Lincoln never vacillated in his opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. And he never offered a virtual veto over his political program to parties defeated in the 1860 and 1864 elections, as Obama has done with the discredited Republican Party of 2008. -- one has not yet paid for his crimes
On Feb 17, 5:28 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[email protected]> wrote: > The American media and the Lincoln bicentenary > By Tom Eley and David Walsh > 17 February 2009 > > February 12, the bicentenary of Abraham Lincoln's birth, afforded an > occasion for the American media to serve up shallow and cynical > comparisons of Lincoln to President Barack Obama. > > Attempts to portray Obama as the heir of Lincoln's legacy involve a > grotesque historical and political falsification. Lincoln will forever > be associated with one of the great progressive causes in history—the > emancipation of the slaves and the destruction of the Southern slave- > owning oligarchy in the American Civil War (1861-1865). > > Obama, on the other hand, bears only a negative and reactionary > relationship to the great political questions of his day. His > candidacy for the presidency aimed to absorb and defuse widespread > hostility toward the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, while > permitting the American ruling elite to make certain tactical > adjustments in its policies. The real aims of Obama's presidency are > to intensify imperialist war in Central Asia and force the working > class to pay for the massive economic crisis. > > However, this did not prevent an ignorant media "celebration" of the > supposed Lincoln-Obama connection on Thursday. Evident in the coverage > was a level of political calculation aimed to give Obama a boost by > associating his name and presidency with that of Lincoln. > > The media coverage of Lincoln demonstrates its enormous ignorance and > intellectual decay. Whatever the immediate aims, the effect of the > media's Lincoln-Obama coverage is to falsify history and stupefy > historical consciousness. For example, a person suffering through > CNN's daylong segment, "From Lincoln to Obama," would have learned > next to nothing about the Civil War—the processes that led up to it, > its legacy, and Lincoln's role in it. > > Substituting for the epochal historical questions were other concerns. > At the center of the media equation of Lincoln and Obama was, once > again, the question of race. The reasoning goes that because Obama is > African American, he represents the culmination of Lincoln's project > of freeing the slaves. In this vein, Harold Holzer, a historian and co- > chair of the United States Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, told USA > Today that Obama is "helping to complete the unfinished work of > American democracy that Lincoln spoke about at Gettysburg." > > This "connection" is politically and historically fraudulent. Instead, > Obama's victory represents the culmination of a process of much more > recent vintage. Beginning in the early 1970s, the American ruling > class consciously sought to cultivate a layer of black capitalists and > politicians as a means of defusing the explosive social struggles of > black workers that had emerged around the civil rights movement of the > 1950s and 1960s, and the ghetto uprisings of the late 1960s. > > In terms of both his political outlook and his personal history, Obama > bears no connection to the mass strivings of black workers. His > administration will do nothing to alleviate the social conditions of > the working class as a whole, much less African American workers, who > remain, a century-and-a-half after emancipation, an exceptionally > exploited part of the US population. Every social index—pertaining to > income, unemployment, health, education, incarceration—affirms this. > > The media also made frequent note of the fact that Obama enters office > having "inherited" two wars from the previous administration. This, > they said, compared to Lincoln confronting the Civil War within weeks > of his inauguration. > > This equation is truly brazen in its falsification of history. The > Civil War was a great progressive cause that resulted in the > destruction of human bondage in the US. It drew into political life > the overwhelming majority of the country, including the slave > population in the South, which used the presence of the Union Army to > strike out against their masters. In a political and economic sense, > the Civil War was the culmination of the American Revolution, > preparing the way for a massive expansion of the productive forces. > > The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are imperialist wars that have killed > well over a million innocent people, men, women, and children, and > made millions more homeless. As regards the people of Iraq and > Afghanistan, the wars' chief aim is to terrorize and enslave through > all the methods of imperialism—collective punishment, torture, summary > executions, and bribery. More broadly, the wars mark a desperate > attempt by moribund American capitalism to offset its longstanding > decline by seizing markets and strategic advantages over its rivals. > > In this regard, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have far more in common > with the Mexican American War (1846-1848) and the historically-doomed > southern slavocracy whose expansionist interests that war aimed to > benefit. Lincoln, it must be recalled, was a principled opponent of > the Mexican American war, denouncing it in an 1848 speech as > unconstitutional and