Why Obama Will Never Be Lincoln or King
Watching the movie Lincoln, I thought there were some similarities between President Abraham Lincoln and President Barack Obama. Both men were popular during their times. During the film, Mary Todd Lincoln pleads with her husband not to squander his popularity with the American people by forcing Congress to pass the 13th amendment ending slavery as the Civil War was already coming to an end.
“No one’s ever been loved so much by the people. Don’t waste that power,” Mary Todd played exceptionally by Sally Fields tells her husband. But Lincoln, portrayed forcefully by Daniel Day Lewis, looked at his wife as if to say “the future of America is more important than my popularity.” In that moment, it was clear to me Obama is no Lincoln nor will he ever be as great a president as Abe because Obama always puts his personal popularity above the good of the country.
Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward, tells the president, “It’s either the amendment or this Confederacy peace, you cannot have both.” But Lincoln did have both and risked being disliked as president to ensure not only slaves/blacks gained freedom in the United States Constitution but all men. The president knew the Emancipation Proclamation he declared using his war powers would be null and void when the war ended because freedom for all men wasn’t in the Constitution.
As the Union Army had all but vanquished the Confederacy in 1865, Lincoln ultimately got Congress to pass the 13th amendment by personally lobbying bigoted Democrat Confederates and getting some to vote in favor of ending slavery. Instead of engaging in a war of words, Lincoln personally engaged in the process.
What issue of great importance has Obama sacrificed his personal popularity? The debt ceiling, Obamacare, fiscal cliff, immigration, gun control, Benghazi? From day one of his first term, Obama showed nothing but public contempt for Republicans in every battle and having his way regardless of the impact on the country.
Unlike Lincoln, whom Obama says he admires, Obama hasn’t shown any interest in building relationships with Republicans, which was evidenced early on when no Republicans voted Obamacare. Nor did any House Republicans vote for Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package. Only three Republican Senators voted for the stimulus.
Throughout his 1st term Obama was effective in portraying Republicans has politicians only concerned about the rich. The problem with this strategy is it doesn’t inspire the opposing party to work with you. From the recent fiscal cliff battle to 2011 debt ceiling talks, Obama seems to relish humiliating his opponents for personal approval ratings more than working with them to fix the country’s problems.
One particularly awful moment came April 13, 2011 at George Washington University. Obama invited some of the Republican leadership, including Rep. Paul Ryan, architect of the House budget plan, to his debt reduction speech at the university. Keep in mind bipartisan discussions on dealing with the country’s debt ceiling were occurring at the White House and on Capital Hill.
Instead of praising Republicans for at least putting forth a plan, Obama excoriated Ryan’s plan as bad for America. Obama said it “ends Medicare as we know it” and that “children with autism or Down syndrome,” along with the poor and grandparents would lose Medicaid coverage, (p.104 The Price of Politics).
I will give President and candidate Obama credit, he does a brilliant job of selling America on the Obama brand: an educated black man, full of personality with a great family. Senator Harry Reid observed in 2007 that Obama could be president because he was “a light-skinned” black with “no Negro dialect,” (p.36 Game Change). Americans and the mainstream media loved the Obama to the point they were willing to dismiss his lousy record every time in favor of his uniqueness and charm as the country’s first black president.
During the campaign, he and his Democrat surrogates demonized Republican candidate Mitt Romney, effectively distracting voters from the issues of a bad economy and mounting debt to topics like the war on women, birth control, gay marriage, Romney’s wealth and his taxes. Despite presiding over one of the worst economies since the Great Depression in his first term, where unemployment was stuck mostly above 8%, Obama beat the odds and won re-election. No president except Franklin D. Roosevelt won reelection when unemployment was higher than 7%.
As Obama embarks upon his second term, he seems intent on using the same tactics of demonizing Republicans as he did in his first. In remarks on gun violence January 16, 2012, days before his inauguration, Obama said, “while reducing gun violence is a complicated challenge, protecting our children from harm shouldn’t be a divisive one.” Because Republicans and some Democrats support the 2nd amendment and have different views on gun laws doesn’t mean they are evil.
