Nov
27
Happy Thanksgiving!
Filed Under lincoln | 4 Comments
My plan for today is to go comatose in front of the television - I hope your day is just as joyous.
Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation is interesting reading: it is very difficult to conceive how anyone in the US could have been in a celebrating mood in 1863. The question is, what is the relation between Providence and the nation? He openly says the nation is being punished for its “sins.” The goods in the first paragraph which seem pettier, i.e. border expansion, population increase, seem to point to the hope for “peace, harmony, tranquility, and Union” mentioned near the end. I suspect a call to a higher notion of justice is implicit in the proclamation, which is post-Gettysburg, post-Emancipation Proclamation: the domestic production, the fact life is going on in the Union despite the Civil War, divorces this country from martial virtue and its attendant notions. “Sins” indicates a still greater concern.
Nov
12
Lincoln in 1857, “On the Republican Party:”
Upon those men who are, in sentiment, opposed to the spread, and nationalization of slavery, rests the task of preventing it. The Republican organization is the embodiment of that sentiment; though, as yet, it by no means embraces all the individuals holding that sentiment. The party is newly formed; and in forming, old party ties had to be broken, and the attractions of party pride, and influential leaders were wholly wanting. In spite of old differences, prejudices, and animosities, it’s [sic] members were drawn together by a paramount common danger. They formed and maneuvered in the face of the deciplined [sic] enemy, and in the teeth of all his persistent misrepresentations. Of course, they fell far short of gathering in all of their own. And yet, a year ago, they stood up, an army over thirteen hundred thousand strong. That army is, to-day, the best hope of the nation, and of the world. Their work is before them; and form which they may not guiltlessly turn away.
1. Over at Real Clear Politics, Jay Cost argues this election isn’t a “realignment” because there wasn’t an issue (slavery, the gold standard, the welfare state) that transformed the electoral landscape.
I don’t think “realignment” is the right term for what we’ve witnessed. My own thought is that the culture wars being so one-sided resulted in what we saw this election, and more importantly, the tantrum from the eventual victor that existed for 8 years before. There really are two Americas: modern, secular, progressive-radical America is not an aberration that took over some professorships in the 60’s and founded an ice cream company or two later. The elites have succeeded in creating far more like them in values, if not ability. What they want is for this country to embrace European social democracy.
What we have seen is the emergence of a voting bloc that is not partial to conservatism at all. The Democratic party doesn’t need to cater to the South or fiscal conservatism in any way anymore. Everyone knew - or should have known - that then Senator Obama’s numbers regarding his plans were a bit fuzzy. I say “emergence” because these voters are not at the peak of their power yet: more time will inevitably result in gains for them, as near complete control of the educational system is theirs.
2. Perhaps the reason why this isn’t a “realignment,” though, is because of the incredible amount on the line with issues such as slavery, industry and government relief in a Depression. Not just necessity but the question of “what is justice” were being considered at those times. Each “realignment,” quite obviously, reduced to the issue of equality - what is just is sharing freedom, opportunity or wealth as opposed to aggrandizement by one or the other party.
Right now, while the Left preaches social justice, we know the incredible materialism that underlies these claims. “Social justice” isn’t justice - all of us know this. It’s an attempt to overturn more established values for the sake of greater comforts by uniting some of the discontented. To some degree, this is acceptable - we can do things that are seemingly harmless, so why not? But the greatest comfort is feeling good about being moral, and “social justice” allows for people to have this feeling without actually being moral. All you need to do is blame everyone else for everything. The dangers are sequential - a politics dominated by (messianic) celebrity, complete with the rule of gossip over policy; the emergence of conspiracy theory and paranoia as mass movements; finally, overt violence against others based on perception. The Netherlands is the prime example of degenerate politics: they think they’re better than everyone else even though they can’t defend their own leaders or citizens; they can’t even prevent the rise of actual fascists among themselves, despite calling everyone they disagree with a fascist.
