It is perhaps ironic that yesterday I quoted Lincoln regarding his need as the nation’s leader to act without malice even during the height of the Civil War, because Tony Snow took it upon himself to compare George W. Bush to Lincoln explicitly on the Colbert Report:
COLBERT: Latest polls have his approval rating at 19 percent, which is low for a President but very high for a fetish.
SNOW: Ouch. … They actually hated Truman. They hated Lincoln. Lincoln as late as late-1864 was telling his guys to get ready the next incoming administration of George McClellan.
This appears to be the new talking point of the Bushies, identifying George W. Bush, the most wretched mangler of the English language and the progenitor of the doctrine of preventive wars against anyone he feels, in his sole determination as Commander-in Chief, deserves the destruction of their society and the permanent occupation of their country by American forces, with perhaps the most eloquent, and the most important President in our history. Lincoln, who was responsible more than any other for ending the evil institution of slavery, and whose efforts literally reshaped the United States of America into the form we see today, though it has taken over a century to fully realize his vision.
Yes Tony, Lincoln was hated. He was hated by the the literal and spiritual ancestors of the same people who today are Bush’s last true believers. The people who still cherish their Confederate heritage and want to fly the Confederate Flag (or place it on their personalized license plates) to remind us all of that treasonous rebellion that led to over 600,000 American deaths. Lincoln, who agonized over every person who was killed or maimed in that horrible war, whose suffering was palpable on his face to all who saw him, and who spent many hours reviewing the cases of soldiers condemned to be shot for desertion, pardoning most of them, is just like George W. Bush, who says he sleeps very well at night despite knowing that his war has led to the death of at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the ethnic cleansing of Iraq, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 to 5 million internal and external refugees who suffer in poverty and untold misery. The same Bush who spent little if any time reviewing requests for clemency from execution, and who publicly mocked the the pleas of Karla Faye Tucker for clemency.
Lincoln was hated by bigots, racists and slave holders who couldn’t see that the words “all men are created equal” applied to human beings they considered nothing more than property to be bought and sold like hogs and cattle. Ultimately he was murdered by a man, John Wilkes Booth, who was so offended that Lincoln planned to give “niggers” citizenship and the right to vote that he felt justified in carrying out the assassination of our greatest President.
Bush is hated, because his values are diametrically opposed to those of Lincoln as is his personal character, by anyone with any semblance of decency or a sense of morality. Lincoln sought to heal the wounds of partisan divide and create a new and better nation, one more aligned with the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence. Bush has sought to increase the partisan divide in our country, demonizing all his political opponents, from Democrats in Congress to antiwar activists, from gays seeking equal rights to African Americans and Latinos seeking to exercise their right to vote, all in pursuit of raw political power for his party, but most of all for himself.
But other than that, yeah, they have a lot in common.
Here is the video of that interview of Tony Snow on the Colbert Report from Wednesday night.
Very nicely written post, Stephen. Between you and Booman, the frog pond is full of righteous fire today.
Sorry for the OT post but this is farked up.
Investor’s Business Daily has an article with the dubious headline:
B@r@ck, Hu55ein And @l-Q@id@
(I refuse to reprint those 3 words next to each other)
This article, if one could call it that, starts like this:
I don’t even know where to begin. The headline is pure Swift-boating for one. And the author apparently can’t tell the difference between glib and articulate to say nothing of the fact that Obama’s assessment of is spot on. Of course the rest of the article is more of the same. This is posted in the Yahoo news business section.
Oh and there’s this pearl of wisdom as well:
Huh? Wha? Is this guy serious? Every time that we torture or kill a terrorist he is martyred and inspires more terrorism. Holy shit, I wonder if this guy wrote this in crayon.
of course, Obama blamed Bush and McCain for Al Qaeda being in Iraq. Conflating Bush with “America” and then claiming that legitimate fact based Bush bashing demonstrates that you hate America is SOP for the GOP.
Yes, Steven D, you couldn’t have put it more clearly. It is very possible that when Georgie is sent off with his big fat welfare check for the rest of his life next January that the floodgates will finally open and all the muck and slime he has accumulated behind them during the past eight years will come pouring out into the light of day. Let’s hope so. Then the man will be rightfully hated even more than he is today.
In my view he’s a war criminal and would be convicted as such if ever brought before the International Court at the Hague.
The people who still cherish their Confederate heritage and want to fly the Confederate Flag (or place it on their personalized license plates) to remind us all of that treasonous rebellion that led to over 600,000 American deaths. Lincoln, who agonized over every person who was killed or maimed in that horrible war, whose suffering was palpable on his face to all who saw him, and who spent many hours reviewing the cases of soldiers condemned to be shot for desertion, pardoning most of them, is just like George W. Bush, who says he sleeps very well at night despite knowing that his war has led to the death of at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the ethnic cleansing of Iraq, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 to 5 million internal and external refugees who suffer in poverty and untold misery.