Obama will place his hand on bibles from both Martin Luther King Jr. and Lincoln for his public swearing in January 21st, also the King Holiday. Using these bibles flies in the face of what both men embodied, freedom. Under Obama’s administration Americans have become more dependent upon government, enslaved to it, rather than free from it because of his policies. Nearly 50% of all Americans receive some form of government benefit.
King and Lincoln were killed for bringing freedom and equality to all men. In his 1963 I Have A Dream speech, King referenced Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation yet declared: “But 100 years later, the Negro is not free.” Blacks weren’t free because they were enslaved in an American society of segregation that cut them off from opportunity to access the same rights: education, jobs, housing, etc. as whites.
Despite what some black liberals say, Obama needs to do more than be the first black president to honor King’s legacy. I think King would be appalled by Obama’s economy and how his policies have harmed black Americans with higher than average unemployment at 14%, 25% of blacks living in poverty, and 73% of black babies today a born to single moms. This isn’t the Dream King envisioned.
Obama is no Lincoln or King because he lacks magnanimity. Great men take responsibility for their actions. They don’t blame others for their inability to achieve great things. They just do it.
@Wes “The saddest part of all is if George HW had gotten reelected, he no doubt would have done what Clinton did. Only Ross Perot was trying to tell everybody how insane this idea was (notice how you haven’t seen a third party person in the presidential debate since). Now that the jobs are gone, people are still arguing over whether we’d be better off with a dem or a rep in the white house.”
Process is something that few people who discuss politics understand. I have only a beginner’s understanding, but I encourage the participation. The first step is to become a PCP
in a party, attend meetings, join discussions, propose things, vote
be included in the formation of the party platform.
The reason that it can be shown that Lincoln and the Republicans
who helped get him elected, had more than a passing desire to eliminate slavery is that it is included in their party platform.
Go see for yourself what their priorities were. A Party Platform has
been assembled, point by point, by committees of PCPs who vote on each word, or change. (That’s what happened at the current
assembly of the DNC, where they voted the word “God” out of the platform in committee, then had a voice-vote on the floor that voted Him out again, only to have the moderator decide they had voted God in to the platform. That’s when they booed, because it was clear the voice vote had voted Him out–but it wasn’t expedient to leadership to let the voice-vote stand, thereby causing a split
in the party right before the election.)
To be included in the debates there is a threshold a party must step
over, in terms of primary results, because the people who put on the debates don’t want to have 15 or 20 people (or more) on the debate floor. After everybody has had their turn to speak, each gets only 1-2 turns and nobody gets to hear a debate of the 2-3 front runners. In every election whoever wants to run, can, but most will never get enough traction to get included in the debates.
Their HAVE been some people who have been excluded who have had large followings; the one I know of was Alan Keyes. I don’t know why, but it’s possible that despite a lot of traction, he may have fallen just below the cut-off. To my thinking, Alan Keyes
would have made a wonderful first black president, and I would have supported a 2nd term also. What is important is what kind
of policies one is supporting.
Alan Keyes has been very outspoken about his distress with Obama, and none of it has to do with Obama’s color.
Speaking of process, the case that has worked its way through the courts until the Supreme Court has agreed to take it, is a Democrat
from Florida who is demanding, under FL law, to have Obama’s
eligibility to be president examined. Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s 250
retired law officer deputies have done excellent work on the discovery process, showing how the BC presented on the internet
failed to have the final step of making it one layer, after it was
assembled. The nine layers of pieces and parts are still there,
and many other errors as it was assembled. The fact that Obama
has used millions of taxpayer dollars to pay lawyers to shut up
his record, so that all voters have is the manufactured history he
has made so much of, is unknown to the majority of Americans,
due to censorship of the media. Obama has never been vetted,
and the Democrats know that. Feb 15 may lay before the American people the facts of the case, or the judges may crumble.
We shall see. The most interesting part of the case is that the
Selective Service card, also manufactured, bears Obama’s signature. The ones making the card didn’t know that in the year
they created the card for, Obama didn’t even need a card…
Very interesting case.
Power works by denying people things. Then when power sees compliance it rewards. The process is in place. Here in OR, 3 yrs ago the Dems passed draconian taxes, based on size of company and paying more and more “GROSS”. That means that you pay your taxes before you pay your EXPENSES! Companies with 100 employees are driven out of business…but Nike, large, run by a liberal Dem, gave large amounts to the DemParty, then came begging, “let me out”. The governor convened the legislature for 1 day and gave Nike a waiver. So now a liberal footlicking Dem company is strengthened, while thousands of nobody companies go under. Millions of one-person companies are unaffected, so everybody goes along, doesn’t even notice why there are so few jobs.
