factoid in assessing what's needed in presidential candidates: the tenor of the times. Each age is different. Each age poses huge challenges. He's right to say Lincoln couldn't survive our times, but our times aren't capable of producing a Lincoln either.
Not only are today's candidates forced to deliver sweeping visions--not incremental changes--but these visions are often delivered with the highest degree of emotions. Introspection, thought, clarity of vision, and the inability to hate--who represents those qualities today?
Finally, Lincoln never had to face the raw and pernicious influence of super PACs who routinely buy elections for their varied business constituencies, primarily energy and finance. Lincoln's America was caught up in huge issues of social justice yet still embedded in simpler, more rustic times.
I maintain that one can't simply pluck a great President out of the past and demand those quality in today's politicians. Lincoln' wouldn't survive the primary process today. He wasn't for sale, and today's candidates are.
16
How about integrity? The strength, the moral courage to always do what was right and stick by it?
If there's one thing Lincoln was best known for, it was his absolute, unshakable integrity ("Honest Abe"). No spin, no lies, no hiding behind excuse or spokespersons. He said what he meant and he didn't sugar-coat it.
Could we have that again?
If there's one thing Lincoln was best known for, it was his absolute, unshakable integrity ("Honest Abe"). No spin, no lies, no hiding behind excuse or spokespersons. He said what he meant and he didn't sugar-coat it.
Could we have that again?
4
It's telling that the modern Republican Party and its carnival barking leaders still pretend they are the 'Party of Lincoln' while it actively legislates to send gays and minority voters to the back of the bus while rendering all of the nation's uteruses to a GOP lockbox.
It's telling that the GOP 'Freedom' party fights hardest to emancipate people from health insurance, clean air, sex education, public education, paved roads and decent infrastructure.
Abraham Lincoln said "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
And this is exactly what has happened to America with great thanks to the seditionist GOP and its merry band of 'freedom' traitors.
Just as the Old Confederacy tried its seditious best to shatter America, the New Republican Confederacy's Southern, Stupid and Spiteful strategy has slowly eroded America into a tragic Pavlovian political shell game.
The Republican Party's contributions to America since 1980 have been massive income inequality, a shredded safety net, a shattered labor force, a right-wing Supreme Court, a national shooting gallery, corporate people, moneyed speech, a disabled Senate and House, and medieval social sensibility.
It is unreasonable to expect any man with a reasonable temperament to arise out of that right-wing political cesspool.
Lincoln also said "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
He was taking about the GOP's New Confederacy.
It's telling that the GOP 'Freedom' party fights hardest to emancipate people from health insurance, clean air, sex education, public education, paved roads and decent infrastructure.
Abraham Lincoln said "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
And this is exactly what has happened to America with great thanks to the seditionist GOP and its merry band of 'freedom' traitors.
Just as the Old Confederacy tried its seditious best to shatter America, the New Republican Confederacy's Southern, Stupid and Spiteful strategy has slowly eroded America into a tragic Pavlovian political shell game.
The Republican Party's contributions to America since 1980 have been massive income inequality, a shredded safety net, a shattered labor force, a right-wing Supreme Court, a national shooting gallery, corporate people, moneyed speech, a disabled Senate and House, and medieval social sensibility.
It is unreasonable to expect any man with a reasonable temperament to arise out of that right-wing political cesspool.
Lincoln also said "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
He was taking about the GOP's New Confederacy.
281
Observing the very intractability of the slavery issue was probably the most formative experience of Lincoln's lifetime. Not only were average people divided between powerful extremes that saw slavery and abolition as moral imperatives essential to the American dream, the Constitution itself had created a federal-state system of laws that for decades had been forcing the mainstream into ideological identification with those extremes. Lincoln's pragmatic insistence on finding a central position earned him the contempt of both sides, while convincing him that the American form of government had doomed us to a horrible bloodletting in which one side or the other had to ultimately win.
Obama's America has eery similarity to Lincoln's era. Obama's exasperating centrism -- in the face of an extreme right wing that characterizes him as an antichrist, and an extreme left wing that characterizes him as lacking adequate conviction -- appears to be embracing the need for violent resolutions, while once again rejecting the constitutional mandate that government provide for "the general welfare".
The uniquely American form of federalism appears to cultivate extremism that periodically threatens the existence of the Constitution itself.
Obama's America has eery similarity to Lincoln's era. Obama's exasperating centrism -- in the face of an extreme right wing that characterizes him as an antichrist, and an extreme left wing that characterizes him as lacking adequate conviction -- appears to be embracing the need for violent resolutions, while once again rejecting the constitutional mandate that government provide for "the general welfare".
The uniquely American form of federalism appears to cultivate extremism that periodically threatens the existence of the Constitution itself.
7
Mr. Brooks, the next time you stand before the Memorial, please try to recall even one kind word for Mr. Lincoln offered by a member of his own party since 1981. Scorn for his courage and wisdom is now worn as a badge of virtue, a true American tragedy.
24
"but also able to see his enemy’s point of view" should also include recognizing a good idea no matter where it comes from. Alas, that particular attribute is missing from the politicians and the public these days.
4
It never occurred to me that Lincoln planned to rely on the private sector to end slavery. Luckily, his legacy was not smeared when those freed were then essentially re-enslaved by an entrenched economic elite.
So, the free market begat sharecroppers, which seems like a free market thing to do.
Next, Scott Walker will be thrilled with your assertion that book larnin' is overrated. Clearly, if our nation chooses to turn from the editor of the Harvard Law Review to a fellow who couldn't stay in school long enough to receive his Bachelors degree from Marquette, we will have made a sound decision to reject received wisdom in favor of gut instincts.
If your conclusions proceeded directly from evidence, David, I would have expected the second half of this column to turn to our current Lincoln, a man who faces opposition as virulent as the plug uglies and nearly as intransigent as those who seceded rather than acknowledge Lincoln's legitimacy.
In the face of this seething ill-will, the President has maintained his composure and his sense of humor, has done what he can to protect the little guy standing among the corporate trees by appointing quality people to the Supreme Court and federal agencies, has stepped back from the previous administration's obsession with controlling the lives of every single Muslim in the Middle East, and has pushed the nation toward inclusion rather than exclusion of those who traditionally have been attacked and shunned.
