C-SPAN has released the results of its second annual presidential leadership survey. The survey asks historians to rank U.S. presidents using a pre-determined list of criteria. This year, Lincoln tops the list.
I have always found these types of surveys bizarre, yet innocuous. First, "ranking" a president seems strange because multiple factors will determine how a president's contemporaries view him or her (perhaps, some day). But as time passes, new issues will shape a president's standing among future generations. Also, most of these studies poll historians. Although I respect the expertise that historians have in discussing the historical impact of particular presidents, scholars in other fields, such as political science, economics, and law, could make valuable contributions to this subject as well. Nevertheless, the study provides annual space for harmless trivia and debate.
Yes, Democratic Underground: Andrew Johnson Ranks Much Lower Than Bush
This year's study, as do most others, places Lincoln at the top. Although many liberal historians and politicians have recently argued that Bush is the absolute worst president (a claim I vigorously dispute), Dubya ranked 36 (out of 42). Immediately following Lincoln in the top five are: George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman.
The bottom five included (from bad to worst): Warren G. Harding, William Henry Harrison, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, and James Buchanan. Previously, I described Andrew Johnson as possibly the "worst" president due to his callous efforts to kill Reconstruction and perpetuate the subordination of black people, and based on his awful conflicts with the Republican Party, which almost led to his removal from office. My analysis upset the crowd at Democratic Underground who seemingly believed that any argument that did not consider Bush the worst president emanated from a vile and corrupt mind. Does anyone know how the kids are reacting to the release of this survey?
Lyndon B. Johnson: Number 11
I am happy to see that LBJ ranks number 11. Many liberals despise Johnson due to the Vietnam War and his crass Southern persona. But Johnson actually did more than any other president -- including Kennedy -- to advance racial equality, assistance for the poor, public education, public health care, and general civil rights concerns.
Nevertheless, Johnson typically gets less credit on these liberal issues than he deserves, while Kennedy tends to receive far more acclaim on these matters than his performance warrants. Of course, social movements played a critical and essential role in pushing Johnson towards these accomplishments. The engagement of social movements with presidential leadership allowed for the dramatic political and social changes of the Johnson administration.
Showing posts with label abraham lincoln. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abraham lincoln. Show all posts
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Maxing Out on Lincoln: Obama Will Eat Abe and Mary Todd's Favorite Foods at Inauguration Luncheon
Barack Obama, like Abraham Lincoln, started his campaign on the steps of the Old Capitol Building in Springfield, Illinois. Since that time, he has invoked Lincolnian symbolism many times. For example he will ride to his inauguration by train, following Lincoln's route. He will use the same bible that Lincoln held as he took the oath of office. And he has described his Cabinet as a "team of rivals," a reference to one author's portrayal of Lincoln's Cabinet. [Editor's Note: See what some academic historians think of the "team of rivals concept. It's not pretty.]
If that were not enough Lincolnism for you, Jake Tapper's blog reports that on Inauguration Day, Obama will dine like Lincoln. The luncheon will consist of modern takes on some of Abe and Mary Todd's favorite foods. Check it out here: Obama Will Eat Like Lincoln on Inauguration Day.
Is this getting creepy to anyone else? Well, now more than ever, I guess progressives should assume the role of Abolitionists and Radical Republicans.
For a substantive discussion of Obama's Lincoln symbolism that focuses on policy and political change, see: If Obama Emulates Lincoln, Will Progressives Follow Abolitionists and Radical Republicans?
UPDATE: The Obamas toured Washington, DC today and visited a monument that honors a famous president. Can you guess which one? Here's the answer.
If that were not enough Lincolnism for you, Jake Tapper's blog reports that on Inauguration Day, Obama will dine like Lincoln. The luncheon will consist of modern takes on some of Abe and Mary Todd's favorite foods. Check it out here: Obama Will Eat Like Lincoln on Inauguration Day.
Is this getting creepy to anyone else? Well, now more than ever, I guess progressives should assume the role of Abolitionists and Radical Republicans.
For a substantive discussion of Obama's Lincoln symbolism that focuses on policy and political change, see: If Obama Emulates Lincoln, Will Progressives Follow Abolitionists and Radical Republicans?
UPDATE: The Obamas toured Washington, DC today and visited a monument that honors a famous president. Can you guess which one? Here's the answer.
Friday, January 9, 2009
If Obama Emulates Lincoln, Will Progressives Follow Abolitionists and Radical Republicans?
