Posted on 06/04/2011 12:34:35 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
As the season of presidential politics 2012 unfolds, Im struck by similarities between today and the tumultuous period in our history that led up to the election of Abraham Lincoln and then on to the Civil War.
So much so that Im finding it a little eerie that this year we are observing the 150th anniversary of the outbreak of the Civil War.
No, I am certainly not predicting, God forbid, that todays divisions and tensions will lead to brother taking up arms against brother.
But profound differences divide us today, as was the case in the 1850′s.
The difference in presidential approval rates between Democrats and Republicans over the course of the Obama presidency and the last few years of the Bush presidency has been in the neighborhood of 70 points. This is the most polarized the nation has been in modern times.
This deep division is driven, as was the case in the 1850′s, by fundamental differences in world-view regarding what this country is about.
Then, of course, the question was can a country conceived in liberty, in Lincolns words, tolerate slavery.
Today the question is can a country conceived in liberty tolerate almost half its economy consumed by government, its citizens increasingly submitting to the dictates of bureaucrats, and wanton destruction of its unborn children.
We wrestle today, as they did then, with the basic question of what defines a free society.
Its common to hear that democracy is synonymous with freedom. We also commonly hear that questions regarding economic growth are separate and apart from issues tied to morality so called social issues.
But Stephen Douglas, who famously debated Abraham Lincoln in 1858, argued both these points. In championing the idea of popular sovereignty and the Kansas Nebraska Act, he argued that it made sense for new states to determine by popular vote whether they would permit slavery.
By so doing, argued Douglas, the question of slavery would submit to what he saw as the core American institution democracy and, by handling the issue in this fashion, slavery could be removed as an impediment to growth of the union.
Lincoln rejected submitting slavery to the vote, arguing that there are first and inviolable principles of right and wrong on which this nation stands and which cannot be separated from any issue, including considerations of growth and expansion.
The years of the 1850′s saw the demise of a major political party the Whigs and the birth of another the Republican Party. And the Democratic Party, in the election of 1860, splintered into two.
In a Gallup poll of several weeks ago, 52 percent said that neither political party adequately represents the American people and that we need a third party. Of the 52 percent, 68 percent were Independents, 52 percent Republicans, and 33 percent Democrats.
So its not surprising that the field of Republicans emerging as possible presidential candidates is wide, diverse, and unconventional.
But another lesson to be learned from 1860 is that conventional wisdom of establishment pundits is not necessarily reliable.
These pundits will explain why the more unconventional stated and potential candidates in the Republican field Cain, Palin, or Bachmann dont have a chance and why we should expect Romney, Pawlenty, or Huntsman.
But going into the Republican Convention in Chicago in 1860, the expected candidate to grab the nomination was former governor and Senator from New York, William H. Seward.
But emerging victorious on the third ballot at the convention was a gangly country lawyer, whose only previous experience in national office was one term in the US congress, to which he was elected fourteen years earlier.
A year or two earlier, no one, except Abraham Lincoln himself, would have expected that he would become president of the United States.
Yes, most of us know that you are a suspicious personality.
Also known as the ‘screaming ninnie’ syndrome.
I will try to supply you with a new topic so you can say something worthwhile.
Try looking in a mirror sometime.
Elaine: “Oh, that is really mature”.
Puddy: “You're.....(frowning)....mature!”
Has looking in the mirror helped you?
It amuses me that the irony of your comments escapes you.
The irony of your postings was the topic of my last one.
Stop being repetitive.
Sorry if pointing out what a one trick phony you are offends you.
I have a trick. Maybe, two or more. Where’s yours?
Your reply sounds much more cogent and knowledgable than those of yours from earlier in this same thread, that prompted my outburst, af_vet_rr.
You’d never even heard of George Mason prior to that point, and now you’re citing him.
I call that progress. I suggest, however, that you let this thread die rather than attempting to recover yet again. It’s rather embarassing for you.
As a Texan, allow me to state that the LAST person we need is Gov. BIGHAIR Perry!!!
I’ve read The Republic and I find it to be a long essay in support of what amounts to today’s therapeutic government. I do not support Plato in that at all (I am quite a fan of some of his dialogues, however).
I fail to see how reading The Republic would correct BillyBoy.
Very charitable of everyone not to comment on the second sentence here. I think what the writer actually meant was:
"68% of Independents, 52% of Republicans and 33% of Democrats made up the 52% who feel they are not represented by either party."
When you look at it that way, it's no wonder at all why Republican political leaders do so poorly legislatively: they simply don't have a constituency that projects a sufficiently consistent set of policies. The Democrats have no such problem (they're just depraved and extortionate, but that's another question).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.