Lincolnesque, I'd say.
So, the free market begat sharecroppers, which seems like a free market thing to do.
Next, Scott Walker will be thrilled with your assertion that book larnin' is overrated. Clearly, if our nation chooses to turn from the editor of the Harvard Law Review to a fellow who couldn't stay in school long enough to receive his Bachelors degree from Marquette, we will have made a sound decision to reject received wisdom in favor of gut instincts.
If your conclusions proceeded directly from evidence, David, I would have expected the second half of this column to turn to our current Lincoln, a man who faces opposition as virulent as the plug uglies and nearly as intransigent as those who seceded rather than acknowledge Lincoln's legitimacy.
In the face of this seething ill-will, the President has maintained his composure and his sense of humor, has done what he can to protect the little guy standing among the corporate trees by appointing quality people to the Supreme Court and federal agencies, has stepped back from the previous administration's obsession with controlling the lives of every single Muslim in the Middle East, and has pushed the nation toward inclusion rather than exclusion of those who traditionally have been attacked and shunned.
Lincolnesque, I'd say.
53
The only one I know with a "fundamental vision, a golden temperament and a shrewd strategy", is Hillary. Who were you thinking?
9
President Obama is far more Lincoln than McCain or Romney ever could have been.
Funny how Mr Brooks musings never reflect that.
Waiting to see how he'll find Lincoln in the current GOP.
Funny how Mr Brooks musings never reflect that.
Waiting to see how he'll find Lincoln in the current GOP.
44
Hmm, capacity for introspection, emotionally mature--you're describing President Obama.
41
Dear David Brooks, we will never have another President like Abraham Lincoln, as long as corporations = people, money = free speech, and Billions of dollars, of special interest money, flood our political campaigns.
7
For a moment I thought Mr. Brooks was going to finally tell the Republicans to wake up and see that President Obama was indeed the reincarnation of their beloved icon, Abraham Lincoln. But no. It would have been futile anyway. Already the conservative bloggers are branding the president (again) as a conspirator of America's "enemies" with the recent articulation of the so-called "Obama Doctrine".
23
“Well, at least we can find the closest possible approximation.”
Interesting column. Would be even more interesting if you would try to find the closest possible approximation in the current field of Republican candidates. My guess is that the closest is still pretty far off the mark.
And if you would honestly analyze his qualities and actions, you will have to come to the conclusion that you have actually had a president in office for the last six years who comes pretty close to your ideal Lincoln “lookalike”.
Interesting column. Would be even more interesting if you would try to find the closest possible approximation in the current field of Republican candidates. My guess is that the closest is still pretty far off the mark.
And if you would honestly analyze his qualities and actions, you will have to come to the conclusion that you have actually had a president in office for the last six years who comes pretty close to your ideal Lincoln “lookalike”.
22
Republicans cannot point with much credibility to Abe, or for that matter Teddie Roosevelt igiven what's been going on in "their" party for the last 35 years.
8
lincoln was so politically and tactically cunning that the nation descended into an unbelievable bloodbath on his watch.
1
"lincoln was so politically and tactically cunning" that he ended slavery, kept the country as one, and got France out of Mexico, all despite traitors too like the Republicans of today.
Why wax so lovingly over Lincoln? Bush, W, was destroyed for killing and/or injuring 50,000 Americans. Under the beloveded reign of Lincoln some 600,000 Americans died. Lincoln gets too much of a free pass
The Civil War was fought to hold this nation together. W's war was one of arrogance and stupidity, not to mention greed.
2
W killed those Americans and a million more with lies.
Jefferson Davis killed those 600,000 to preserve slavery, and Lincoln always told us the truth about all of it.
That's the difference.
The Republicans celebrate liars and their lies.
Jefferson Davis killed those 600,000 to preserve slavery, and Lincoln always told us the truth about all of it.
That's the difference.
The Republicans celebrate liars and their lies.
1
I thought you were talking about Obama... who, to me, is as close to Lincoln as we have ever had...unfortunately, he is a black man and in my heart I truly believe that he has been stopped at every turn because of that very fact. It really hurts to see the special agendas of our politicians take precedents over the real needs of this great country. Obama has tried to do that and been thwarted at every turn... truly, it is a disgrace.
127
But how was he at fund-raising?
6
You didn't mention one of his most notable behaviors, which was bipartisanship. He chose cabinet members who were in direct opposition to his views, to get a robust, fair and well-rounded point of view. Obama tried to do that too, at least a little bit, before he realized republicans were acting in lockstep to destroy him. So perhaps the new leader could make an attempt to reach out to the other side, whichever side they're on.
6
So Mr. Books backed candidate Mitt Romney for President because he had the following attributes: "1. A fundamental vision 2. A golden temperament and 3. A shrewd strategy for how to cope with the political realities of the moment."
7
Mr. Brooks, we will not see another Lincoln in the GOP for any number of reasons. One is because campaigns are less about the person with ideas, vision, and pluck and much more about professional politicians willing to put his/her principles for sale on the open market in order to attract donors. Another—imagine Lincoln arguing his view of a nuanced topic such as popular sovereignty or an explosive issue like slavery to low information voters, via Fox News, without $1 billion in a campaign war chest.
What the GOP needs is a dose of Lincoln’s wit and wisdom—a droll style that made such quotes last for 150 years—“Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” I think the same—whenever I hear a politician wax poetic about how the new law is good for me (healthcare for example) I think, you first!
What the GOP needs is a dose of Lincoln’s wit and wisdom—a droll style that made such quotes last for 150 years—“Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” I think the same—whenever I hear a politician wax poetic about how the new law is good for me (healthcare for example) I think, you first!
7
Just for the record, would you be so kind as to name, say three, candidates, or potential candidates, from each party who you would consider "closest possible approximation"s.
Thanking you in advance.
Thanking you in advance.
8
Here is something left out by both Brooks and commentators. His greatest speech, the Emancipation Proclamation, was 244 words long, or about 5 minutes long. Juxtapose that with State of Union speeches running an hour. Anyone who can be that succinct gets my vote.
2
In Lincoln's time, a tiny fraction of the people who cast their vote for President had the opportunity to see and hear the candidates speak even one time; if they did have that opportunity, what they saw was a person delivering a speech - not answering questions, not relating to the people gathered around him. Until the mid 20th Century, voters chose the candidate on the basis of what they read about the candidate's views, usually at a second-hand comment as well.