@Scott You say it may all be in the view, but I beg to differ. I do not think this is about how things look. I think it is about how things ARE. People on this site are focused on what Bible was used in the inauguration and I am focused on what Obama said during that oath. He promised the American people to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. What that means to me is when this crazy Congress passes some law that threatens the sixth or the second amendment he will veto it.
You poopoo this globalization issue like it is a tempest in a teapot while I am declaring myself a nationalist. We don’t have a constitution if we don’t have a nation. Does this sound like a non sequitur? I don’t always express myself well. Anyway whenever Congress passes laws putting us under the jurisdiction of some international tribunal (like the WTO for example), it affects our status as a sovereign nation. Back in the ninties Pat Buchanan ran for president citing a concern for an issue that he called “lost sovereignty”. Unfortunately the electorate was asleep and he lost that election.
You asked for “ONE compromise” that Obama has done. Well he had this vision or plan that was supposed to solve what he thought was the number one problem plaguing this economy. Well he compromised and compromised until Congress spewed out this monstrosity commonly called Obamacare. Now we have Obamacare AND a healthcare problem.
Regarding the media lying, when I want to be entertained I watch the news. When I want to be informed I watch CSPAN.
@ Scott If you prefer to talk about the way things APPEAR, then this is what I see. Since CBC feels it is relevant to compare Obama to Lincoln (arguably the greatest president in the history of the republic), I’d like to rank all the recent presidents going back to Carter. The list goes from best to worst. Please keep in mind that since I blame much of the economic turmoil on Reaganomics, it should go without saying that I am not that happy with any of them:
Reagan
HW Bush
Obama
Carter
Clinton
W Bush
Since you stated a week or two ago that we spend time arguing over “bogus” issues, I think it is pertinent to say that the media has the electorate hypnotized into believing we have a viable two party system.
Here’s a good non sequitur for you. “Let’s just replace these bought and paid for guys with these bought and paid for guys and we can turn this thing around.”
{sheesh}
@wes
#1 I agree the Republicans are as bad as the Demos; I thought I have said that multiple times.
#2 If Obamacare is a compromise, we are speaking different languages.
#3 Global trade is good, global government would be the worst possible thing. Don’t confuse them.
@Scott
#2 We may be speaking different languages. If Obama says we need public health care and the republicans say no we don’t, if we get it Obama wins. If we don’t the reps win. If we wind up with something in between public health care and no public health care, I call that a compromise.
#3 As long as you agree global government is bad then I feel we are mostly on the same page. If you can convince me that having our workforce competing for jobs with these slave labor countries will benefit us in the long run, we will be in agreement. Cuz in the short term it appears to be whooping our behinds.
@Scott
Regarding #1 If you don’t like dems or reps, do you have any good ideas about getting a third party in the whitehouse? First we have to get them into the debates. I can’t join the tea party – its too connected to the Koch bro – which means big business – which means it is the defacto government … I think
[...] Crystal Wright: Why Obama Will Never be Lincoln or King – Obama is no Lincoln or King because he lacks magnanimity. Great men take responsibility for their actions. They don’t blame others for their inability to achieve great things. They just do it. [...]
@Wes #2 I think a better approach would have been to reform the goals of medical care. Right now the goals are to control disease processes. The goal should be to prevent them. There is no reward to a physician to help his patients avoid disease. Look at the diabetes mess for example.
#1 Once upon a time Goldwater advised the conservatives to get active, the radical religious right did. Someone needs to motivate the Caring Conservative, non-Judgmental right to get active.
I looked at the Tea Party. They are just so short sighted, so I really don’t have an answer other than honest debate. I think that is being short circuited by the media. Look at the next blog: Hillary is glorified for basically saying: “Hey 4 Americans died, what difference does it make how they died?” or “Why do you want to blame me for my oversight?” How can there be honest debate with that being approved?
