« Book Review: Restoring Booker T. Washington To His Rightful Place As A Civil-Rights Hero
Iranian-American Journalist Roxana Saberi Released From Tehran Jail »
Lincoln and Today’s GOP
Would today’s GOP nominate Abraham Lincoln as the party’s presidential candidate?
I think not — as argued in a two-part essay at Shaun Mullen’s blog, Kiko’s House. The first part was published yesterday (May 10); the second part will be published next Sunday (May 17).
These contributions are installments in a much a larger series on Lincoln that Shaun has planned this year, the bicentennial of the great man’s birth. Check here for an index of other installments in the series, or simply search “Lincoln” at Shauns’ blog.
I also want to extend a note of thanks to Shaun for inviting me to contribute to this series. I learned a hell of a lot in the preparatory research.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
5 Responses to “Lincoln and Today’s GOP”
“Would today’s GOP nominate Abraham Lincoln as the party’s presidential candidate?”
Interesting, but I believe you stretch too far trying to make the answer come out “no”.
If you want to write a truly probing article on this subject, ask yourself is today's Democrat Party would nominate John F. Kennedy. (Hint: not in a million years)
Jwest,
I suspect you're right re: Kennedy. But before you judge the Lincoln essay, I'd ask that you read both parts; second part to be published May 17.
I agree jwest. Historical figures can only be judged by the standards of their times. If Lincoln or Kennedy had been born in 1960 they would have been much different people so the whole argument is moot.
Lincoln was somewhat flexible on the slavery issue and that alone would make him unacceptable to either party by today's standards.
I think the answer is clearly “No”. Lincoln spoke passionately about the danger of corporatism. Just as passionately as the GOPers here defend it, and lambast those who argue for the sentiments of Lincoln, Eisenhower, Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt. Today's GOP is pro-corporatism, and quite comfortable with corporations and their lobbyists calling the shots, writing the laws, funding the politicians and even running the regulatory agencies.
GD,
If the government did not have 100,000 of pages of regulations, 2 million plus employees, and a budget that did not consume 40% of the GNP, then corporations would not feel the need to constantly lobby. However, big government, nanny state government requires corporations to take actions to resist the effects of big government.
Also, do you really think that a 3.5 trillion dollar government exist is all of the good and services that the government requires were being produced by limited partnerships and single proprietorships. The government can eliminate enitire segments of the economy any time it wants. Why shouldn't companies resist such efforts.