Now, the voters who elect a President see and hear the individual deliver speeches, answer questions, participate in debates and town meetings - and sometimes even hear recordings made when the candidate was not aware of that fact and thought he was speaking 'off the record'.
Like all reactionaries, you seem most comfortable trying to apply what was true long ago as a template for tomorrow's reality.
Thanks. You and your fellow reactionaries ("conservative" is a misnomer) continue to demonstrate the futility of looking through the teleretroscope.
Now, the voters who elect a President see and hear the individual deliver speeches, answer questions, participate in debates and town meetings - and sometimes even hear recordings made when the candidate was not aware of that fact and thought he was speaking 'off the record'.
Like all reactionaries, you seem most comfortable trying to apply what was true long ago as a template for tomorrow's reality.
Thanks. You and your fellow reactionaries ("conservative" is a misnomer) continue to demonstrate the futility of looking through the teleretroscope.
9
I do not know for sure how accurate the movie Lincoln is, but I submit that Lincoln could not survive in today's political climate. I also maintain that his chances of developing a legislative strategy would be useless unless his party also controlled congress. I believe the time has come to step back and consider whether our form of democracy is really appropriate for the 21st century. It just doesn't seem to work. To fix it, I believe there are many good ideas out there such as: one 6 year terms for the President, no more than two 6 year terms for the Senate and two 4 year terms for the House. Congressional Districts would be developed based on some logic other than gerrymandering to make them non-competitive. Voting day should be a national holiday, and voting should be made easier with a proactive effort to get out the vote. We should examine the budget process to make it more constructive, and force congress to pass a real budget before the start of a new fiscal year. Unless we fundamentally change the structure of our government, no president will succeed in the future in my opinion.
11
I've been pushing for a 2nd Constitutional Congress to do just that, without consulting the Federal Government at all! Have every state send a delegation to Philadelphia to debate and investigate changes to the Constitution, then send the revision out for a popular vote. We the People… [did] ordain this government. We can de-ordain it too.
Yes, there will be conflict and argument, maybe nothing will happen, maybe something worse will emerge, but that's how we do things. As Franklin said, We have a republic —if we can keep it.
Yes, there will be conflict and argument, maybe nothing will happen, maybe something worse will emerge, but that's how we do things. As Franklin said, We have a republic —if we can keep it.
It is very easy to praise a man for having strong convictions when you agree with the convictions. I suspect that Mr. Brooks is much less pleased with President Obama's convictions on foreign affairs. Those convictions are clearly very strong but to Mr. Brooks, not the "correct" convictions.
I have a problem with this sort of phrasing that often goes on in politics these days. Phrases like "I am a man who sticks to his ideals". OK, tell me what your ideals are and I'll tell you whether you are going to get my vote.
I have a problem with this sort of phrasing that often goes on in politics these days. Phrases like "I am a man who sticks to his ideals". OK, tell me what your ideals are and I'll tell you whether you are going to get my vote.
11
Mr. Brooks omits the part about Lincoln consenting to make life (even) easier for the 1% of Americans who funded his campaign. Oh, wait a minute...back in those days they didn't have a Supreme Court that was in and of itself captive to those same interests.
19
First, Obama is no Lincoln. He is an ideologue and lacks the temperament to lead Congress, which has always contained the fiercest warriors outside our military.
As for a Lincoln-type leader, one must distinguish between the initial cast of candidates (ex., Cruz, Paul, etc.) and the likely nominee. While everyone is thrashing about wasting time (and criticism) on contenders, it is the likely nominee that warrants this type of examination.
As of now, Bush and Clinton are the only two that demonstrate the maturity and perspectives that come close to meeting the needs of diverse constituencies. Clinton, of course, is ethically challenged, but her baggage is at least familiar.
As for a Lincoln-type leader, one must distinguish between the initial cast of candidates (ex., Cruz, Paul, etc.) and the likely nominee. While everyone is thrashing about wasting time (and criticism) on contenders, it is the likely nominee that warrants this type of examination.
As of now, Bush and Clinton are the only two that demonstrate the maturity and perspectives that come close to meeting the needs of diverse constituencies. Clinton, of course, is ethically challenged, but her baggage is at least familiar.
3
@AACNY: And you're no John Kennedy. And the Congress this President has to work with is filled to the brim with ideologues, mostly from the opposing party.
24
Where have you been living the last 6 years?? President Obama is certainly not an ideologue! He has been more than willing to compromise since the first day he took office! What you forget is that the Republican congressional leaders met on INAUGURATION DAY in January 2009 and swore to obstruct EVERYTHING this president wanted to do. (Sort of borders on treason, in my book).
By the way, if he were dogmatic ideologue, we would have a single-payer health care system now. But he was a able to see that "half a loaf is better than none" so adopted the REPUBLICAN plan - the ACA.
By the way, if he were dogmatic ideologue, we would have a single-payer health care system now. But he was a able to see that "half a loaf is better than none" so adopted the REPUBLICAN plan - the ACA.
11
@AACNY: He's the ideologue and his Congressional opponents are fierce warriors? That's like saying Lincoln was a wuss and Stephen Douglas a saint.
1
Lincoln was a whole, not a sum of parts to pick and choose from. He also succeeded during a particular time, as the column points out, one without televisions and other technological media.
So we're not getting another Lincoln but one with a pretty face.
We're getting who fits into our current system.
I'm fine with picking out ideal characteristics for presidential candidates, such as vision, temperament, and strategy. Here's my question: if someone with vision, temperament, and strategy arose, would David Brooks actually support him or her, or would he support those who would come down on them like a ton of bricks? Whom has providing support in both directions helped? I have an urge to criticize the columnist for the kind of advice he has provided this sitting president and his opposition, but instead I will keep the focus on myself and attend to my own onions.
So we're not getting another Lincoln but one with a pretty face.
We're getting who fits into our current system.
I'm fine with picking out ideal characteristics for presidential candidates, such as vision, temperament, and strategy. Here's my question: if someone with vision, temperament, and strategy arose, would David Brooks actually support him or her, or would he support those who would come down on them like a ton of bricks? Whom has providing support in both directions helped? I have an urge to criticize the columnist for the kind of advice he has provided this sitting president and his opposition, but instead I will keep the focus on myself and attend to my own onions.