3. The moral issue we face is very large, but not as large as the quite obvious and unacceptable attempt to spread slavery. I think, at best, we’re flirting with the first stage of degeneracy, and not even that. Only the mainstream media and a few loud, obnoxious idiots think Obama is the Messiah. But it’s dangerous because of what it means for the office of the Presidency, not because there was dancing in the streets election night. People have the right to celebrate what they think is progress, and certainly, this election was unthinkable 50 years ago. We can all celebrate the more fundamental progress that allowed it to happen.
The work that needs to be done is still that of unity: Lincoln’s first evaluation of the Republicans is the correct one. To that end, whining about social conservatives (see here and here) being a detriment to the party is babyish and stupid. I am not going to tell people who are disproportionately fighting for our freedom - 40% of the Armed Forces says they are evangelical, but knowing evangelicals, that number is undoubtedly higher - that they can take a hike. They actually value something more than their own wallets or security or winning elections - imagine that.
Moreover, continuing Bush-bashing, as is being done here, is even dumber. The pundit class - LGF, Brooks, Frum, Goldberg, O’Rourke and many others - is very dumb right now, but that’s because they never believed in education. They hold that conservatism is obvious, as if a change in media alone will make people wake up. Education serves media for them, not the other way around: “Liberal Fascism” was written so you would approach the news better.
To me, we have the conservative/alternative media we need already. Changing minds is going to take time, but we need to start in earnest, not just to win. We can reasonably expect a lot from partisanship, after all: once upon a time, it helped destroy slavery.
Jun
7
Questions regarding the Lincoln Memorial
Filed Under lincoln, politics | Leave a Comment
Following up on the last post about my time with Collegium, Christine and Bill in DC. Again, many thanks for their observations and thoughts, which are reflected below.
The Lincoln Memorial stands tall, as if out of reach. Wikipedia notes that the columns are Doric but doesn’t talk about the frontal access to the temple that Bill mentioned, nor the incredible height of this thing. The elements are Greek, Etruscan, Roman it seems (again, thank you Bill) - I’m not sure about this, I’d like someone to clarify.
When you get inside, you face Lincoln, who is staring out beyond you at the reflecting pool, which reflects the monument of the man he said we should worship in Lyceum. To his right (your left) is the Gettysburg Address, with a mural atop it. To his left is the Second Inaugural with a mural atop it. The murals are Egyptian in style, like the paintings inside the pyramids: they’re even made out of the same materials (a park ranger told me this. Encarta says the murals are oil on canvas. Another park ranger - I swear to God - told me that yes, indeed, the Memorial was “symbolic” when I asked specifically about Lincoln’s hands. I cannot repeat the language that I was screaming in my head here).
It is probably a good working assumption to say the words, the history (murals), and the man all are comments on the same theme.
Lincoln’s right hand being open and his stepping forward with his right foot probably are some kind of comment on Gettysburg. What could be characteristic of Gettysburg is the void after the carnage, the “formal feeling” “after great pain.” The only proper response would be to declare a “new birth of freedom:” nothing else could possibly be appropriate for the “honored dead,” nothing could come close to an honor they would want.
It remains for us to interpret the mural above the Gettysburg address. I have some complaints with this brochure the Park Service hands out as explanatory (warning: .pdf) - I really want to see them cite stuff, instead of just making assertions. I’m still going to write as if they know what they’re talking about, because I’ve been sitting on this project too long already.
There is an angel in the center of the Gettysburg Address mural, raising hands and causing shackles to drop. I am convinced the angel is different from the seated figures in the extreme left and right groups, inasmuch as they are crowned with laurels, and the angel needs no such crowning being a heavenly messenger.
The group all the way to the left, if you’re facing the statue, represents justice. The seated figure has the sword of justice and a scroll, and is flanked by bodyguards. People are kneeling in front of the figure. The brochure says that both the central group and this group have two sibyls each. It makes sense why a divine group should have sibyls, but justice is earthly, wearing the crown of victory. What could those sibyls prophecy?
The group all the way to the right, as deep into the temple as one can go, is supposed to be immortality. But what is immortal? The seated figure is wearing a crown, and surrounded by the three theological virtues. There are no sibyls here, just a servant giving wine. Oil is in a vessel beside. We note that earlier generations had no problem picking up on Lincoln’s theological language in the Address, and didn’t go rifling through his personal papers to try and argue he was an atheist. It looks like the law and freedom together prophecy something that makes earthly republicanism divine.
