|
"Acclaimed historian Doris Kearns Goodwin illuminates Lincoln's political genius in this highly original work, as the one-term congressman and prarie lawyer rises from obscurity to prevail over three gifted rivals of national reputation to become president.
"On May 18, 1860, William H. Steward, Salmon P. Chase, Edward Bates, and Abraham Lincoln waited in their hometowns for the results from the Republican National Convention in Chicago. When Lincoln emerged as the victor, his rivals were dismayed and angry.
"Throughout the turbulent 1850s, each had energetically sought the presidency as the conflict over slavery was leading inexorably to secession and civil war. That Lincoln succeeded, Goodwin demonstrates, was the result of a character that had been forged by experiences that raised him above his more privileged and accomplished rivals. He won because he possessed an extraordinary ability to put himself in the place of other men, to experience what they were feeling, to understand their motives and desires.
"It was this capacity that enabled Lincoln as president to bring his disgruntled opponents together, create the most unusual cabinet in history, and marshall their talents to the task of preserving the Union and winning the war." (from inside front flap of "Team of Rivals")
I am in the middle of Doris Kearns Goodwin's new book on Abraham Lincoln, and it seems that it might be worthy of consideration in the early months of 2006, as we approach the campaign season. It reminds me of the 2004 presidential primary campaign, when I suggested that the democratic ticket would be stronger, and hold wider appeal, if the eventual winner would make use of the wide range of talent. An example was when Richard Gephardt dropped out; although he seemed unlikely to appeal to many as a presidential candidate, he would have strengthened any ticket were he mentioned as the selection for Labor Secretary. Likewise, Wesley Clark , Howard Dean, and others would have been strong choices for a democratic administration. In fact, I believe that when Kerry's people tried to "mold" John Edwards -- steering him away from his "two Americas" approach -- they damaged Kerry, and cut the ticket's potential appeal to the "other America" that Edward's accurately had identified in the primaries.
Proof that projecting an "inclusive" image can help might be found in President Bush's courting of pseudo-democrat Joseph Lieberman. I suspect that this demonstrates not only that Bush's political advisors like Karl Rove recognize they can appeal to a specific segment of the democrats -- much as Kevin Phillips advised Richard Nixon to appeal to the racist southern "dixiecrats" in '68 -- but that the neocon movement has solid support for their Middle East policy in the pseudocrats.
What concerns me is that many of the democrats hoping to be elected in '06, and indeed those with their eyes on the presidency in '08, are going to look to the Lieberman strain of the democrats as the most important group to appeal to. I find that unaccepable.
I have noted, for example, that as a NYS democrat, I have contributed money and time to Hillary Clinton in the past. I've met her a couple times, and really liked her. But I will not invest any time or money in her campaign(s) as long as she takes a position that supports the Bush war in Iraq.
On page 16 of the January 9-16 edition of The Nation, there is a wonderful article by William Greider, titled "Rebels: Lighting a Fuse Under Lieberman -- and the Rest of the Democratic Appeasers." It advocates progressives supporting "a Democratic insurgency" in the primaries. MoveOn.org 's Tom Matzzie is quoted: "Our first allegiance is to our members, and they are just as frustrated with the Democrats as anybody else. So they've given us the charge to change the Dems, and we're taking that very seriously."
I would far rather donate my time and money to a democrat from Connecticut challenging Lieberman, than to a democrat from New York who supports Bush's Iraqi policy. It may be that we cannot end up with an "underdog" winning the democratic primary in '08, and that one of those "more privileged and accomplished" politicians of "...gifted .... national reputation" will be on the top of the ticket. But I think it is high time we let the national party know that it isn't going to be business as usual. They should not think that it is safe to take the progressive wing for granted, and that the contest should be for the pseudocrat/Lieberman wing of the party.
We need to demand representation.
|