9
Diana Moses:
We're getting who fits into our current system.
***
Very true. One has to be able to navigate tsunami-like political waters these days!
The problem with your comparison of Obama to Lincoln is reconciling the president's attitude upon taking office. It's hard to imagine Lincoln dismissing Senators with the words, "I won."
Lincoln was supposedly a good study of men, who knew how to get what he wanted from members of Congress. The president has never come close to accomplishing this.
Being a calm, intelligent and thoughtful person does not make one a good leader or capable executive.
We're getting who fits into our current system.
***
Very true. One has to be able to navigate tsunami-like political waters these days!
The problem with your comparison of Obama to Lincoln is reconciling the president's attitude upon taking office. It's hard to imagine Lincoln dismissing Senators with the words, "I won."
Lincoln was supposedly a good study of men, who knew how to get what he wanted from members of Congress. The president has never come close to accomplishing this.
Being a calm, intelligent and thoughtful person does not make one a good leader or capable executive.
2
AACNY, you do realize that the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order made without the consent of Congress.
2
The closest approximation, HRC. Really!
Linchon, just like Obama, was a President who had to endure a time of Southern Stupidity and eventualities. History decides. Being a Republican put you into some tough, disappointing spots hanging around the Linchon Memorial on Election Day.
Linchon, just like Obama, was a President who had to endure a time of Southern Stupidity and eventualities. History decides. Being a Republican put you into some tough, disappointing spots hanging around the Linchon Memorial on Election Day.
14
"He believed in a government that built canals and railroads and banks to stoke the fires of industry."
A government that "built canals and railroads" will be seen as being too intrusive by today's GOP, particularly its Tea Party segment. Ever since Reagan spoke of government being the problem and not the solution, one half of our politicians loudly avow their distaste for any government programs while the other half sits quietly acquiescing to that vision.
As for 'banks that stoke the fires of industry" what can I say that has not been said already. As recent experience has shown, banks have a rapacious appetite to inveigle people into taking on loans that they cannot afford. The banks will socialize their losses but privatize their gains. Hardly the model goal of stoking the fires of industry.
In conclusion, I strongly suspect that even Lincoln may have thrown up his hands in surrender to these forces.
A government that "built canals and railroads" will be seen as being too intrusive by today's GOP, particularly its Tea Party segment. Ever since Reagan spoke of government being the problem and not the solution, one half of our politicians loudly avow their distaste for any government programs while the other half sits quietly acquiescing to that vision.
As for 'banks that stoke the fires of industry" what can I say that has not been said already. As recent experience has shown, banks have a rapacious appetite to inveigle people into taking on loans that they cannot afford. The banks will socialize their losses but privatize their gains. Hardly the model goal of stoking the fires of industry.
In conclusion, I strongly suspect that even Lincoln may have thrown up his hands in surrender to these forces.
25
I am pleasantly surprised to hear you support voting for a Democratic candidate in the next election.
165
Let's consider our set of possible candidates in no particular order:
Rand Paul, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Bernie Sanders, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Martin O'Malley, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindahl, Chris Christie, and perhaps others.
And then consider Barak Obama.
Who is most like Lincoln ? The President is, with a long suffering temperament, dealing with intractable partisans who would see him fail from his first day in office as they question his very legitimacy.
And by the way, "These partisan times" are not created in equal measure David, but are a strategy employed by those who would cripple government.
Rand Paul, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Bernie Sanders, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Martin O'Malley, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindahl, Chris Christie, and perhaps others.
And then consider Barak Obama.
Who is most like Lincoln ? The President is, with a long suffering temperament, dealing with intractable partisans who would see him fail from his first day in office as they question his very legitimacy.
And by the way, "These partisan times" are not created in equal measure David, but are a strategy employed by those who would cripple government.
377
LOL, the only resemblance Mr. Obama has to Mr. Lincoln is that both of them are/were tall and slender.
It is worth remembering here (and even Mr. Brooks does not seem to do this) that Lincoln only BECAME "Lincoln" (the legend) when tried by fire in office. Before that, he was just another POTUS. The 19th century produced some very mediocre Presidents. It is hard to say how people will do when faced with extraordinary circumstances -- will they rise to the occasion? or crumple like a piece of foil?
We know how Lincoln was, because his actions are now safely ensconced in history books, and we know how the Civil War ended. It wasn't that clear IN THE MOMENT, and Lincoln was not widely loved until after he was dead.
It is worth remembering here (and even Mr. Brooks does not seem to do this) that Lincoln only BECAME "Lincoln" (the legend) when tried by fire in office. Before that, he was just another POTUS. The 19th century produced some very mediocre Presidents. It is hard to say how people will do when faced with extraordinary circumstances -- will they rise to the occasion? or crumple like a piece of foil?
We know how Lincoln was, because his actions are now safely ensconced in history books, and we know how the Civil War ended. It wasn't that clear IN THE MOMENT, and Lincoln was not widely loved until after he was dead.
1
Long suffering both ... and more like Lincoln than the others. And if we can credit history to know Lincoln's humor and wit, Obama is closer to him than the others on that standard as well.
1
David needs to see the reality of men who run for the highest office by running against government, against the tyrany of Washington. This began with St. Ronnie's statement about the most frightening words being, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." This G.O.P. gang means to finish us off, more war, more corporate rule, privatize everything for personal profit, education, state lotteries (christie) and shut up women who think their bodies are their business. The G.O.P. candidate are woefully uninformed and seem uninterested in scholarly pursuits preferring bombast. We should all be very afraid.
2
Well David, why didn't you take this point of view during Bush vs Gore? Why didn't you share these orienting values and characteristics then, and give us your take on the 2 candidates?
17
Abraham Lincoln was also my favorite President. He said so much with relatively few words. Most importantly, he was right on the substance, and cared less about process.
Lincoln would not recognize today's Republican Party. He would be horrified how the super-rich have taken over the substance of his political party. He would have kept us out of foreign entanglements such as Afghanistan and Iraq. He would not measure every issue on how it helps the rich. He was, above all, a man of the people. He could never be bought by tycoons. He would not be dazzled by ideological fads. He was a practical man, and a person who empathized with poor folks.
