Michael Hill: What if Lincoln had lived?
[Mr. Hill is a staff reporter for the Baltimore Sun.]
Most say that America today is a distressingly polarized country - deeply divided over issues from abortion to gun control, from affirmative action to evolution.
Hah! You want polarized? Think of the country that Abraham Lincoln faced when he took office in 1861 - states seceding, a Civil War on the horizon, all over the seemingly insoluble issue of slavery, the one that had stumped the founding fathers.
Or, for that matter, think of the country when Lincoln began his second term in 1865 with only a few weeks to live. A victorious North was trying to figure out what to do with a defeated South and millions of newly freed slaves - with opinions ranging from forgive and forget to ruthless revenge.
One big difference between now and then is that then the president was Lincoln. That is no disrespect to the current occupant of the Oval Office. Few, if any, who have held that office live up to Lincoln.
But it can be argued that Lincoln's reputation is so high in part because his assassination meant that he didn't have to try to put the broken country back together again - a perhaps impossible task that was left to a much lesser character, Andrew Johnson.
In any case, on his 197th birthday - though who's counting when you're immortal? - Lincoln offers some lessons for leading a polarized nation.
The first is that he was not afraid of polarization.
Richard Striner, a historian at Washington College, says that is because the one issue Lincoln never wavered on was slavery - he was always opposed to it, he wanted it abolished, and his entire political trajectory was aimed at accomplishing that task. That's the thesis of his new book, Father Abraham: Lincoln's Relentless Struggle to End Slavery.
"It always seems that divisiveness is bad in politics, but that is not necessarily the case if you feel there is a fundamental issue that has to be faced squarely," Striner says. "And slavery was a fundamental issue that had to be faced squarely.
"Part of Lincoln's greatness was that he was quite unflinching in facing up to it, instead of fudging, proposing some sort of compromise," he says. "But while he was a great moral leader, he was a great moral strategist [at] same time.
"He was both a fervent idealist and a genius at power orchestration," Striner says. "Those are leadership qualities that do not come along every day."
Striner says that although Lincoln was not afraid of the polarization that came from opposing slavery - fighting a war that cost the lives of some 600,000 Americans - he had the skill to drive the nation forward in a way that would see slavery abolished and the union preserved.
"There is a tricky interplay between simplicity and complexity in public life," Striner says. "In some ways, the issue of slavery is pretty simple. It's the golden rule - how can you tolerate a system that does unto others what you would never do unto yourself?
"That's simple, but carrying that into effect, given the enormity of the power and opinion arrayed against it, took a very shrewd master of power and politics."
Some would disagree with Striner that Lincoln was consistent on slavery, arguing instead that his views modified over time, showing a flexibility that is another reason for his success.
"People are quite mistaken when they just take one quote from Lincoln and say, 'Here is Lincoln's view,'" says Eric Foner, a historian at Columbia University. "Because Lincoln's views change. That's part of his greatness, he was able to change with the times."
Foner points to steps that led up to the Emancipation Proclamation.
"The way he came to emancipation shows his ability to change under the impact of events on issues like using black soldiers in the army," Foner says. "He was opposed to that in the beginning, but he consented, and that ends up in 1865 being very germane to his thinking about the future of African-American life."
Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin says that the ability to admit changes of mind and mistakes seems lacking in current leaders.
"I understand that these people are afraid to say that they made a mistake because the other side will trumpet it," she says. "But what is wrong with explaining why the error took place and what you learned from it, like John Kennedy did with the Bay of Pigs? Or even Ronald Reagan, admitting that he did not think he was trading arms for hostages, but when the report came out on Iran-Contra, it seems that is what he did?" she says.
"Look at what President Bush did in recent speeches - when he was finally willing to say that maybe there were some errors in Iraq, his poll number went up," she says.
What Goodwin rarely sees in current leadership is a characteristic that she says was fundamental to Lincoln's leadership - a desire to understand a variety of opinions. ...
