Salon: How would Lincoln vote today?

This morning I read an excellent -- and undoubtedly for some, explosive -- essay in Salon. Michael Lind uses Lincoln's own writings as an indicator of how the former president might view today's issues (immigration, Christianity, buying American-made goods and the federal government's role in maintaining public infrastructure, among others.)

I have come to many of the same conclusions as the author while reading Lincoln's extensive writings, speeches and correspondences. The GOP of today bears little or no resemblance to the Republican party platform of the 1860s. About the only similarity I've found is the word 'Republican.' I guess that is enough for some people.

I've also noted that Lincoln's views changed and at times expanded as he grew older and more experienced (and especially when the full weight of 'Commander in Chief' descended upon his shoulders during the Civil War.)

The Lincoln who ran for president in 1860 was not the same man who gave the towering second inaugural address in 1865. Lincoln was by all accounts a deep thinker; he wasn't afraid to change his mind or learn from watching events unfolding all around him.

I believe this willingness to grow and re-evaluate his long-held conceptions was one of the keys to his greatness.

Excellent essay:

How would Lincoln vote today?

Everyone, from President Obama to the GOP, wants a piece of Honest Abe on his bicentennial. Here's where Abraham Lincoln really stood on the issues.

By Michael Lind

(excerpt)

What about immigration? While Lincoln did not question the white-only immigration policy of his time, he did reject the anti-Catholic, anti-European nativism of many of his fellow Whigs: "I am not a Know-Nothing," he wrote his former law partner Joshua Speed in 1855. "As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.'" Someone with Lincoln's basic values might be concerned that ill-devised immigration policies could reduce wages for some citizens; that, after all, was one of the arguments of the Lincoln Republicans against the expansion of slavery. But Lincoln's dismissal of prejudice against Irish and German Catholics naturally leads to dismissal of all arguments about immigration based in bigotry.

What about economics? In his first campaign manifesto of 1832, the young Whig Party politician declared: "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank ... in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." In short, Lincoln was in favor of a strong federal government that actively promoted American infrastructure and manufacturing.

Would a modern Lincoln denounce infrastructure spending projects as boondoggles? Unlikely. As an Illinois legislator, Lincoln promoted an ambitious infrastructure scheme that bankrupted the state. Undeterred, Lincoln led the federal government to lavish subsidies on the railroads, which as a result nearly doubled American track miles between 1860 and 1870.

Would a contemporary American sharing the values of Lincoln oppose "Buy American" provisions in the stimulus package? Lincoln was a lifelong economic nationalist who favored federal government support for American industry against foreign competition. In 1859, shortly before becoming president, Lincoln wrote: "I was an old Henry Clay-Tariff-Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject [the need for protectionist tariffs] than any other. I have not since changed my views." Thanks to Lincoln and his congressional allies, the average U.S. tariff on dutiable imports ranged between 40 and 50 percent. The U.S. policy of import substitution, in defiance of free trade theory, helped to make the U.S. the world's greatest industrial powerhouse in the world in the generation following Lincoln's death. (Having made effective use of protectionism to become the dominant manufacturing power, the U.S. eventually changed its tune and began promoting free trade to gain export markets.)

Would Lincoln join the fiscal conservatives who fret over the size of the national debt? Largely because of the Civil War, the federal budget grew from $63 million in 1860 to $1.2 billion in 1865. Following his assassination, his widow, Mary, explained that Lincoln had wanted to take a trip to Europe, after leaving office: "After his return from Europe, he intended to cross the Rocky Mountains and go to California, where the soldiers were to be digging out gold to pay the national debt." I don't think that today's deficit hawks would be amused by Lincoln's joke.

Would Lincoln join today's Republicans in calling for more tax cuts as the answer to every problem? President Lincoln signed the bills creating the IRS and the first U.S. income tax.

[Read the rest...]

Salon: Why Bush hasn't been impeached

Hey - guess what? According to Salon, its our fault Bush will never be impeached.

Yep - even though we 'cleaned House' and gave the Democrats a resounding majority (the House impeaches a president, by the way.. the Senate serves as the jury, the Supreme Court as the judge.) And even though we even went that extra step and gave the Democrats a 'surprise' majority in the Senate, signed impeachment petitions, slapped bumper stickers demanding impeachment all over our cars... even though we still write letters to the editor that are never published, sign more petitions, call our 'representatives' ad nauseum... according to this commentary in Salon, we're not really interested in seeing Bush, Cheney and Rove impeached.