Lincoln would not recognize today's Republican Party. He would be horrified how the super-rich have taken over the substance of his political party. He would have kept us out of foreign entanglements such as Afghanistan and Iraq. He would not measure every issue on how it helps the rich. He was, above all, a man of the people. He could never be bought by tycoons. He would not be dazzled by ideological fads. He was a practical man, and a person who empathized with poor folks.
277
Back in Lincoln's day, we were insulated and protected by the breadth of our two oceans, so he wouldn't have had to be concerned with Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran.
Today our lives depend on being concerned with places like these.
Today our lives depend on being concerned with places like these.
1
"Today our lives depend on being concerned with places like these."
No. The sooner we turn our attention homeward, the better our lives will be. Republicans fear that both because it would end their projects for self aggrandizement and because if we were looking at our home we'd be disgusted with them.
No. The sooner we turn our attention homeward, the better our lives will be. Republicans fear that both because it would end their projects for self aggrandizement and because if we were looking at our home we'd be disgusted with them.
4
Sounds like Bernie Sanders of Vermont. His campaign motto is "experience that money can't buy"..
1
David-
Are you thinking about a third term for Bush-Cheney?
Are you thinking about a third term for Bush-Cheney?
7
The truest and saddest part of your column is that indeed, Lincoln may not stand a chance today.
11
He wouldn't, but not for the reasons listed here. Lincoln not only had no college degree, but he was homely. He was gangly and awkward. He had what we'd consider today a "hillbilly accent".
If that wasn't enough, he had a history of "melancholy" (depression). And his wife Mary was a total hysterical nutjob.
All of those things would have sunk him like a stone. Lincoln couldn't get elected today as dog catcher in a small rural town.
And that is our REAL loss -- not the sneering at Republicans, or the premature crowning of Hillary as "the One" -- it's the fact that no ordinary person of high moral character can ever be elected today, because they lack "movie star looks" and vast piles of money.
If that wasn't enough, he had a history of "melancholy" (depression). And his wife Mary was a total hysterical nutjob.
All of those things would have sunk him like a stone. Lincoln couldn't get elected today as dog catcher in a small rural town.
And that is our REAL loss -- not the sneering at Republicans, or the premature crowning of Hillary as "the One" -- it's the fact that no ordinary person of high moral character can ever be elected today, because they lack "movie star looks" and vast piles of money.
3
In addition to his abilities as a tactician, Lincoln was able to connect with people. He was able to sell. If Obama had 1/10th of Lincoln's sales abilities there would be Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate and our future would look much brighter.
7
I would argue that all Obama can do is sell. If he could deliver (execute) he might not have lost his majority.
He's brilliant at selling a future, an ideal, something that hasn't been delivered. If he were better at selling after the fact, ex., mistakes and missteps, perhaps your statement would hold.
He's brilliant at selling a future, an ideal, something that hasn't been delivered. If he were better at selling after the fact, ex., mistakes and missteps, perhaps your statement would hold.
1
You won't get a Lincoln-like candidate from this Republican Party because the only attribute shared between Lincoln and the contemporary Republican Party is its name and that only by circumstance. The Republican Party itself promotes none of the qualities you rightly ascribe to Lincoln; vision, temperament, and strategy, shrewd or otherwise. It is a reactionary, venal, and tactical club controlled by big money and small ideas, almost all of which have been factually disproven. David, you should read your own columns in the mirror of reality.
165
David Brooks, Lincoln admirer. David Brooks, Champion of the GOP, working towards compromise, and finding solutions. LOL.
98
More cognitive dissidence from our GOP apologist. Having heard President Obama give a thoughtful and reflective interview with his colleague Mr Friedman about geopolitics and the Middle East, and being a supporter of the nut-cases currently gathering like wasps round a jar of jelly for the GOP nomination, Mr Brooks loses all credibility to comment on Presidential qualities. Mr Brooks, there is no connection between the candidates running for your favorite party's leadership, and the qualities of statesmanship you identify.
329
Mr. Brooks got his first official candidate to declare today, Rand Paul, need I say more.
There is no doubt that Lincoln was brilliant.
But he helped cause a civil war in which over 600,000 men were killed, which in terms of our current population would be over 6 million dead.
In addition to the deaths, there were injuries; the south's infrastructure was wrecked; and after the war ended there was not the political will to accept blacks as full citizens, and so years of Jim Crow and legal marginalization followed.
Today, we look back, and Lincoln's policies and the Civil War seems necessary, even noble, as the slaves were freed and the nation was kept whole.
However, if it was me dying in that "noble" endeavor, I do not know if I would think Lincoln was such a great president, I might think that negotiation and diplomacy would have been a better policy.
My post is not an apology for slave owners; slavery is beyond disgusting. But rather I wish to point out that when we benefit from other people's toil and sacrifice, that the benefits to us almost always seem to be worth the price if it is someone else who is doing the paying. It is this attitude, which is so human, which leads to the exploitation of others.
But he helped cause a civil war in which over 600,000 men were killed, which in terms of our current population would be over 6 million dead.
In addition to the deaths, there were injuries; the south's infrastructure was wrecked; and after the war ended there was not the political will to accept blacks as full citizens, and so years of Jim Crow and legal marginalization followed.
Today, we look back, and Lincoln's policies and the Civil War seems necessary, even noble, as the slaves were freed and the nation was kept whole.
However, if it was me dying in that "noble" endeavor, I do not know if I would think Lincoln was such a great president, I might think that negotiation and diplomacy would have been a better policy.
My post is not an apology for slave owners; slavery is beyond disgusting. But rather I wish to point out that when we benefit from other people's toil and sacrifice, that the benefits to us almost always seem to be worth the price if it is someone else who is doing the paying. It is this attitude, which is so human, which leads to the exploitation of others.
20
Would agree, but I guess we should accept that is the way things were solved then, e.g. march off to war and die for the cause. I guess the draft riots in NY City were the counter point. Good post.
4
You too have chosen to ignore the historical set of facts to make your point, albeit a good one. The secessionist themselves "caused" the Civil War, ENTIRELY. Case closed.
