- This topic has 7 voices and 9 replies.
-
Posts
-
Who was more reviled in history? Obama says that he was:
President Barack Obama said yesterday in Decorah, Iowa, that he absorbs more political criticism than Abraham Lincoln, the assassinated 16th U.S. president, attracted from his Civil War critics.
Obama: I have it tougher than Abe LincolnThe people they interviewed in the article, however, roundly seem to agree that Lincoln was more reviled.
I would tend to agree that Lincoln had it worse. Some of the stuff said against Lincoln would be considered fighting words today. If anything, modern American politics tends to be more reserved than in the 19th century, at least in the mainstream press.
That brings up a related point. We often hear about how “polarized” our nation has become, implying that it used to be more hunky-dorey, peace among differing political parties, etc. How true is that? Did not politics get people's blood boiling in years past? Did not the Colonists rebel against Britain for less than what Americans now put up with from their government? So is there any difference between the level of political partisanship today compared to the past, or is it all just wishful thinking that it was "better" in the days of old?
How cool would it be if the Republican and Democrat nominees squared off in a duel to determine who would be President? We could even add other parties like the Libertarians and Greens and make a tournament out of it.
The only similarities between Obama and Lincoln is Presidential “Carte Blanche” of the office and abuse of the Constitution.Obama has thin skin and only gets an inkling of the grief Lincoln got. Plus, Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union, Obama is trying to replace it.So much wrong with the political system and it has snowballed out of control. This comment by Obama is proof positive of that.
The more I learn about it the more I realize 1800s American politics were much uglier than the vast majority of people nowadays realize, right down the polarized media slanting most stories to their preferred political party.Lincoln was decried as a tyrant and a nigger lover. Obama is decried as a communist and a nigger. At least Lincoln never had to deal with questions about his religion or citizenship; he also didn't face the literally endless 24/7 news coverage system we have now. I think Congress overall probably got along better with Lincoln than Obama (especially post-midterm elections) but that's not saying much. The economy right now is probably harder to fix than the Civil War was to win. But I don't think Obama takes his setbacks as hard as Lincoln did; the casualties in the Civil War really ate him up inside. Obama's family is at least healthy, unlike Lincoln's which also strained him personally.Overall, I'd say Lincoln had it worse, but I don't think Obama being in consideration for a hard presidency is laughable. Lincoln, Obama, and FDR have been president during really difficult times in this country. Sadly, Obama hasn't done as good a job as Lincoln or FDR, though I think he'll go down in history less harshly than it seems in the present day.
The more I learn about it the more I realize 1800s American politics were much uglier than the vast majority of people nowadays realize, right down the polarized media slanting most stories to their preferred political party.Lincoln was decried as a tyrant and a nigger lover. Obama is decried as a communist and a nigger. At least Lincoln never had to deal with questions about his religion or citizenship; he also didn't face the literally endless 24/7 news coverage system we have now. I think Congress overall probably got along better with Lincoln than Obama (especially post-midterm elections) but that's not saying much. The economy right now is probably harder to fix than the Civil War was to win. But I don't think Obama takes his setbacks as hard as Lincoln did; the casualties in the Civil War really ate him up inside. Obama's family is at least healthy, unlike Lincoln's which also strained him personally.Overall, I'd say Lincoln had it worse, but I don't think Obama being in consideration for a hard presidency is laughable. Lincoln, Obama, and FDR have been president during really difficult times in this country. Sadly, Obama hasn't done as good a job as Lincoln or FDR, though I think he'll go down in history less harshly than it seems in the present day.
Interesting analysis. There are, of course, episodes from history where presidents or presidential candidates have taken heat for their religion. I don't think that Obama has, except once in a while he is accused of being a Muslim. But when we look back to the 1928 election, Al Smith was reviled unlike what we see today.
There are, of course, episodes from history where presidents or presidential candidates have taken heat for their religion. I don't think that Obama has, except once in a while he is accused of being a Muslim. But when we look back to the 1928 election, Al Smith was reviled unlike what we see today.
Definitely Obama is not the only presidential candidate to take religious heat, though at least the previous candidates were usually be hated irrationally for what they were rather than for an imagined offense.The amount of anti-Catholicism in American History is another thing that amazes me and probably is not really appreciated by most alive today. If JFK hadn't become president I am inclined to think a disturbingly large amount of this country would still be convinced that any Catholic president would be some mindless drone making all his decisions on behalf of the Pope.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
