On Best Behavior, Patriotic Opposition Rejects Obama-Lincoln Analogy
Posted on January 21st, 2009 in blogging, General, History, National Politics | Written by Ben | 3 Comments »
I don’t have time to put down much original thought this morning, so here are three pieces I commend to readers on the Morning After the inauguration.
First, the Denver Post‘s David Harsanyi eloquently asks the rhetorical question many of us have wanted to ask:
Do all Americans truly have a yearning to fundamentally “remake” our nation? There must be a subversive minority out there that still believes the United States — even with its imperfections and sporadic recessions — is, in context, still a wildly prosperous and free country worth preserving.
Some of you must still believe that politicians are meant to serve rather than be worshiped. And there must be someone out there who considers partisanship a healthy, organic reflection of our differences rather than something to be surrendered in the name of so- called unity — which is, after all, untenable, subjective and utterly counterproductive.
How about those who praised dissent for the past eight years?
David, consider me part of this subversive minority.
Second, when we dissent – whether it’s now “patriotic” or “un-American” – Andy Levy has some very good (and sometimes amusing) guidelines for how NOT to do it, such as:
DON’T apologize to foreigners and say things to them like, “I didn’t vote for Obama,†or “He’s not MY president.â€
Finally, for those buying breathlessly into the contrived imagery of Barack Obama as the second Abraham Lincoln, Joseph Ashby at American Thinker points out the seriously “Bizarro” flaws with that thesis. He makes a terrifically compelling argument in light of historical scholarship.
Certain souls still sadly obsessed over the demise of Jefferson Davis and the Confederate Slave States might be inclined to agree with the Obama mythology in their own “Bizarro” way, but we must do our best to treat their desperate cries for attention with humane sympathy and compassion rather than bitterness and scorn.
Now, on to service in the dedicated loyal opposition….
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
3 Responses
Certain souls still sadly obsessed over the demise of Jefferson Davis and the Confederate Slave States might be inclined to agree with the Obama mythology in their own “Bizarro†way, but we must do our best to treat their desperate cries for attention with humane sympathy and compassion rather than bitterness and scorn.
Well ohnly up to a point, Ben. All analogies break down somewhar. But we understaind why th’ analogy’d be objectionable t’ a Claremontista like you.
This comment t’ th’ American Thinker entry sez it all, I thank:
Obama and Lincoln have much in common, but Mr. Ashby can’t recognize it because he has bought into the most pernicious and destructive myth in American history. He doesn’t understand that this country was never a “house†as Lincoln claimed. The right-wing monarchial nation-states of Europe were houses, and the American Founders came up with a system of dual sovereignty in which the central government would have limited powers. In other words, it was a building of condos with an owner’s association. Lincoln’s electoral victory in 1864 indicated that some condo residents wanted to expand the powers of the owner’s association without having a meeting to negotiate the changes. Whether America was ever one country in the first place is questionable—subsequent events indicate that it was never one country or became two countries between gaining independence and the ratification of the Constitution. As Thomas J. DiLorenzo has pointed out, there was a union when Lincoln was done, but it wasn’t the union established by the Founders—before Lincoln people said the United States are, after Lincoln they said the United States is.
Lincoln and Obama have much in common. Like Lincoln, Obama is the front-man for the Left—Daniel J. Flynn makes it clear that the Abolitionists were leftists. As a leftist, Obama despises the principles of federalism enshrined in the last two amendments in the Bill of Rights (whose plain language implicitly allows secession), just like Lincoln (and Hitler). Like Lincoln, he wants to remake the Founders’ America into something the Founders wouldn’t recognize without having a constitutional convention. As a leftist, Obama sees people who are his fellow Americans as enemies, just like Lincoln. As a leftist, Obama despises consent of the governed, just like Lincoln.
Lincoln’s military victory took this country off the path of constitutional government and put it on the path towards the dysfunctional Yankee-progressive union that doesn’t work that we have today. Leftists revere Lincoln and despise Washington; that says it all.
And while I’m-a thankin’ you fir th’ “humane sympathy and compassion,” ye really ought not sympathize over me so, for ol’ Jones’ readership is ohn th’ increase, his cyberfootprint is global, th’ annual secessionist convention is getting MSM attention, and one in five Americans believes in th’ right t’ secession. Heck, Michael Hill ‘n Tom Naylor were even recently interviewed by Glenn Beck, who even agreed with ‘em t’ a point.
By th’ way, Ben, here’s a question-att relates somewut t’ our ongoin’ debate ’bout this matter:
You a Christian with some theological trainin’, and Dutch besides. I’m-wonderin’ if’n you’re familiar with th’ work of the Dutch theologian/apologist Cornelius Van Til. Specifically, with his critique of Karl Barth ‘n neo-orthodoxy. Are ye?
I have no formal theological training, and I’m not Dutch. I haven’t read Van Til, but I have vague memories of some distaste for Barth’s theology from some volume I read in the past.