President-elect Obama's frequent deployment of Abraham Lincoln-related symbolism (arriving to the inauguration by train, swearing in with "Lincoln Bible," launching campaign at the Old Capitol Building in Springfield) has generated a surge in commentary regarding the famed president. But much of the recent discourse depicts Lincoln as an undifferentiated hero of oppressed people, a vigorous champion of human rights, and a tireless opponent of the status quo. The preeminent historian Eric Foner, however, offers a more nuanced and realistic portrayal of Lincoln in his recent essay "Our Lincoln" (which appears in The Nation).
Lincoln May Have Held "Bold" Personal Beliefs on Slavery, But He Preferred "Moderate" Policies
Lincoln, like Obama, was far more moderate than many progressives choose to acknowledge. Although he expressed a personal opposition to slavery, Lincoln would have compromised his own stated values on the issue in order to maintain national unity. Lincoln advocated the "ultimate extinction" of slavery, which he hoped to accomplish by opposing its extension rather than abolishing it in pro-slavery states. Lincoln was a moderate, not "radical," Republican.
Lincoln only supported emancipation as "policy" after large numbers of slaves abandoned plantations when Union soldiers arrived. Slaves needed food, shelter, clothing, and attention to their health. Also, Lincoln realized that blacks could help fight the war, which was rapidly losing support among Northern voters. Depriving the South of slaves would also devastate the region financially during a costly war. Furthermore, abolitionists, who consistently pressed Lincoln, believed that the War's narrative should center around emancipation.
Congress actually did more than Lincoln to press for emancipation. Prior to Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, Congress passed statutes that freed slaves who fled to Union forces and which abolished slavery in federal territories, the District of Columbia, and in certain Union occupied areas. So, as Foner argues, the Emancipation Proclamation accomplished far less than the great symbolism surrounding the document suggests.
Lincoln Was Not a Racial Egalitarian, But He Embraced "Some" Rights for Blacks
Lincoln also broke from abolitionists and progressives in the Republican Party who favored complete racial equality. Lincoln did not believe in extending civil, political and social equality to blacks, and as an Illinois legislator, he refused to condemn or seek the repeal of the state's infamous "Black Laws," which relegated Illinois blacks to a subordinate status and prohibited nonresident blacks from entering the state. Also, Lincoln was once a strong supporter of the colonization movement, which literally would have sent blacks "back to Africa" or to places in the Caribbean or Central America in order to get rid of the nation's "race problem."
Whenever Stephen Douglas, his Democratic opponent for Senate in 1858, portrayed him as an advocate of "Negro equality," Lincoln responded by denouncing the claim. Although Lincoln argued that blacks were entitled to the broad rights in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), he did not favor blacks intermarrying with whites, holding office, voting, or serving on juries. After the conclusion of the war, however, he supported extending the right of suffrage to black men -- but only those "very intelligent" blacks who were free prior to the war and those who served in Union forces. Radical Republicans, like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, however, supported full racial equality, viewed racial discrimination and slavery as equally immoral, and often criticized Lincoln's moderate stances.
Social Movements Must Press for Change and Criticize Obama When Appropriate
Lincoln came to positions that abolitionists had long held due to a combination of factors, including military and economic need and, more importantly, the persistent engagement of social movements. As Foner (and other scholars) have argued, Lincoln's progressive accomplishments resulted from an "engaged social movement" and his own leadership. This fact can inform social movement actors today.
During the Democratic primaries and general election campaign, progressives and liberals often shocked and upset me by (1) refusing to criticize Obama on any issue, while demonizing his critics and (2) portraying progressive "change" as simply a matter of getting Obama elected. Once Obama began embracing moderate and conservative positions and appointing persons to his Cabinet whom many progressives despise, the Left cried foul play. It felt betrayed, duped, and let down.
The Left's disappointment with Obama rests on a willful effort to distort or ignore his campaign message and voting record (which as a shrewd politician he encouraged) and from a lack of knowledge of the complex and interdependent forces that have created progressive change historically. Progressive change has not occurred because "radical" presidents mandated it. Instead, progressive social movements have pushed moderate national leaders to implement reform under opportune conditions (a point I make at greater length in this essay).
Reform will most likely occur when "political opportunities" exist that make progressive change acceptable. Thus, emancipation happened because freedmen could help fight the war, ending slavery could bankrupt the South, European countries would side with the United States once abolition framed the combat, and because abolitionists insisted that it occur.