@scott
#2 I agree preventive medicine is a great way to help drive down healthcare costs. Unfortunately the is no way to prevent people from getting older short of euthanasia. Medicare is the 800 pound gorilla and the people who lobby Congress have found a way to profit from that through Obamacare (not to imply they weren’t profiting before Obamacare).
#1 I’m not sure I can comprehend, or even apprehend what you mean by “caring conservative”. I try to use labels as little as possible. If you see yourself as an American and I declare myself as an American you may presume me to be your brother. On the other hand, if I declare myself black or liberal you may presume I am competing with you.
You acknowledged that the media is a huge problem. You stated multiple times that republicans aren’t the answer. You asserted that people argue over bogus issues. In light of this, I think we AGREE that we need to stick together as Americans. We cannot afford to have MSNBC and Fox News divide us as the white and the black; the young and the old; the rich and the poor and MOST IMPORTANTLY the left and the right. Why? Because if we owe China trillions, guess who else is lobbying our Congress? I prefer not arguing over minutia when the constitution (which protects our rights) is under threat because too much is at stake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F584p5kJL-U
The tricky part is that it is constitutionally legal to lobby Congress, I think
As far as the Hillary thing is concerned, she said she took responsibility and subsequently implied it wasn’t her fault. I guess she’s been taking lessons from her husband. After all, it all matters what the definition of the word “is” is.
@ Rebecca
I just noticed your note. I think I would like to start working toward something like this (getting involved with a political party that is). I prefer this route as opposed to more radical approaches and I am worried that the window of opportunity may be closing.
So far, I don’t feel I have much in common with others politically. My choices are leaning toward what I think the Messiah would do should He choose to become an activist. That would be knowing right from wrong without being too judgmental. Also it would be caring about others and treating others as I would like to be treated. I believe capitalism is the best economic system because socialism will collapse under its own weight. However I don’t believe in deregulation because without controls, all of the wealth will end up in the hands of a few and the have nots will revolt. Also, I don’t believe in supply side myths. When Clinton was preparing to sell out his country in 1994, I travelled to Washington for a rally opposing the passing of the GATT treaty. Given the gravity of what was about to occur, the turnout was pathetic. Anyway, Alan Keyes was there and spoke to the “crowd”. Over the years he has made me upset on occasion, but overall, I like him.
I believe in the separation of church and state. From the spiritual perspective, I believe a theocracy would be the best system. However I am a student of history and history tells me that religious leaders cannot always be trusted to act in the congregation’s best interest. Until we can confirm the shaman is not a charlatan I have to place trust in the secular.
One more thing. Some things must be left to the government. Nobody in the country can afford to get hospitalized except the very wealthy. That means somebody besides the doctor and the patient have to get involved in what kinds of treatments are performed. As you may already know, I don’t trust the government as much as the next person, but given the choice between the government and some businessman looking at a balance sheet and a bottom line, well let’s just say the “compassionate” businessman probably filed for bankrupcy and had to turn my case over to the shrewed businessman and I just became expendable.
@Wes Very interesting summary of the way things are. I agree with most of your premises; however, disagree with the some conclusions.
First: free enterprise is a horrible system, but it is better than any other we know. Scale seems to matter with the amount of integrity shown.
Second: we need morality. I think that comes from small community. This country is just too big for a sense of commonness with the guy in the state on the other coast, etc. Unfortunately, I think we need regulations to substitute for that. We should allow people in smaller jursidictions make their own rules. I think that is called States Rights and Article 9 of the Constitution.
But I also think our schools should teach an absolute morality – as they used to do. There is no shame in our country. Judeo-Christian is good to a point. I think most of Islam agrees with the basics, but am not knowledgeable enough to argue that. I feel the Messiah is really a libertarian, with understanding that some people need help. Quite a combo, isn’t it?
Third: I don’t want the government in charge of my health. I would love to see physicians charged with improving health not keeping you alive on drugs. Again morality. What if the Dr were only paid if you were healthy, with a deduction for each drug you used, and a bigger one if you got cancer?
Libertarians want most of these things. Unfortunately they don’t sell themselves well. They focus on the leave me alone, not the benefits of independent action and the fact that the vast majority of people would be more successful if not controlled by government.
There is a role for government. It should help people who are down and out, but it should not be limited to keeping them alive, it should include helping them get on their feet.