We don't have the will to see it through. Just ask Gary Kamiya.

According to Kamiya, "even though Bush cheated on us, lied, besmirched our family's name and spent all our money, we the people, not to mention our elected representatives and the media, seem content to stick it out to the bitter end."

And my answer to that? BULLSHIT.

Kamiya compares the Bush administration to nothing worse than a 'bad marriage', and the American people and their 28% approval rating to merely disgruntled wives or husbands who just aren't willing to pull the plug. He suggests that we - all of us, who have been ignored whenever we have spoken out, by congress, the media, by everyone, "haven't done the necessary work to separate ourselves from our abusive spouse" and "need therapy."

Please... more insults to our intelligence! Beat us some more! Please - can't you go a little further? Why don't you just call us all 'idiots' and be done with it?

Believe me, we're quite used to this from media pundits of all rank and file. We're perfectly aware we're COMPLETELY ON OUR OWN out here. But thank you for reminding us once again, with such superior disdain and sweeping judgment

So really now. In your opinion, that is all this is... a 'bad marriage?'

How many bad marriages involve compulsive lying, illegal wars, spying on the victim spouse, torture, obstruction of justice, obliteration of constitutional rights, removal of habeas corpus protections, secret prison camps... allowing an entire city to first drown, then rot without assistance, for years? Who in their right mind would remain in such a 'marriage,' if they had any way out?

Do we have any way out? I ask you Mr. Kamiya... what exactly is our way out? As I recall, we never voted for this administration in the first place. Both elections were stolen. We all know this now - everybody knows it, even the Republicans - but the media just never seems to cover it. And when they do, Congress just never seems to want to deal with it.

Most 'marriages' with even a fraction of these frightening ingredients end up splashed across the front page of the local newspaper when the controlling and wildly unstable husband eventually kills his hostage spouse.

Gary Kamiya... you have the temerity to tell us - to our faces - that we are so weak-minded and deluded that we will live with this horror, right up until it kills us?

Oh, you give some lip service to our 'feeble' attempts: such as the growing impeachment movement sweeping through the entire state of Maine... (other states have tried as well, but no one state has a monopoly on cowardly politicians bowing to their corporate masters.) Representative Kucinich introduced a resolution to impeach Cheney, but of course everyone in Washington laughed at it. The corporate media laughed as well. What did you expect?

Many American cities are trying to impeach. Vermont citizens have been holding 'village green' meetings for months, raising thousands of signatures to impeach. Hundreds of thousands of American citizens - those who can be ripped away from American Idol - have signed petitions begging Congress to impeach. People have painted 'impeach' messages on overpasses, on buildings, on billboards... the people have even taken out full pages ads demanding impeachment (apparently the ever-greedy media will print such ads if we are willing to pay for them.)

The problem isn't the people... the problem is the influence of the Washington, corporate lobbyists.

What would you have us do? How many phone calls will it take? God knows - we weren't able to stop, or even slow this war.

We called, we marched - people even occupied representatives' offices - all in a desperate attempt to end this illegal war. Today, I heard that the Democrats finally threw in the towel, and are backing off from their weakly worded 'benchmarks.' Bush gets his money, all of it, no strings attached. Congressional Democrats hold the purse strings... but they won't use them.

And this too is somehow... our fault?

Are you really so naive as to believe that if every household in America were to call their representatives and demand impeachment... that it would magically happen? Hardly.
If you believe we matter - at all in this equation - you are naive indeed.

The corporations own Congress. They will never let impeachment happen, not while they're raking in the cash. Bush and Cheney have made them wealthy and unfettered by government oversight, well beyond their wildest dreams. They will never willingly let this looting party end. Ever. Bank on it.

Washington lobbyists don't want Bush impeached, pure and simple. Come on Kimiya... just follow the money! If you know anything at all about Washington politics, it stopped being about 'the will of the people' and became 'the will of corporate investors' years ago. Just look at our pathetic election process.

Ever been on a peace march, Mr. Kamiya? Seriously - have you ever gone?