Likewise, the economic reforms of the New Deal era resulted because the Great Depression created and highlighted economic vulnerability, and it legitimized progressive reforms that labor and anti-poverty advocates had long advanced. And the Civil Rights Movement helped accomplish racial progress after a long period of brutal racism because World War II shattered popular beliefs in Social Darwanism and Nazism and because fighting the Cold War required the United States to project a progressive image into world affairs. News reports of domestic racial violence undermined foreign affairs. Contemporary social movements can engender change only if they take their cues from this rich history.
The Role of Dissent in Social Movements
Finally, progressives need to discard their reluctance to engage in passionate dissent. Only dissent, rather than blind acquiescence, can push leaders where progressives want them to go. This does not mean that progressives should complain about every "disappointment." Instead, they need to compromise when appropriate and balance their praise with honest criticism.
On this end, I close this essay with a quote from Frederick Douglass, a former slave and abolitionist, who often criticized Lincoln, whom Douglass nonetheless considered a political ally. At a ceremony unveiling the Freedmen's Monument in Lincoln Park (located in the District of Columbia) Douglass delivered a very powerful speech that portrayed Lincoln, then deceased, in the honest terms that could inform progressive engagement with Obama. Although Douglass's speech included praise for Lincoln, he did not shy away critique:
As Foner argues: "The challenge confronting President Obama is to move beyond the powerful symbolism of his election as the first African-American president toward substantive actions that address the still unfinished struggle for equality." But this will only occur if social movement actors demand that he articulate progressive policy, rather than resting on the transformative symbolism of his presidency. In doing so, they should model the behavior of abolitionists and other social movements participants whose bold political activism and dissent led to reform and innovation.
Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:
2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama
Chicken Little Politics: Moderate Obama Causes Progressive Panic
Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State
Reality Check: Obama's Election Victory Does Not Mean That Era of Race-Based Identity Politics Has Died
Free at Last? No!
An Obama Presidency Would Cause the Death of Racism and the Civil Rights Movement, Says Alec Baldwin.
Race and Presidential Politics: Pre- and Post-Obama
Lincoln May Have Held "Bold" Personal Beliefs on Slavery, But He Preferred "Moderate" Policies
Lincoln, like Obama, was far more moderate than many progressives choose to acknowledge. Although he expressed a personal opposition to slavery, Lincoln would have compromised his own stated values on the issue in order to maintain national unity. Lincoln advocated the "ultimate extinction" of slavery, which he hoped to accomplish by opposing its extension rather than abolishing it in pro-slavery states. Lincoln was a moderate, not "radical," Republican.
Lincoln only supported emancipation as "policy" after large numbers of slaves abandoned plantations when Union soldiers arrived. Slaves needed food, shelter, clothing, and attention to their health. Also, Lincoln realized that blacks could help fight the war, which was rapidly losing support among Northern voters. Depriving the South of slaves would also devastate the region financially during a costly war. Furthermore, abolitionists, who consistently pressed Lincoln, believed that the War's narrative should center around emancipation.
Congress actually did more than Lincoln to press for emancipation. Prior to Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, Congress passed statutes that freed slaves who fled to Union forces and which abolished slavery in federal territories, the District of Columbia, and in certain Union occupied areas. So, as Foner argues, the Emancipation Proclamation accomplished far less than the great symbolism surrounding the document suggests.
Lincoln Was Not a Racial Egalitarian, But He Embraced "Some" Rights for Blacks
Lincoln also broke from abolitionists and progressives in the Republican Party who favored complete racial equality. Lincoln did not believe in extending civil, political and social equality to blacks, and as an Illinois legislator, he refused to condemn or seek the repeal of the state's infamous "Black Laws," which relegated Illinois blacks to a subordinate status and prohibited nonresident blacks from entering the state. Also, Lincoln was once a strong supporter of the colonization movement, which literally would have sent blacks "back to Africa" or to places in the Caribbean or Central America in order to get rid of the nation's "race problem."
Whenever Stephen Douglas, his Democratic opponent for Senate in 1858, portrayed him as an advocate of "Negro equality," Lincoln responded by denouncing the claim. Although Lincoln argued that blacks were entitled to the broad rights in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), he did not favor blacks intermarrying with whites, holding office, voting, or serving on juries. After the conclusion of the war, however, he supported extending the right of suffrage to black men -- but only those "very intelligent" blacks who were free prior to the war and those who served in Union forces. Radical Republicans, like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, however, supported full racial equality, viewed racial discrimination and slavery as equally immoral, and often criticized Lincoln's moderate stances.