29
So, Lincoln helped cause the Civil War because he didn't believe in diplomacy? The southern states seceded because they didn't like the outcome of the 1860 election, fearing its impact on slavery. Lincoln assured them he had no intention of threatening the institution where it existed, but they rejected his olive branch. Other than bidding Jeff Davis and his colleagues a fond farewell, exactly what was the president supposed to do to preserve the integrity of the republic? The willingness of Lincoln and the people of the North to fight preserved intact the democratic republic we enjoy today. Some goals are worth fighting for.
24
I believe we have such a person, or at least someone who but for prejudice could have been such a person, but alas he can not run again.
314
i was going to say the same thing as J, BO has those qualities you outlined. which is why i voted for him both times and believe that his terms have been very successful despite the obstacles at every turn.
157
David Brooks recommends Lincoln's "golden temperament" as one of the qualities Brooks would ask for in a Presidential candidate: Here are a few direct citations shedding light on Lincoln's temperament:
"[Lincoln was] subject to persistent bouts of melancholy, now diagnosed as bipolar disorder or manic depressive illness. And he suffered from rages."
"But a team of doctors and neurologists reports in the latest Perspectives in Biology and Medicine that the great man may have been poisoned by a medicine for his melancholia."
"the President became so incensed that he grabbed a former aide and shook him “until his teeth chattered”."
"[Lincoln's] streak of cruelty; his explosive temper; and his aversion to women are among the topics covered by Michael Burlingame in The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln. Based primarily on long-neglected manuscript and newspaper sources - especially on reminiscences of people who knew Lincoln"
David Brooks as usual forgoes reality in favor of regurgitating cliches and received wisdom. Of course "everyone knows" that Lincoln had a golden temperament, just as everyone "knows" that deficits didn't rise under Reagan and that he created a million jobs in a month. So that's what you write, who cares about actually checking if it's true.
"[Lincoln was] subject to persistent bouts of melancholy, now diagnosed as bipolar disorder or manic depressive illness. And he suffered from rages."
"But a team of doctors and neurologists reports in the latest Perspectives in Biology and Medicine that the great man may have been poisoned by a medicine for his melancholia."
"the President became so incensed that he grabbed a former aide and shook him “until his teeth chattered”."
"[Lincoln's] streak of cruelty; his explosive temper; and his aversion to women are among the topics covered by Michael Burlingame in The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln. Based primarily on long-neglected manuscript and newspaper sources - especially on reminiscences of people who knew Lincoln"
David Brooks as usual forgoes reality in favor of regurgitating cliches and received wisdom. Of course "everyone knows" that Lincoln had a golden temperament, just as everyone "knows" that deficits didn't rise under Reagan and that he created a million jobs in a month. So that's what you write, who cares about actually checking if it's true.
96
"...who cares about actually checking if its true." Apparently you don't. You cherry-pick a few claims from Burlingame's book, omitting the context and nuance that the author supplies. Lincoln was a complex man, not the one-dimensional caricature you portray. Brooks may gild the lily a little, but his characterization captures the real man far better than your poor attempt.
3
You're wrong all counts. One of the lines I quoted was *about* the book you mention, the others were from a variety of sources.
I wasn't "portraying" anyone let alone as one-dimensional, I wrote a brief comment (with a character limit) expressly meant to demonstrate that David Brooks' mention of "early depression" as if the only negative in an otherwise sunny personality was utterly misleading, since there are plenty of citations about Lincoln's temper -- while he was President. I didn't set out to write a comprehensive description of Lincoln, but to dispute one of David Brooks' misleading claims.
If it's not "cherry-picking" to use limited, misleading accounts to serve the mythologizing that you're engaging in, but it is cherry picking to dare to refute these -- then that phrase must have special meaning to you, unlike most other people.
I wasn't "portraying" anyone let alone as one-dimensional, I wrote a brief comment (with a character limit) expressly meant to demonstrate that David Brooks' mention of "early depression" as if the only negative in an otherwise sunny personality was utterly misleading, since there are plenty of citations about Lincoln's temper -- while he was President. I didn't set out to write a comprehensive description of Lincoln, but to dispute one of David Brooks' misleading claims.
If it's not "cherry-picking" to use limited, misleading accounts to serve the mythologizing that you're engaging in, but it is cherry picking to dare to refute these -- then that phrase must have special meaning to you, unlike most other people.
2
Every attribute you hail in Lincoln that is shared by Obama brings vitriolic criticism from Republicans. Seeing our enemies points of view, in GOP-speak, makes Obama an apologist. His efforts to get funding to improve the nation's crumbling infrastructure are shot down repeatedly. The president's measured, incremental approach has brought the economy from the brink of disaster and continues to make ours the most appealing business climate world-wide for investors, but you'll never hear that on FOX News - only the untrue opposite. As for emotional maturity, front-running Republicans are so over the top they don't even know what it means.
462
Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and as you say, embodied those characteristics which voters consistently seek -- honesty, competence, and vision. Our current Republican Party is weak in these qualities. Look no further than the Party's position on climate and fawning over the Israeli prime minister.
Lincoln used the power of his office to advance justice and expand opportunity.
The most wonderful mystery of American politics is Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln used the power of his office to advance justice and expand opportunity.
The most wonderful mystery of American politics is Abraham Lincoln.
48
" Candidates who don’t have a contradictory temperament have no way to check themselves and are thus dangerous."
***********
If one uses this sentence alone as criteria to judge those who have already declared and are intending to shortly declare their intentions to run for POTUS, then this country is in a terribly dangerous position.
***********
If one uses this sentence alone as criteria to judge those who have already declared and are intending to shortly declare their intentions to run for POTUS, then this country is in a terribly dangerous position.
37
There are no real analogues to Lincoln currently on either side of the political spectrum. Yet his unique capabilities, while always hoped for, really aren't necessary now: while our house certainly is divided on multiple basic issues, we're not about to dismember over it -- it just seems as if we are.
Liberals don't seem to get that they're losing influence because Americans are returning to basic convictions of limited government and living within rational means -- the steady march of Republican majorities at all levels of governance is clear testimony to this trend. Social conservatives are losing influence because Americans increasingly are coming to realize that what walks hand in hand with this worldview is exclusiveness and hatred of what is different -- and clear signs of this trend include an astonishingly rapid acceptance by Americans of non-traditional gender and sexuality. Sometimes it seems that our differences are greater than our similarities, but people strongly yearn for a moderate path characterized by compromise that allows us to move forward despite different convictions.