How to get active? Take over the Republican party again? Get inside the Democratic party? Maybe contact our “news” organizations and ask them to present an honest dialogue about our problems and handling them in a moral fashion.
I have started expressing my opinions in this blog and on my Facebook page. I do email the major network programs (to no known avail, but I do it.) I read you as a human who wants freedom and sees some of the dangers in our system. We have a lot in common. What is the next step?
@ scott
First: I’m not sure I understand your point. It sounds like you are saying free enterprise is only as good as the people who use it. Please clarify.
Second: Small community government is the brilliance of confederation. I know I’m always moaning about the constitution and bill of rights, but at the risk of sounding hypocritical, history paints an ugly picture. Can you say emancipation in 1865 and civil rights in 1965? The nation is just a bit over 200 years old. Fighting for states rights will be “tricky” for me. Having abortion legal in some states wouldn’t be so unmanageable. However having gay marriage legal in some states and outlawed in others sounds like a real problem to me.
I agree that raising up moral and ethical agents is critical to the society wanting liberty and freedom. However I do not agree that the school system is best method to achieve this end. Parents so focused on making a living (or not focused on anything constructive for that matter) are raising monsters. Prisons are overflowing and I am not convinced this is the failure of the school system. I agree the school systems are failing, but part of that problem is that the students don’t want to learn and the parents of those children often don’t care whether or not they learn.
Third: An outcome based medical system is intriguing, but is it feasible? Obviously the drug companies aren’t lobbying Congress for this end. If we were lucky enough to elect a statesmen to the presidency, he’ll go marching into Washington and run into that wall. “What if the Dr were only paid if you were healthy, with a deduction for each drug you used, and a bigger one if you got cancer?” I don’t understand what you mean here about cancer. Cancer cures seem more likely the earlier the cancer is detected. At what point do we ship the stage fours off to the hospice? When there is little to no hope or when the costs don’t justify the effort?
I think the dems and reps parties are too far gone in order to fix them from within. People are being elected to Congress and when they arrive in Washington instead of representing their constituency, they are being told to go sit in a corner someplace while the “leaders” work out a deal. With one or two companies buying up all the radio stations, it sorta says something about what we can expect to hear on the air.
@Wes
#1 Free enterprise has many problems and only works well when there are comparable competitors. Two grocery stores in town works a lot better than one. The competition keeps the stores honest.
My quote is a fairly oft repeated one. Free Enterprise has many problems but fewer than any other system.
#2 Slavery and post civil war repression of minorities including blacks was horrible (to put it mildly). But the civil war was about the states rights. Lincoln happened upon the great propaganda line of freeing blacks. That rallied the North.
The constitution states that all states must honor contracts from other states. (Article 4 – Full Faith) Marriage is a contract.
#3 I agree 100% that parents are first in line. But the schools and public system now are so overwhelming in their belief control, that it is difficult to cope. They do seem to teach that all misbehavior is a result of “psychological problems” and indeed that seems to says that one is not responsible for his behavior. Pretty scary.
#4 Medicine. I threw out a premise. Modifying the parameters of the service sold could, emphasize could, change the motivation. As a retired DVM, I KNOW some veterinarians were paid on commission. The owners did not like the slow pace at which they practiced. A friend recently retired as a pediatrician, when he was criticized for lack of “production.” Putting the government in charge will not work as long as commission is the payment model.
Cancer or any other single issue, would need to be worked out. There is a good bit of evidence that lifestyle contributes to cancer. Think smoking.
#5 What to do: I am going to a local Republican meeting. I was invited by a friend who is a Libertarian. You sound like a conservative. Perhaps looking at the ramifications of some policies would convince you one way or the other. You and I need to speak up so we can be heard.
Why not read “Atlas Shrugged” for what Ayn Rand intended? She was commenting on the effect of crippling bureaucratic control with short sighted rules. She took things to their logical extreme.
People forget she was a teenager during the Russian Revolution and saw the effects of collectivism. Her heroes are stilted and one dimensional and she does not offer a vision of ideal government, but her vision of the results of poor government is pretty eerie.
See you in the next topic – or perhaps at a meeting…
Lack of magnanimity, sure, but Obama can’t even be compared to the feeble Jimmy Carter. While both men’s policies were similar and wrong headed, at least Carter believed in country over his own legacy.