Obama failing the Lincoln test
WASHINGTON — During his recent speech to Congress, President Obama gave Republicans this ideological glove to the face: “We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. … But in the middle of a Civil War, he was also a leader who looked to the future—a Republican president who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad, launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land-grant colleges.”
It is a familiar rhetorical tactic—an attempt to checkmate your opponent by moving his own king. During Ronald Reagan’s 1980 Republican convention speech, he quoted Franklin Roosevelt on the need to “eliminate unnecessary functions of government.” Countless Republicans have offered up John F. Kennedy on the efficacy of tax cuts.
But invoking Lincoln at the seance is always risky. He is not a tame spirit.
There is little doubt that the greatest Republican would now be viewed, in portions of his party, as a RINO—a Republican in Name Only. Lincoln was a lifelong advocate of Whig economics, in which government took a limited but vigorous role in promoting economic opportunity. Lincoln foresaw a vast, prosperous, commercial republic, bound and strengthened by a national bank and by publicly financed roads, canals and rails. He had little patience with Thomas Jefferson’s anti-government ideology. A great nation, in Lincoln’s view, would require free labor, public education and avenues for commerce.
This type of Republicanism is a challenge to tea party ideology, as Obama implied in his speech. Yet Obama still looks awkward in the stovepipe hat. Lincoln was an enthusiast for entrepreneurial capitalism. Government’s goal was to promote opportunity and social mobility, not to assure certain economic outcomes. Lincoln asserted a “harmony of interests” between the working class and the wealthy because the goal of the working class, in his view, was to become the wealthy.
“We do not propose any war upon capital,” he said. The objective is “to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.”
But Obama’s largest economic failing comes on precisely the point where he praises Lincoln as a leader who looked to the future.
It is now clear that the economic crisis faced by Obama at the beginning of his term was not a normal recession. Cleaning up after a financial panic adds an extra degree of difficulty. But this downturn also intensified a set of concerns about the continued viability of the American economic model in a time of aggressive global competition. An insatiable entitlement system, a burdensome tax code, a gridlocked political system and a broadly failing education system (apart from world-class universities) are leading many to suspect that America’s global standing is in relative decline.
Yet Obama’s response to this extraordinary challenge was utterly ordinary. He pushed a typical Democratic stimulus plan, which mainly transferred funds to state and local governments and public employee unions. He added a new health entitlement and argued for higher taxes on the wealthy. In Obama’s favor, his Race to the Top education reform was innovative. But he made the entitlement problem worse, ignored his own Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission, directed attention away from meaningful tax reform and—with three years of budget deficits each exceeding $1 trillion—provoked a bitter national argument on the size and role of government. How could anyone have imagined that Obama’s tired, mid-century Keynesianism would reassure investors, creditors and consumers? And it didn’t.
Obama’s joint-session speech at least mentioned some of the real issues—an unsustainable Medicare system and a complex, inefficient tax code. But his policy initiatives are still largely focused on mitigating current employment problems, not on unleashing the next round of American growth and enterprise. The modern equivalent of Lincoln’s transcontinental railroad is not to build another one right next to it. It is, among other things, serious entitlement reform, a simpler tax code and regulatory structure, and education reform—particularly on teacher quality and parental choice—that would make education unions scream and swoon.
America has stumbled into the age of shoddy. Our deficits mount, our politicians squabble, our credit is downgraded, our firms can’t compete, our workers lose hope, our military is about to be hollowed out by massive cuts. Obama can rightly complain that he didn’t cause all of this. But he also didn’t muster much ideological creativity to fight it. He has been unable to think anew and act anew—and so fails the Lincoln test.
Michael Gerson is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group; email michaelgerson@washpost.com.
Sep 14, 2011 at 8:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Lincoln Test?
Is that taking and spending every penny you have. seems like he's passing that fine.
Sep 14, 2011 at 3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
dustyd: think Ezoner pretty well answered your question "where have all the ...moderate..Republicans gone?". I would say the same place as the moderate and conservative Democrats. Discarded by their own parties in the 2010 primaries and replaced by farther left Democrats and farther right Republicans in the general election. The nation is being run by millionaires (in office)on both of the extremes. Is it then any wonder why nothing gets done and the middle class is up the proverbial creek without a paddle? How do you fix the problems when both parties view of compromise is that compromise is when the other side totally agrees with you?? just asking. I do not think any Republican could have won in 2008 after the wrong path the Republicans took with George Bush for 8 years. They also decided to be bigger spenders. However, I believe Hillary Clinton would have been a more centrist president and a more experienced president than President Obama. Was also hoping that Colin Powell would have run in 2008 or in 2012 but can understand when he did not want to subject his family to it. I am hoping both run in 2012 but know that will never happen. Sure hope for somebody other than a far left Chicago political machine politician that we have now but not very impressed with the current Republican candidates.
Sep 14, 2011 at 12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The conversation is being driven by kooks, conspiracy theorists and religious fundamentalists"
.
which of the above are you?
Sep 14, 2011 at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
"If you think Obama is bad, be very careful what you wish for."
.
seems I recall lots of folk saying W was bad....guess your advice was a few years too late.