This native white South Carolinian thanks you for calling it like it is. Ambitious politicians, special economic interests, and inflammatory media created the Civil War. It was devastating, most of all to the South. One of my ancestors died in a POW prison in Elmira, NY. One died of dysentery at the Battle of Malvern Hill in Virginia. Two were wounded and returned home. One, the only one who was promoted above a private, lived the illusion that this was the great conflict and he was heroic for just following orders. All of them deserved better than what they got from the political leadership of South Carolina. Oh yes, all of them were drafted–most in 1863.
The Margaret-Mitchell-myth of the lost age of Southern chivalry is a brutal lie that is the root of so much of the militarism of some Southern white men. These men despised Lincoln; these men despised John F. Kennedy and cheered when he was assassinated; these men worship the ground that the toddler-in-chief walks on.
I was born in Raleigh and lived there until I was seven, the year Kennedy was assassinated. My parents were “Yankees” from South Dakota who moved there so my Dad could attend NC State as a grad student. I still remember the day all our neighbors stopped socializing with us and told their kids to stop playing with my brother and I because my parents had signed a petition in favor of giving blacks the right to vote.
I have no doubt things have changed a great deal since those days, but there are still people living today believing in the fantasy of the Lost Cause.
Ironically my aunt, who is into genealogical research, has discovered that I have ancestors who fought on both sides of the war.
I am a northerner who has lived in Raleigh for six years now. I wonder if you’ve read this excellent article in the local independent weekly. It is some of the most powerful stuff I’ve read on how the republicans traded in the legacy of Lincoln for a racist “southern strategy.”
It would be helpful, when deconstructing the myth of the Confederacy, to turn the same penetrating analysis on the myth of Northern virtue, particularly where Abraham Lincoln is concerned. Lincoln opposed slavery, but he was also a segregationist. He suspended habeas corpus, shut down opposition newspapers, and violated the precursor to the Geneva Conventions left and right. Northern armies savaged civilians and pillaged without restraint. The corruption of the military occupation during “Reconstruction” was not at all unlike the corruption of the current occupation in Iraq.
The Civil War (or whatever one wants to call it) was, like virtually all wars, about wealth and power, and the parties who sought to benefit from it were slaveholding planters in the South on one side, and Northern industrialists who had been largely subsidized by taxes levied on the South on the other. Caught in between, and largely irrelevant from the point of view of those in charge were the slaves and the impoverished underclass who provided the conscript soldiers on both sides — rich people, as usual, were able to buy their way out both North and South. And when it was over, the victors were content to let the former slaves rot as sharecroppers while they retreated to their segregated cities.
Yes, the Southern cause was an unjust one hidden under layers of lofty rhetoric, but the Northern cause — upon which the rhetoric of ending slavery was largely bolted on well into the war to shore up flagging public support — was no less corrupt. The lionization of Lincoln is frankly bizarre coming from liberals who are supposed to be better at seeing through hero mythologies. The man was deeply corrupt, unconcerned with the separation of powers and the constraints of the constitution, and the high-talking instrument of powerful, unscrupulous business interests whose inhumanity was the very thing that late 19th and early 20th century liberalism fought against.
The comparison with Bush is apt; the main difference is one of competence.
No the North was not virtuous. Many were in the war for pure greed and opportunism (thing Jay Gould), while others were radical abolitionists who wanted to punish the South for generations. And many fought not to free the slaves but to keep th north free for white working men. Even Lincoln started out, as you say as a segregationist and a man who preferred to emancipate gradually and also send blacks back to Africa. However, his views evolved during the war. He saw the great contribution black soldiers made to the war effort (by 1864-65 the Union forces included over 200,000 black soldiers and sailors) and he had also come to the view that African Americans should be extended the full civil rights of whites. Indeed, the first drafts of what would become the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were begun while he was still alive. His last speech after Appamatox pointed to this path, as well as reconciliation with white southerners.
The tragedy was that Lincoln died before he could attempt his dual program of full citizenry for former rebels and former slaves. Instead we had a difficult, onerous and humiliating reconstruction period forced on the South that, while granting the franchise to blacks did little to advance them economically, while also setting the stage for a white backlash and the Jim Crow era.
Regarding Bush’s popularity, remember that they crucified Jesus. Expect that one to be pulled out eventually.
Remember that they crucified Jesus
Response 1:
Response 2:
Response 3:
I wish they would try to pull that line out – bring ’em on!
Comparing bush to Lincoln? Break out the barf bags!