Social Movements Must Press for Change and Criticize Obama When Appropriate
Lincoln came to positions that abolitionists had long held due to a combination of factors, including military and economic need and, more importantly, the persistent engagement of social movements. As Foner (and other scholars) have argued, Lincoln's progressive accomplishments resulted from an "engaged social movement" and his own leadership. This fact can inform social movement actors today.
During the Democratic primaries and general election campaign, progressives and liberals often shocked and upset me by (1) refusing to criticize Obama on any issue, while demonizing his critics and (2) portraying progressive "change" as simply a matter of getting Obama elected. Once Obama began embracing moderate and conservative positions and appointing persons to his Cabinet whom many progressives despise, the Left cried foul play. It felt betrayed, duped, and let down.
The Left's disappointment with Obama rests on a willful effort to distort or ignore his campaign message and voting record (which as a shrewd politician he encouraged) and from a lack of knowledge of the complex and interdependent forces that have created progressive change historically. Progressive change has not occurred because "radical" presidents mandated it. Instead, progressive social movements have pushed moderate national leaders to implement reform under opportune conditions (a point I make at greater length in this essay).
Reform will most likely occur when "political opportunities" exist that make progressive change acceptable. Thus, emancipation happened because freedmen could help fight the war, ending slavery could bankrupt the South, European countries would side with the United States once abolition framed the combat, and because abolitionists insisted that it occur.
Likewise, the economic reforms of the New Deal era resulted because the Great Depression created and highlighted economic vulnerability, and it legitimized progressive reforms that labor and anti-poverty advocates had long advanced. And the Civil Rights Movement helped accomplish racial progress after a long period of brutal racism because World War II shattered popular beliefs in Social Darwanism and Nazism and because fighting the Cold War required the United States to project a progressive image into world affairs. News reports of domestic racial violence undermined foreign affairs. Contemporary social movements can engender change only if they take their cues from this rich history.
The Role of Dissent in Social Movements
Finally, progressives need to discard their reluctance to engage in passionate dissent. Only dissent, rather than blind acquiescence, can push leaders where progressives want them to go. This does not mean that progressives should complain about every "disappointment." Instead, they need to compromise when appropriate and balance their praise with honest criticism.
On this end, I close this essay with a quote from Frederick Douglass, a former slave and abolitionist, who often criticized Lincoln, whom Douglass nonetheless considered a political ally. At a ceremony unveiling the Freedmen's Monument in Lincoln Park (located in the District of Columbia) Douglass delivered a very powerful speech that portrayed Lincoln, then deceased, in the honest terms that could inform progressive engagement with Obama. Although Douglass's speech included praise for Lincoln, he did not shy away critique:
Truth is proper and beautiful at all times and in all places. . . .Only the full text of the speech can capture the beauty of Douglass's tribute, and I encourage readers to examine it. Douglass's approach can inform progressives today who seem confused about their role during a "liberal" presidential administration or who appear reluctant to appraise Obama critically. Obama, however, almost invites critical engagement with his frequent usage of Lincoln symbolism.
[Lincoln] was preeminently the white man's President. . . .He was. . .willing. . .during the first years of his administration to. . .sacrifice the rights of. . .colored people [in order] to promote the welfare of . . .white[s]. . . .He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. . . .To protect . . . slavery in the states where it existed. . .Lincoln [would] draw the sword of the nation. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty. . . .
As Foner argues: "The challenge confronting President Obama is to move beyond the powerful symbolism of his election as the first African-American president toward substantive actions that address the still unfinished struggle for equality." But this will only occur if social movement actors demand that he articulate progressive policy, rather than resting on the transformative symbolism of his presidency. In doing so, they should model the behavior of abolitionists and other social movements participants whose bold political activism and dissent led to reform and innovation.
Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:
2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama
Chicken Little Politics: Moderate Obama Causes Progressive Panic
Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State
Reality Check: Obama's Election Victory Does Not Mean That Era of Race-Based Identity Politics Has Died
Free at Last? No!
An Obama Presidency Would Cause the Death of Racism and the Civil Rights Movement, Says Alec Baldwin.
Race and Presidential Politics: Pre- and Post-Obama
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)