The mural above Second Inaugural I have to rely on the brochure even more on: the central group is Unity (duh, there are two people holding hands and arts of various sorts abound), the left group is Fraternity (the abundance of the earth and family life are surrounded by the wine/oil vessels characteristic of immortal republicanism above), and the group to the extreme right is Charity. The interesting thing for all of us, as students of politics, is the emphasis on Unity centrally. We normally say that Fraternity and Charity are means to Unity. In doing so, we tend to forget what we assume when we approach another as a friend - why we make vows when we get married - why we pray even in the silence of our hearts.
Apr
7
In Appreciation: Glen Thurow and the Problem of Speech in Democratic Life
Filed Under lincoln, politics | 2 Comments
We have a habit of paying no attention, much less carefully considering, what another stands for until we cannot take them for granted anymore. Strange how caught up we can be: even remembering the dead is usually an indulgence in our own impressions. It is fitting that we temporarily put this problem aside, given the occasion, and at least attempt to consider Dr. Thurow’s thought.
Underlying Dr. Thurow’s dedication to the liberal arts is his concern for speech. The devolution of Presidential rhetoric, perhaps starting with the very notion of TR’s “bully pulpit,” much less the theater of the modern State of the Union, demonstrates the problem he confronts fully. The executive is not constructed to speak, but to act. If he speaks, his speech must result in effective action. It is tempting to say that in a country where popular opinion is everything, the President’s power to persuade is his most effective action. Thus, the “bully pulpit,” the televised State of the Union, the press conferences, the Presidential reading lists, the campaign books, etc. etc. are not a product of politics merely trying to give Oprah competition. Rather, the President could be doing his job in being a second-rate media figure.
All one has to do, though, to demolish the argument that the President’s primary power lies in persuasion is focus on what an inability to persuade does to effective action. And we all know the highest things require not merely an enormous amount of persuasion in the speech and deed of others, but practice on our own part.
Dr. Thurow’s work contemplates a time when Presidential rhetoric meant far more than it does today. The irony of the ascent of speech is speech’s success when divorced from considerations of effectiveness. A cursory look at Glen’s work on Lincoln proves this point: it is not clear that “a new birth of freedom” has been achieved in any sense even now. Much of the platform of the Right currently centers on economic libertarianism, much of the Left on moral libertarianism. Equality in our political rhetoric today is for would-be populists advancing narrow, factional interests. If liberty and equality are both of primary concern in this democracy as Lincoln seems to think, we certainly don’t see any evidence of such a balance. Wilmoore Kendall, even in attacking Lincoln, notes how “equality” post-Lincoln is mainly an effective term for the advance of sectarian, Progressive agendas.
And yet, in our modern, post-virtue world, it is still hard to deny Lincoln’s speech has something our words today lack. That “something” can be characterized two ways: first, Lincoln has thought about higher things, i.e. how self-government can be preserved, what the relation of succeeding generations to the Founding must be, what precisely are the ills of slavery and where the ultimate remedy for such ills lies. He has thought about these things and recognized their meaningfulness. Secondly, just as importantly, he attempts to convey that meaning through words of his own. The dual simplicity of Lincoln’s speech hides what is crucial: the practical effects of speaking have been almost completely put aside. A truly effective teaching, after all, need not muse on what we ought to value, as Lincoln seems to muse. Lincoln’s speech approaches the theoretical.
It is difficult to conceive of political speech being theoretical in any way. Politics is the realm of action: the best political speech is the exhortation that leads to victory and conquest, whether it is other people or passions or even ignorance being combatted. Inasmuch as a regime educates, using the law to make its people the same sort of citizen, it indulges the thumotic excessively. If politics has anything to do with peace, and if there is an art of peace, then we need to see political speech as part of something higher.
In a free country cognizant of equality it is also difficult to speak of the noble, but it is there by nature, hidden within the concept of merit. If one splits “merit” into its components, “having a particular excellence” on the one hand, and “the outcome of that excellence” on the other, one sees the noble and the virtuous directly. No longer does the vulgar conception of virtue being good only inasmuch it is useful dominate: one can plainly see outcomes are always a matter of Fortune.