What candidates need are skills that can choose salable compromises then sell them. What we don't need are ideologues, of the left (such as Elizabeth Warren) or of the right (such as Ted Cruz). This is why I'm optimistic about 2017 and beyond, because if the presidential lists eventually include Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, I could live with either one as president.
Liberals don't seem to get that they're losing influence because Americans are returning to basic convictions of limited government and living within rational means -- the steady march of Republican majorities at all levels of governance is clear testimony to this trend. Social conservatives are losing influence because Americans increasingly are coming to realize that what walks hand in hand with this worldview is exclusiveness and hatred of what is different -- and clear signs of this trend include an astonishingly rapid acceptance by Americans of non-traditional gender and sexuality. Sometimes it seems that our differences are greater than our similarities, but people strongly yearn for a moderate path characterized by compromise that allows us to move forward despite different convictions.
What candidates need are skills that can choose salable compromises then sell them. What we don't need are ideologues, of the left (such as Elizabeth Warren) or of the right (such as Ted Cruz). This is why I'm optimistic about 2017 and beyond, because if the presidential lists eventually include Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, I could live with either one as president.
4
I disagree; I think just as many people are disgusted with liberal destruction of marriage and family, and yearn for a more stable and moral society founded on basic religious principle (not any ONE religion, but the idea of religion as a moral foundation). There is no "astonishingly rapid acceptance" -- it is a triumph of lies and distortion, corrupt pollsters and pundits (and media) willing to perpetrate untruths in the pursuit of "political correctness".
I think if you look to nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, you will find the kind of society you are yearning for. One with the marriage and family based morals founded on basic religious principals you espouse so dearly.
Your problems with your own country arose with the Enlightenment, when liberal ideals of equality, fairness and justice for all inspired a group of people in a newly settled western outpost of the British Empire to build a new nation.
Liberal thought is baked into the American soul. Perhaps you belong in a nation unsullied by such whacky ideals of liberty and justice for all. The Ayatollahs and Mullahs would welcome your views and embrace all you stand for.
Your problems with your own country arose with the Enlightenment, when liberal ideals of equality, fairness and justice for all inspired a group of people in a newly settled western outpost of the British Empire to build a new nation.
Liberal thought is baked into the American soul. Perhaps you belong in a nation unsullied by such whacky ideals of liberty and justice for all. The Ayatollahs and Mullahs would welcome your views and embrace all you stand for.
26
Pauline:
I imagine you're responding to Concerned Citizen and not to me. You need to address comments to the target, until the Times fixes the dysfunctional embedded-comment feature.
I imagine you're responding to Concerned Citizen and not to me. You need to address comments to the target, until the Times fixes the dysfunctional embedded-comment feature.
1
Were we run by oligarchs in Lincoln's time? I suppose the railroad barons could be put in that category. There was a huge crush of industrialism after the Civil War. We became a very dirty place, with industrial food on the rise, and civil rights degrading further for minorities and women for the next 75 years or more. I look to the international financial forces even in those days, pointing our country towards the schemes of men making money on wars and industry as the head waters of what is bringing our country to it knees right now. It's called imperialism. We don't run ourselves. We haven't in a long time. The notion that we have a democracy is a quaint one.
59
Lincoln was known for his honesty.
The republican front runner, Bush, the registered Hispanic, corrupted the 2000 election while Governor, disenfranchising tens of thousands of legitimate Florida voters and interfered with the actual vote count.
Marco Rubio told the story of his parents gallant flight from eternal communist enslavement. Until the truth emerged that they flew out, three years before Castro took power.
The republican front runner, Bush, the registered Hispanic, corrupted the 2000 election while Governor, disenfranchising tens of thousands of legitimate Florida voters and interfered with the actual vote count.
Marco Rubio told the story of his parents gallant flight from eternal communist enslavement. Until the truth emerged that they flew out, three years before Castro took power.
232
PS: DB - Read some critiques of Jaffa. Your view is entirely a product of his, and he got Lincoln entirely wrong.
2
Mr. Brooks, not only will we not get a Lincoln, it looks like we will not get a person with a reasonable portion of his gifts — someone who is philosophically grounded, emotionally mature and tactically cunning — in the Republicans I see in 2015 (and I suspect, in 2016 either).
I see that person in a few Democrats who might be reasonable candidates for the presidency, but those folks are smart enough to not destroy their lives by running for an office where campaigning seems to want to put everyone through public abuse.
I see that person in a few Democrats who might be reasonable candidates for the presidency, but those folks are smart enough to not destroy their lives by running for an office where campaigning seems to want to put everyone through public abuse.
23
Neither party would touch Lincoln with a 10-foot pole today. Can you imagine Lincoln in one of the Republican primary "debates?" He would probably be reduced to tears. But he could't raise the funds to be taken seriously by either party.
1
I don't know what to make of Mr. Brooks. He seems to value such high ideals, like fairness, temperance, political savvy and moral strength, and yet he champions the party that would make the statue of Lincoln weep. Most of today's members of the party of Lincoln don't have a fundamental vision as much as a fundamentalist one. They don't build railroads so much as they railroad a citizenry that they view as hapless dupes, who, if they're foolish enough to vote for them, deserve everything they get.
Republicans believe in a providence that is not so much active or knowable, but useful. It makes their base easy to manipulate. A toot on the providential dog whistle is all it takes to get the base marching in lock-step to the polls.
Humilty? Well, humility has left the building. Self honesty? Engaged? Advocate for the people? Nope, nope, nope. If we're hoping to elect a close approximation of Lincoln, we won't find one running in the Republican primaries.
Brooks' list of Lincoln's qualities--engagement, poor hater, passionate advocate, able to see his enemy's point of view--stirred a recent memory. I realized these were the qualities I heard in some of the speeches, made by Democrats and Republicans alike, at the opening of the Ted Kennedy Institute last week.
Ted Kennedy may not have been a Lincoln, but neither would he have made the statue of Lincoln bury its face in its hands.
Republicans believe in a providence that is not so much active or knowable, but useful. It makes their base easy to manipulate. A toot on the providential dog whistle is all it takes to get the base marching in lock-step to the polls.