I've only been on one, this January in front of the Capitol building. I learned a lot. Its amazing how you can actually be there, in the crowd, and see one reality with your very own eyes... then later read an entirely different 'reality' (or nothing at all) in the national media. The handful of 'counter demonstrators' suddenly become a 'crowd'; the hundreds of thousands of mothers, fathers, grandparents, doctors, lawyers, students, and professionals who made the exhausting pilgrimage, hoping for real change and a working democracy... suddenly they are lessened to a mere 'thousand marginal radicals.'

How do you suggest we overcome this overwhelming power, wielded so undemocratically by the mainstream, corporate media?

What would you have us do?

We can't even eat our food anymore, not without wondering what unmonitored poisons have crept into our salads, meat, packaged meals and pet food. You think our only concern is the war in Iraq? What about our health care? What about our jobs? Please... insult our intelligence some more! Do you really think we haven't been watching the sum total of this catastrophe?

Do you think I watch these political atrocities - me, an avowed hater of everything political - and blog out here because I'm bored? I'm sure I could find something 'fun' to do with my time, believe me. I'm doing this because - heaven forbid I will end up as one of those 'silent German citizens' I once judged so harshly as a child, those average citizens who never spoke up when the Nazis rose to power and over threw their democracy. Heaven forbid that I might become, as Lincoln worded it, a coward that 'sins by silence when I should protest.'

Well, I'm protesting. We're all protesting. And what good will any of this do for America, if there is no will for change in Congress?

Of course we know about the signing statements! Of course we know about the Gonzales scandal and all the other scandals (no thanks to mainstream media, but we have other ways, thank God, of finding out whats going on in the Beltway. We have the BBC, McClatchy News and progressive media.)

Do you really think we don't remember Katrina? Have you asked us?

Better question might be... do you really think anybody in Washington cares what we think about, and what we want? Do you think anybody in Washington is really listening?

If they cared - if they were listening - they would have burst into this locked house with its broken television set and severed telephone wires, cut loose our chains, removed the duct tape from over our mouths -- rescued us from our prison, and found us a good lawyer!

Hell YES we want a divorce!!

Yet the public's dislike of Bush has not translated into any real move to get rid of him. The impeach-Bush movement has not really taken off yet, and barring some unforeseen dramatic development, it seems unlikely that it will. Even if there were a mass popular movement to impeach Bush, it's far from clear that Congress, which alone has the power to initiate impeachment proceedings, would do anything.

What would you have us do?

You're inching closer to the truth when you finally admit that:

The main reason is obvious: The Democrats think it's bad politics. Bush is dying politically and taking the GOP down with him, and impeachment is risky. It could, so the cautious Beltway wisdom has it, provoke a backlash, especially while the war is still going on. Why should the Democrats gamble on hitting the political jackpot when they're likely to walk away from the table big winners anyway?

This is what I've been saying all along. Its all about politics (well, that and greed.) Partisan politics. The GOP doesn't have a monopoly on partisan politicking - they're just willing to break a few more laws to 'win.'

We sent a Democratic majority to Washington, and demanded that they clean up this mess and to fix our broken government. Instead, they are actually quite happy to let it remain broken. They are banking on their assumption that continuing anger towards the Bush administration will lead to a huge Democratic victory in 2008. In this way, they are really no better - certainly no different than Karl Rove. Party before country... and the will of the people be damned.

I for one hope they gamble and lose.

Its time we all woke up from this two-party illusion, and created a third alternative - one that will actually represent us in our government. After this last and epic betrayal by the Democratic party, it is time to leave this broken, two party bandwagon and elect an independent to the White House in 2008.

Seriously - wouldn't you like to read these cynical, arrogant 'party' politicians a little history lesson? "We the people". Not the corporations. Not the banks. Not the lobbyists. We are the ones who put them in office. And when they betray our precious votes and slam the door in our faces, we can put someone else into those offices just as fast. It doesn't have to be a Republican or a Democrat. It doesn't have to be someone 'crowned' by the corporate media.

Congress, the media and most of the American people have yet to turn decisively against Bush because to do so would be to turn against some part of themselves. This doesn't mean we support Bush, simply that at some dim, half-conscious level we're too confused -- not least by our own complicity -- to work up the cold, final anger we'd need to go through impeachment. We haven't done the necessary work to separate ourselves from our abusive spouse. We need therapy -- not to save this disastrous marriage, but to end it.

I'm sorry Mr. Kamiya... but that is just... total... bullshit.