History gives honest look at fairy tale
Eric Zorn | Change of Subject
January 17, 2008
The whole thing, really, is a fairy tale.
I mean, give me a break: The guy gives a good speech. Yes. Give him that. But are we electing a toastmaster or a president of the United States? Let's look at his record to see what qualifies him for the highest office in the land:
Eight years in the Illinois legislature? He was a party loyalist and a temporizer who too often put politics ahead of principle and was cautious rather than bold when it came to controversial issues.
Two years in Washington? Yes, he pontificated about how he opposed the war, but at crunch time he voted to fund it. And his legislative record on Capitol Hill is thin.
Other accomplishments? The enthusiasm for his candidacy was sparked by one big successful speech and is carried along by his gift for uplifting rhetoric.
Consider, in contrast, the senator from New York who is his top rival for the nomination: A history in public life going back 30 years. Solid reform credentials. Clearly far more ready for the Oval Office than the younger, audacious Mr. Slim Silver-tongue from Illinois.
They didn't have blogs back in 1860, but if they did, you can bet that the pundits and partisans hoping to discredit Abraham Lincoln's candidacy and bring his supporters down to earth would have posted something very much like the screed above.
Lincoln was far from perfect. As a legislator and politician, he was more pragmatist than ideologue; more a moderate than a zealot. He made deals, played the game: When he served in the General Assembly, he failed to support the extension of voting rights to blacks and he leavened his opposition to slavery with opposition to the "promulgation of abolition doctrine."
Did he otherwise always show great judgment? No.
Critics noted that Lincoln was a prime backer of an ambitious set of public-works projects -- the first "Illinois FIRST" -- that nearly bankrupted the state when the economy began to sour -- and he wouldn't back down.
And sure, during his two years as a U.S. representative in Washington he spoke out forcefully against the Mexican-American War, calling it "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced." But he helped keep that war going by voting to supply soldiers, saying later, "You can think as you please as to whether that was consistent."
In all, Lincoln wasn't "fit for the presidency." Who said so? He did, in an 1859 letter to a backer. What made him a plausible candidate was an electrifying anti-slavery speech given at New York City's Cooper Institute in February 1860.
Still, the favored candidate for the Republicans that year and the leader through two rounds of voting at the party convention in Chicago was two-term New York Sen. William Seward, whose lengthy resume also included two terms as governor of that state.
I point this out not to make too much of the parallels to current criticisms of presidential candidate Barack Obama in what now looks like a two-person race against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination: Only eight years in Springfield and three in Washington! Plays politics! Voted to fund a war he says he opposes! Reputation built primarily on the sands of oratory! The senator from New York is more qualified on paper!
Obama's no Abe Lincoln.
But, as I observed last February when Obama all but donned a stovepipe hat when announcing his candidacy in Springfield, Abe Lincoln was no Abe Lincoln at this stage of the game either.
I point this out simply as a reminder that Lincoln and history went on to make fools of those whose obsession with his shortcomings and failures blinded them to the singular promise of his gifts.
Not often, but fairy tales do come true.
- - -
Calm, reasoned commentators may post their analysis of this column at chicagotribune.com/zorn. All others may seethe privately.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-zorn_17jan17,0,7801265.column