Humilty? Well, humility has left the building. Self honesty? Engaged? Advocate for the people? Nope, nope, nope. If we're hoping to elect a close approximation of Lincoln, we won't find one running in the Republican primaries.
Brooks' list of Lincoln's qualities--engagement, poor hater, passionate advocate, able to see his enemy's point of view--stirred a recent memory. I realized these were the qualities I heard in some of the speeches, made by Democrats and Republicans alike, at the opening of the Ted Kennedy Institute last week.
Ted Kennedy may not have been a Lincoln, but neither would he have made the statue of Lincoln bury its face in its hands.
430
Reading Brooks is like sitting in a psychotherapist chair except we, the readers, are the therapists, and David is the patient working-out his many issues twice-a-week.
David should pay us.
David should pay us.
55
Your posts are such consistently good responses to cagey garbage from Republican party punditry that 'Je suis gemli!' buttons should come into existence.
5
I've scoured the Republican list
A crew that would never be missed,
All oligarch minions
With pro-rich opinions
From which they all dare not desist.
From Lincoln to this motley crew?
With each a fear-ridden Yahoo,
Cruz, Christie and Walker,
Each climate change balker,
Jeb Bush with new Tea Party view?
A crew that would never be missed,
All oligarch minions
With pro-rich opinions
From which they all dare not desist.
From Lincoln to this motley crew?
With each a fear-ridden Yahoo,
Cruz, Christie and Walker,
Each climate change balker,
Jeb Bush with new Tea Party view?
137
"I've scoured the Republican list - a crew that would never be missed"
As some day it may happen that a target must be found
I've got a little list, I've got a little list!
Of silly politicians who'd be better off as clowns
And never would be missed, never would be missed!
There's the ones who rattle sabres to send others' kids to die,
Complain about the floods and fires but never ponder why,
And those who support executions (even the wrong guy),
Who bail out bankers but ignore homeowners' plaintive cries,
The homophobes discovered in a compromising tryst,
They'd none of them be missed, they'd none of them by missed!
As some day it may happen that a target must be found
I've got a little list, I've got a little list!
Of silly politicians who'd be better off as clowns
And never would be missed, never would be missed!
There's the ones who rattle sabres to send others' kids to die,
Complain about the floods and fires but never ponder why,
And those who support executions (even the wrong guy),
Who bail out bankers but ignore homeowners' plaintive cries,
The homophobes discovered in a compromising tryst,
They'd none of them be missed, they'd none of them by missed!
9
The only thing that is missing in our politics is honesty and truthfulness, its that simple. The lack of those virtues, together with the total corruption of all the players who are constantly pandering to everybody's special interest should tell all that America has lost its way. Sad. ,
17
Open your eyes Mr. Brooks, we have had such a President for the last six years...very necessary when faced with a Republican Party that happily sacrifices what is good for America to keep their campaign funds flowing in. You seem much to informed to be part of that travesty. I wish you would be honest about your thoughts on Conservatives today.
384
OK, sure - who wouldn't want another Lincoln? It's probably the only remaining point on which Republicans and Democrats could agree.
Yet, in reading this starry-eyed paean describing a modern-day Lincoln, it occurs to me that by changing only a few words, it would quite accurately describe the sitting president.
Like Lincoln, Obama works in increments, he's a poor hater, deeply engaged but able to step back, able to see his enemy's point of view, aware of his own power but aware of when he's helpless in the hands of fate. He tamps down passion for the sake of sustainable, incremental progress. And he has even, in keeping with Brooks' prescription for a new Lincoln, disappointed the fervent to devise a legislative strategy that has a chance of success.
So as far as I'm concerned, we have our modern-day Lincoln, and Republicans have made it their prime directive to destroy him. If Lincoln were elected as a Democrat today (since he would be horrified by what his own party has become), he would be torn down and stymied at every turn - as the GOP has done to Obama - simply because he's not one of them.
The party of Lincoln is no longer, and the leadership attributes Brooks quixotically longs for have been replaced in his party by greed, narrow-mindedness and hatred.
Yet, in reading this starry-eyed paean describing a modern-day Lincoln, it occurs to me that by changing only a few words, it would quite accurately describe the sitting president.
Like Lincoln, Obama works in increments, he's a poor hater, deeply engaged but able to step back, able to see his enemy's point of view, aware of his own power but aware of when he's helpless in the hands of fate. He tamps down passion for the sake of sustainable, incremental progress. And he has even, in keeping with Brooks' prescription for a new Lincoln, disappointed the fervent to devise a legislative strategy that has a chance of success.
So as far as I'm concerned, we have our modern-day Lincoln, and Republicans have made it their prime directive to destroy him. If Lincoln were elected as a Democrat today (since he would be horrified by what his own party has become), he would be torn down and stymied at every turn - as the GOP has done to Obama - simply because he's not one of them.
The party of Lincoln is no longer, and the leadership attributes Brooks quixotically longs for have been replaced in his party by greed, narrow-mindedness and hatred.
682
Amen, Mr. Brooks notably does not have a dog in this race to promote. The G.O.P. bench, though plentiful, is terrifyingly lacking in substance and even knowledge with more than a hint of pure evil in several.
9
Does even one of the Republican hopefuls for president come close to what Mr. Gerson describes? I think not. Does Hillary Clinton? I think not. The only one who does is our current president. Where is such a man or woman today who could be our next president? Would he or she survive in today's political climate? I think not.
4
I suspect Brooks may agree with you.
From what I've read of Lincoln, I'd say he deliberated on issues, did not make snap decisions (except for retaining a single union).
With today's media swarm all over him and his opponents making up false stories about him, how would he even get through the primaries?
Lincoln never had any money. Even when he was a successful lawyer he was notoriously bad at collecting debts. Would Lincoln take the big money offered him for and reason at all?
Lincoln was a man from and form his times.
There will never be another A. Lincoln, not even close.
With today's media swarm all over him and his opponents making up false stories about him, how would he even get through the primaries?
Lincoln never had any money. Even when he was a successful lawyer he was notoriously bad at collecting debts. Would Lincoln take the big money offered him for and reason at all?
Lincoln was a man from and form his times.
There will never be another A. Lincoln, not even close.
9