[enumerated]

It has nothing to do with Confederate vs Union. Or Democrat vs Republican. Or American vs British.

Some people are naturally subservient and fawn over their “betters”. There are tons of Americans who get all giddy over the British royal family. Explain that one to me. It’s just weird.

There is no question that Lincoln and Kennedy have achieved something akin to sainthood simply by being assassinated. If we want to learn from history and choose good leaders in the future we should use reason, not our emotions.

It has nothing to do with whether I am a Confederate. Im sure you’re right that there were confederates who put their leaders up on a pedestal on the basis of emotion. There are just some people who tend to do that, regardless of what side they are on politically.

I think it’s a weakness and one of the worst characteristics of man - a willingness to believe other men are supposed to rule them. It makes it that much harder for the rest of us to assert our independence when others give it up so readily.

There’s nothing wrong with admiring a good leader - I admired Reagan - I admire Trump. I’m sure there are plenty of people who admire Lincoln and Kennedy for the right reasons - those aren’t the people I’m calling disgusting.

What I think is disgusting is the people in this country who get obsessed with the British Royal family and there is a similar fascination with celebrities and wealthy dynasties in this country - like the Kennedys. It’s unhealthy in a self-governing nation to have the attitude that there are people who are superior.

I think anointing sainthood to past leaders like Lincoln does a disservice to everyone - and calling him the Great Emancipator - as if one man freed the slaves.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Like I said, Martyr Syndrome. It really helps the reputation of some.

You are right, people seem to largely need someone to worship. Look how commies who officially drop God adopt the cult of the personality with their leaders, and Marx/Lenin with the paper-hanging all over.

Actually, though, I must say there is less danger venerating a past person, than a current. If they’re alive they might acquire too much power.

[BroJoeK]

enumerated: "Some people are naturally subservient and fawn over their “betters”.
There are tons of Americans who get all giddy over the British royal family.
Explain that one to me.
It’s just weird."

Totally agree, and what's even more weird is when they treat Hollywood actors(!!) as if they were royalty.
You got me on that one.

enumerated: "There is no question that Lincoln and Kennedy have achieved something akin to sainthood simply by being assassinated."

I remember Kennedy's assassination quite well, but how many today remember the deaths in office of Presidents:

1. William Henry Harrison -- died in office 1841
2. Zachary Taylor -- died in office 1850
3. James A Garfield -- assassinated 1881
4. William McKinley -- assassinated 1901
5. Warren G. Harding -- died in office 1923

You may remember that McKinley was honored by naming Alaska's highest mountain for him, name changed in 2015 to Denali.

Point is: even assassination does not guarantee perpetual fame & honor.

enumerated: "There’s nothing wrong with admiring a good leader - I admired Reagan - I admire Trump.
I’m sure there are plenty of people who admire Lincoln and Kennedy for the right reasons - those aren’t the people I’m calling disgusting."

In my memory of Kennedy he was growing increasingly unpopular in the fall of 1963 and certainly would not have performed as well against Republican Goldwater in 1964 as LBJ did.
Assassination changed all that.

And something similar happened with the near assassinations of both President Reagan and Pope John Paul II.
It gave them a boost in popularity that lasted the rest of their lives.

enumerated: "I think anointing sainthood to past leaders like Lincoln does a disservice to everyone - and calling him the Great Emancipator - as if one man freed the slaves."

No... there are two Presidents in US history who truly do stand above all others because of the degree of difficulty of their challenges and the astonishing successful results.
Those are Washington and Lincoln, all others are several steps below them.
Lincoln the Great Emancipator did in fact free the slaves -- first by Presidential proclamation, then by Constitutional Amendments, it's most unlikely that anyone else among competitors in the election of 1860 could have, or would have, achieved what Lincoln did.

Sure, lots of posters say: only at horrendous costs in blood & treasure.
But I don't blame Lincoln, I blame Davis who both started the war and refused to stop it on any terms better than Unconditional Surrender:

[x]

I think anointing sainthood to past leaders like Lincoln does a disservice to everyone - and calling him the Great Emancipator - as if one man freed the slaves.

Educated people nowadays recognize that's an oversimplification, though it's not wholly without truth.

What about revering the Founders, though? Is that hero worship or "disgusting" or "fawning"?

I don't think it is. It's a way of keeping the country together and promoting respect for the Constitution.

The respect that we have for Washington and Franklin, Jefferson and Hamilton, Adams and Madison isn't so very different from what Americans also feel for Lincoln.

I do think Kennedy worship goes too far, but if people have political beliefs sooner or later they are going to find political heroes or models to admire.