Obama is the antithesis of Lincoln
In that sense, Obama is the perfect president for our current political culture. And for all of his self-perceived similarities with Abraham Lincoln, he is the antithesis of Lincoln when it comes to grace, a charitable spirit and a commitment to genuine reconciliation. Mr. Obama is, at his core, a divider. He seems to relish it, even when the moment calls for a temporary truce in our political wars.
Which leads me to my second point.
Mr. Obama’s speech was not a call to unity; it was a summons to his liberal base to fight–for global warming, for gay rights, for gun control, for renewable energy, and for a diminished American role in world affairs. And the president’s speech also signaled that he will oppose, with passion and demagoguery, anyone who attempts to reform our entitlement programs. He is fully at peace with running trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. He not only won’t lift a finger to avoid America’s coming debt crisis; he will lacerate those who do.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I am glad somebody finally wrote this. Let’s not forget the fact that Lincoln spilled blood in order to try and preserve the union. Obama seems hell bent on trying to disolve our union.
CycloneCDB on January 22, 2013 at 5:05 PM
He really seemed to enjoy dividing that house amongst itself. He isn’t worthy to shine Lincoln’s boots.
thebrokenrattle on January 22, 2013 at 5:06 PM
Barry Soetoro isn’t Abraham Lincoln, he’s Preston Brooks caning the living **** out of Charles Sumner.
He’s not a divider, he’s a destroyer. He’s the anti-Madison, the man who came to take our Constitution away from us.
The next four years aren’t going to be interesting, they’re going to be a catastrophe.
turfmann on January 22, 2013 at 5:08 PM
Actually, Obama is finishing what Lincoln started: the complete eradication of the firewalls against tyranny the Constitution had.
Lincoln began the process. Prior to him the Union was CONSENSUAL. After his it was now held by FORCE. You see, the Southern States (or any other for that matter) had every right to secede. The Union was ratified by the States, it can be amended by the States, therefore it can be dissolved (or left) by the States.
You are correct though in that the ultimate result of Obama’s “victories” for socialism will be the dissolution of the United States as we know it as a
50, uhh, 57 state union due to the impending financial collapse brought on by crushing spending, crushing debt, and crushing unfunded liabilities.A bunch of bankrupt and corrupt crime ridden urban centers (which is where 90% of Obama’s support is) will not be able to hold on to the productive countryside (where 90% of those who still do and make things are) for long by force of arms alone.
I see whole blocks of states that are like minded leaving this mess within the next couple decades to form their own unions, one of which likely will be a bloc of Southern States. The irony being that this time it would be the impoverished North that would lose any such war because all the manufacturing that remains is in the South by and large…
wildcat72 on January 22, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Well, they are both metrosexuals, so there’s that.
UltimateBob on January 22, 2013 at 5:19 PM
Not really – Lincoln was one of the FIRST Presidents to take extreme “liberties” with the Constitution.
Uniter? Lincoln was no uniter. He imprisoned, without trial, any journalist who opposed the civil war. When an election got too close for his comfort – he put Northern soldiers on “furlough” or “leave” so they could return home and vote for him.
I mean – Lincoln is no hero of mine. He was the one who started this leviathon federal government mess and now it’s totally out of control!
HondaV65 on January 22, 2013 at 5:20 PM
Lincoln did spill blood to preserve the union – and he destroyed the Constitution and the 10th amendment along with them.
So yeah! Let’s here it for Lincoln for preserving an artificial bond between states at the cost of burning our founding principles.
HondaV65 on January 22, 2013 at 5:22 PM
I agree 100%. This is why I rate Lincoln amongst the 5 WORST Presidents of all time. He’d be more at home amongst the RINO wing of the Republican Party because he was all for Big Government and stripping of civil liberty, just like the libs.
We also ceased to be a union of consenting states as a result of his actions.
Here are my “bottom 5″ Presidents:
44. Barry Hussein Soetoro a.k.a Barack Hussein Obama Jr.
43. Jimmy Carter
42. Woodrow Wilson
41. FDR
40. Abraham Lincoln
wildcat72 on January 22, 2013 at 5:25 PM
Closet homosexuals, even. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Now this, on the other hand… there’s definitely something wrong with that.
UltimateBob on January 22, 2013 at 5:27 PM
Lincoln was scum. He was a borderline totalitarian. He suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned his political enemies, imposed unconstitutional blockades, shut down newspapers, and did plenty of other illegal things. I would take Barack Obama, flawed as he is, over Abraham Lincoln any day of the week.
Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 5:58 PM
Agreed. I’ve never understood why self proclaimed conservatives fawn over Lincoln. Even his greatest achievement, freeing the slaves, was an afterthought. A means to an end.
There was nothing conservative about Lincoln at all.
ButterflyDragon on January 22, 2013 at 6:47 PM
Don’t disagree. There is a lengthy discussion that none of us could ever have (without being called racist bigots who wanna’ put y’all back in chains) about secession, voluntary participation in the union, and Lincoln’s strong-arming of the South.
My point (ungraceful as it may have been) was more about intent. I believe Lincoln genuinely wanted to use his “power” to get everyone to do the right thing, and Baraka who cannot get enough power and will use it to rememdy a bunch of other falsely perceived social injustices.
CycloneCDB on January 22, 2013 at 7:02 PM
I would take Lincoln over Obama any day. Lincoln was rooted in Christianity, not secularism. The North was in the sweep of religious revival, and abolitionism. The South was invested in Slavery, and would not fare well, in the short run, if their economic model was broken. Industrial North was already a non slavery economy, so had less to lose, and could (even pretend to) let religious argument hold center stage. The Declaration of Independence implied a right to secede. The Constitution did not allow for it.
Final solution: rebellion. At the point the Executor of the law decides the rebellion is against written law, it only ends at Gettysburg. To oppose the Union becomes treason, and Martial law is no law. The South was laid waste to win. Yet the Gettysburg address re affirmed original America (minus right of secession) and also reached out to the rebels
Lincoln did not rub the faces of his enemies into the dirt. His many speeches reflect Christian moderation.
Obama does not want to reset America. He wants it gone. Obama shares a distaste of the red, white and blue with Carter
It is a thorn in their sides that so many Americans do not share the Obama/Carter distaste for guns and religion but wallow in Biblical religions instead of humanism. Marx also shared this disgust, and that is where Obama belongs in history
Read Marx, On the Jewish Question (A World Without Jews), 1843, and you will find Obama.
entagor on January 22, 2013 at 8:21 PM