Sep 14, 2011 at 11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bebe -- The problem is that the idealogues on both sides have widened the gap and there is no center anymore. The divide has grown, the rhetoric has increased, the severity of comments has increased. So now, what you have is no middle ground and the country needs to pick a direction. Generally -- its up to the President to broker a compromise and to calm the rhetoric. This president is unable to do that because he is one of the far left idealogues. He cant even see the center from where he stands. He is worsening the divide, not brokering a solution. It may be his public approach. Many times these things are done quietly and then people are not exposed to the discussions, discussions now are becoming campaign talking points, which makes it difficult for those involved on the opposite side. I can remember when both sides claimed victory in a resolution. Nowadays, there is always a winner/loser. The president is in my opinion to blame for the state of things in Washington right now, but is not the root of the problem.
Sep 14, 2011 at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
bebe534: There are definately people out there who could do a better job than Obama who, although he was handed the most miserable situation since the Great Depression, has done a pretty poor job. However, I certainly don't see anybody in the current Republican presidential field that even comes close. Ronald Reagan looks like a socialist compared to these people. Where have all the moderate, reasonable, centrist Republicans gone?
Sep 14, 2011 at 9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
See! ACORN, birthers, death panels, "islamofacist", anti-intellectuals, young earthers, climate change deniers, militia gun nuts, etc., etc. The conversation is being driven by kooks, conspiracy theorists and religious fundamentalists. If you think Obama is bad, be very careful what you wish for.
Sep 13, 2011 at 10:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
"....being obstructed when Republican idealogues do not act on his ideas, do not vote up or down on his appointments, filibuster the Senate, and vote against legislation designed to achieve those ideas..."
So if Barry decides to pay off the debt by selling California to China, Republicans should just go along with it because its his idea? If W had decided to plaster A-stan with several hundred megatons of ICBM's instead of invade, should Russ Feingold and the sitting democrats have just said OK or should they have "obstructed"?
.
as far as anyone here obstructing, thanks for the humor to brighten your post. Is the prez sitting in his office saying "Gee, I wanted to sign a bill naming ACORN to oversee all fed elections but those darned Gazette posters...."
Sep 13, 2011 at 4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
dusty that is the two party system, it's always been that way; nothing new. Each party wants to be in control of the agenda...that is the biggest problem with our govt.
Sep 13, 2011 at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
"not one single person can do what ever they want to" RAF: I'm agreeing with you! My point is that folks ought to stop complaining about the President not getting anything done while actively trying to prevent him from getting anything done; his efforts are being blocked by the legislative branch.
Sep 13, 2011 at 3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
This writer Gerson is way out there in voodoo economics corporatea bagging land. Ten years of trickle-down tax cuts coupled with a parasitic Wall Street infectious greed is responsible for most of our economic problems.
"America has stumbled into the age of shoddy. Our deficits mount, our politicians squabble, our credit is downgraded, our firms can’t compete, our workers lose hope, our military is about to be hollowed out by massive cuts." All happening at the same time profits are soaring and corporate and private treasuries are bulging at the seams. Capitalism has exhausted itself into near ruin - we'll save it more tax cuts.
Sep 13, 2011 at 3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow dusty you are out of left field. Our federal govt is divided into three branches for the very reason you complain of, not one single person can do what ever they want to; it was designed that way. Thankfully it works as it should.
Sep 13, 2011 at 2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
dustyd - A large portion of that majority vote now disapproves of the Presidents performance. I don't disrespect the President, I simply believe he is a poor leader. Despite what you say, he has made decisions that have not been stopped by others which have dug this Country even deeper into a hole. I listened to many people disrespect and insult President Bush far and beyond imaginable and that's acceptable? You can't play the blame game for everything.
Sep 13, 2011 at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
"if the chosen one can only propose ideas or sign/veto bills, how is he being obstructed?"
He is being obstructed when Republican idealogues do not act on his ideas, do not vote up or down on his appointments, filibuster the Senate, and vote against legislation designed to achieve those ideas. Barrack Obama, who won the popular vote by a significant margin in a fair election and is the President of the United States, is obstructed by the people on this site who insult and disrespect him, his office and our country.
Sep 13, 2011 at 1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
He is the President of the United States of America. That responsibility involves being a leader. He has failed as a leader and blaming everyone else for his lack of leadership is a complete cop out.
Sep 13, 2011 at 12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
So, if the chosen one can only propose ideas or sign/veto bills, how is he being obstructed? Is it not the job of congress to decide if a bill will be sent for signature? Paul Ryan has some ideas that many fisters don't like, are they then guilty of "obstruction" since their representitves won't vote for them? (more of the 'its what I want so if you stop me you are mean but if I stop what you want its the right thing to do' myopia)
Sep 13, 2011 at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
He stinks.
Sep 13, 2011 at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Obama fails, PERIOD!
Sep 13, 2011 at 10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Obama can only propose ideas; he cannot make laws. Obama can sign or veto bills approved by both houses of Congress. With Republicans obstructing him at every turn, pledging to make him fail so they can regain political power, it is little wonder why he fails the "Lincoln test." When he offered up massive tax and entitlement reform worth over $1.5 trillion in the so-called "grand bargain" with Speaker Boehner, the Republicans rejected it out of hand because they wouldn't accept 6 times more in spending cuts in exchange for eliminating a few tax deductions for corporations and wealthy individuals. While America's inefficient and ineffective health care system continues to eat up more and more of our economic output, his simple call to ration Medicare dollars more wisely based on costs and benefits was met with cries of "death panels" and "hands off my Medicare" by Tea Party extremists. It should be no wonder why Obama hasn't been able to get anything done: conservatives are actively engaged in obstructing his proposals and promoting his failure to both regain political power and, by demonstrating its uselessness, radically downsize government and privatize its functions.
Sep 13, 2011 at 8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Obama 2012-End Of An Error
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.