quitting politics for some time in its wake. > > Obama's "opposition" to the war in Iraq has always been unprincipled. > He has never called it illegal. From his days in the Illinois state > legislature, his criticisms were always launched with a view toward > the strategic risks to US imperialism; the imperialist adventure in > Afghanistan, he has argued, is far more crucial. Now as president, > Obama has retreated from promises to end the war in Iraq, while > carrying through on his oath to escalate military violence in > Afghanistan and Pakistan. "Opposition" of Obama's variety in the 1840s > might have criticized the Mexican American war from the standpoint > that Cuba should have been wrested from Spain first (in fact Cuba was > a cherished target of the southern oligarchy.) > > The media also used the occasion of the Lincoln bicentenary to resume > a campaign to associate Obama's cabinet with Lincoln's, who, the story > goes, surrounded himself with opponents. CNN interviewed Doris Kearns > Goodwin, author of Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham > Lincoln, a book which has supplied the media with seemingly endless > fodder for Obama comparisons. After briefly quizzing Goodwin about > Lincoln's decision to introduce Republican Party rivals into his > wartime cabinet, a CNN news anchor got to the real point of the > interview: "Do you see parallels with Barack Obama on that front? I > mean, again, he had in his cabinet people who at one point [were] > running against him. But are they also, you know, fighting, arguing > over every point?" > > Goodwin replied, "I think what Obama has realized is that it's > important to have people who can disagree with you without fear of > consequence and that way, you're going to be able to not have an echo > chamber that follows you around. And he is willing to take the risk > that some of these things may leak out, they have different opinions, > but I think it's a healthy confidence that he possesses much like Mr. > Lincoln did." > > The analogy is not only superficial—reducing great historical > questions to personal relationships—but fundamentally false. Whereas > Obama's cabinet picks—such as Hillary Clinton for secretary of state > and Robert Gates for secretary of defense—represented a clear > repudiation of his ostensible opposition to the war in Iraq and a > kowtowing to the right, Lincoln's cabinet rivals, including William > Seward and Salmon Chase, shared his opposition to slavery and > commitment to the defense of the union. > > In an earlier perspective on this cabinet comparison, the World > Socialist Web Site noted, "Lincoln did not invite rivals into his > cabinet who disagreed with him on basic questions of principle, such > as Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, who represented the northern wing > of the Democratic Party in the 1860 election and who advocated further > concessions to the southern elite on the slavery issue, or John C. > Breckinridge, the candidate of the Democratic Party's southern wing, > who favored the expansion of slavery. To have matched Obama's > cynicism, Lincoln would have needed to appoint Douglas as secretary of > state and Breckinridge as secretary of war. (See "Obama's Team of > Reactionaries," 8 December, 2008) > > The media made numerous attempts to equate Obama and Lincoln as > orators and writers. For example, David Jackson of USA Today called > Obama's phrases "reminiscent of those of Abraham Lincoln." > > Such comparisons are an affront to Lincoln and, to be frank, the > English language. While he has occasionally interspersed his speeches > with phrases from Lincoln, Obama can be considered an eloquent speaker > only to the extent that he is measured against his semi-literate > predecessor in the White House. > > The power of Lincoln's memorable speeches and formulations rest in his > ability to convey powerful democratic ideas by means of a language > beautiful in its simplicity and infused by the talents of a > storyteller and devotee of Shakespeare. He remains a literary giant > whose speeches have made an indelible mark on English prose. > > Obama's key phrases, such as "change we can believe in" and "yes, we > can!" are only memorable—or unforgettable?—because they have been > drummed into public consciousness with a billion-dollar marketing > blitz, much like the "Got Milk?" campaign. > > Obama himself has consciously sought to drape himself in the mantle of > Lincoln. He spoke in Lincoln's hometown of Springfield, Illinois to > commemorate the latter's birth. In keeping with his efforts toward > "bipartisanship," Obama essentially depicted Lincoln as ... an early > Obama. What Lincoln "never forgot," Obama claimed, "not even in the > midst of civil war, was that despite all that divided us—north and > south, black and white—we were, at heart, one nation and one people, > sharing a bond as Americans that could not break." > > While Lincoln exhibited magnanimity in his approach to the South as a > region, he never compromised in his initial principle of preserving > the union and, after January 1, 1863, in freeing the slaves—in spite > of enormous pressure within the North to make peace overtures—pressure > that mounted until the autumn of 1864 and General Sherman's capture of > Atlanta, Georgia. Lincoln never vacillated in his opposition to the > Kansas-Nebraska Act. And he never offered a virtual veto over his > political program to parties defeated in the 1860 and 1864 elections, > as Obama has done with the discredited Republican Party of 2008. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
