Eric Foner: Obama Stumbles in Lincoln's Footsteps
[Eric Foner is DeWitt Clinton professor of history at Columbia University, New York. He is the author of many books, including, most recently, The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery (2010)]
...Many comparisons between Lincoln and Obama have no historical merit. One that has validity is that both made their national reputations through oratory rather than long careers of public service. Lincoln held no public office between 1849 and his election. Obama served briefly in the Illinois legislature and US Senate, but had no significant legislative accomplishment. It was speeches – of considerable eloquence and moral power – that propelled both into the national spotlight.
Obama's rather petulant response to liberal critics of his tax deal, however, reveals a fundamental difference between the two men. Obama accuses liberals of being sanctimonious purists, more interested in staking out a principled position than getting things accomplished. Lincoln, too, faced critics on the left of his own party. Abolitionists, who agitated outside the political system, and Radical Republicans, who represented the abolitionist sensibility in politics, frequently criticised Lincoln for what they saw as his slowness in attacking slavery during the civil war. In 1864, one group of Radicals even sought to replace Lincoln with their own candidate, John C Frémont.
Lincoln, however, was openminded, intellectually curious and willing to listen to critics in his own party – qualities Obama appears to lack....
Read entire article at Guardian (UK)
...Many comparisons between Lincoln and Obama have no historical merit. One that has validity is that both made their national reputations through oratory rather than long careers of public service. Lincoln held no public office between 1849 and his election. Obama served briefly in the Illinois legislature and US Senate, but had no significant legislative accomplishment. It was speeches – of considerable eloquence and moral power – that propelled both into the national spotlight.
Obama's rather petulant response to liberal critics of his tax deal, however, reveals a fundamental difference between the two men. Obama accuses liberals of being sanctimonious purists, more interested in staking out a principled position than getting things accomplished. Lincoln, too, faced critics on the left of his own party. Abolitionists, who agitated outside the political system, and Radical Republicans, who represented the abolitionist sensibility in politics, frequently criticised Lincoln for what they saw as his slowness in attacking slavery during the civil war. In 1864, one group of Radicals even sought to replace Lincoln with their own candidate, John C Frémont.
Lincoln, however, was openminded, intellectually curious and willing to listen to critics in his own party – qualities Obama appears to lack....