Read entire article at Baltimore Sun
Most say that America today is a distressingly polarized country - deeply divided over issues from abortion to gun control, from affirmative action to evolution.
Hah! You want polarized? Think of the country that Abraham Lincoln faced when he took office in 1861 - states seceding, a Civil War on the horizon, all over the seemingly insoluble issue of slavery, the one that had stumped the founding fathers.
Or, for that matter, think of the country when Lincoln began his second term in 1865 with only a few weeks to live. A victorious North was trying to figure out what to do with a defeated South and millions of newly freed slaves - with opinions ranging from forgive and forget to ruthless revenge.
One big difference between now and then is that then the president was Lincoln. That is no disrespect to the current occupant of the Oval Office. Few, if any, who have held that office live up to Lincoln.
But it can be argued that Lincoln's reputation is so high in part because his assassination meant that he didn't have to try to put the broken country back together again - a perhaps impossible task that was left to a much lesser character, Andrew Johnson.
In any case, on his 197th birthday - though who's counting when you're immortal? - Lincoln offers some lessons for leading a polarized nation.
The first is that he was not afraid of polarization.
Richard Striner, a historian at Washington College, says that is because the one issue Lincoln never wavered on was slavery - he was always opposed to it, he wanted it abolished, and his entire political trajectory was aimed at accomplishing that task. That's the thesis of his new book, Father Abraham: Lincoln's Relentless Struggle to End Slavery.
"It always seems that divisiveness is bad in politics, but that is not necessarily the case if you feel there is a fundamental issue that has to be faced squarely," Striner says. "And slavery was a fundamental issue that had to be faced squarely.
"Part of Lincoln's greatness was that he was quite unflinching in facing up to it, instead of fudging, proposing some sort of compromise," he says. "But while he was a great moral leader, he was a great moral strategist [at] same time.
"He was both a fervent idealist and a genius at power orchestration," Striner says. "Those are leadership qualities that do not come along every day."
Striner says that although Lincoln was not afraid of the polarization that came from opposing slavery - fighting a war that cost the lives of some 600,000 Americans - he had the skill to drive the nation forward in a way that would see slavery abolished and the union preserved.
"There is a tricky interplay between simplicity and complexity in public life," Striner says. "In some ways, the issue of slavery is pretty simple. It's the golden rule - how can you tolerate a system that does unto others what you would never do unto yourself?
"That's simple, but carrying that into effect, given the enormity of the power and opinion arrayed against it, took a very shrewd master of power and politics."
Some would disagree with Striner that Lincoln was consistent on slavery, arguing instead that his views modified over time, showing a flexibility that is another reason for his success.
"People are quite mistaken when they just take one quote from Lincoln and say, 'Here is Lincoln's view,'" says Eric Foner, a historian at Columbia University. "Because Lincoln's views change. That's part of his greatness, he was able to change with the times."
Foner points to steps that led up to the Emancipation Proclamation.
"The way he came to emancipation shows his ability to change under the impact of events on issues like using black soldiers in the army," Foner says. "He was opposed to that in the beginning, but he consented, and that ends up in 1865 being very germane to his thinking about the future of African-American life."
Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin says that the ability to admit changes of mind and mistakes seems lacking in current leaders.
"I understand that these people are afraid to say that they made a mistake because the other side will trumpet it," she says. "But what is wrong with explaining why the error took place and what you learned from it, like John Kennedy did with the Bay of Pigs? Or even Ronald Reagan, admitting that he did not think he was trading arms for hostages, but when the report came out on Iran-Contra, it seems that is what he did?" she says.
"Look at what President Bush did in recent speeches - when he was finally willing to say that maybe there were some errors in Iraq, his poll number went up," she says.
What Goodwin rarely sees in current leadership is a characteristic that she says was fundamental to Lincoln's leadership - a desire to understand a variety of opinions. ...