It goes without saying that Lincoln confronted the vulgarity of “merit” directly: if the South won the Civil War, would that have made slavery right? Is the North’s winning the war, then, what makes slavery wrong? In the Second Inaugural, the question is that of the rationality of the general will and Providence: if neither North nor South understand why Union matters, can this be a blessed order in any sense? The North had the will to fight when fired upon, but all of American history from 1820-1860 could be said to be capitulation to slaveholders that resulted in their emboldening. As both North and South have failed to understand justice, an understanding of the divine is critical: the human realm has failed to provide solutions to a problem it caused.
Wrestling with the divine occurs publicly for Lincoln, and in speech. It is strange to conceive of speech as “becoming,” but we note well that dialectic is where being and becoming meet: not-being, states of affairs that aren’t, are attributes eliminated progressively. But dialectic is not political speech. Political speech must reach all, even if it cannot engage all fully. Hence the grappling with the divine ends up a pleading with the divine: we worship the Creator because He treats others justly, with equanimity and charity, and we hope for His protection as we pledge to pursue those things.
It is not clear if divinity is prior to speech or speech prior to divinity. The problem is contained in the very word “logos” as it has come down to us: it is the height of Christian thought, it is also central to texts that question Revelation of any sort severely in pursuit of the well-ordered soul. We can try to say that what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence. Maybe there are things that can only be shown, and that is where the highest resides. But to make that move would be to admit that speech is of the highest priority: only where it breaks down are we filled with awe or terror, and the moments where it breaks down are Revelatory: it is not clear any of us will certainly have that mystical experience.
What is clear is that speech and divinity are fundamental to each other. The dignity of man resides in his being a social, talking, political, learning, rational animal. If we need to plead with God or show gratitude to Him, we need to speak in some way, perhaps with words, perhaps not. An age that goes out of its way to marginalize speech, as ours does, attacks our ability to approach divinity. We are constantly reminded of immigrants who speak no English and care not for Constitutional form, but who have math and science backgrounds and work hard and therefore are essential to our well-being. Lest I be accused of nativism, let me make it clear where this valuation comes from: there are many people in this room who could care less if their kids could read and write properly. All that matters is their kids are productive in technical capacities, or simply well-off. What immigrants or our own children think is not terribly important to us, that they are useful is primary.
It is true other ages emphasized the practical, but this is ridiculous. Our inability to articulate value has resulted in whether we want to clone ourselves without brains so we can harvest the organs of the clone later being a serious question. The divine is all but gone: if God condescended to listen to Abraham and bless him, we surely will make no such condescension to God. We cannot even treat each other as equals, after all, or work to raise each other up. Our charity is tied to our power and effectiveness in the world; our humility is standing above others with a higher power in the next life. Our meaningless speech, ironically enough, is purposeful. We get to construct meaning however we want, and construction guided by no principle results in the interest of the stronger being right.
What the liberal arts do is give us speech that has meaning. Perhaps the divine is prior to speech, but we will never know it if speech is so devalued: words must be heard and carefully considered in order for a human appreciation of the divine to be possible.
To bring us back to the problem that started these remarks, that of whether we can possibly transcend our own impressions of another’s deepest concern, I will say this: we can, by talking to each other and listening, find out what each other’s deepest concern is. If you think of that as too cloying to be a serious argument, I will offer something even more cloying to suggest what is at stake in the liberal arts, what is at stake in finding ways for us to value each other and not merely exert control over this world or the next. Milton wonders about what St. Paul means when he says Christ shall be all in all, and concludes that maybe, at the end of time, God will dissolve into each of us. There won’t be any need for a higher power alienated in some way from us if we are all godly, each to another.
It goes without saying that an introduction to what Lincoln’s deeper meaning is, the problem of speech and action in political life, and the question of what a proper conception of divinity is all stem from Glen Thurow’s thought. He is more than aware of what is at stake, and it is something all of us, hallowed and consecrated though we may be, to which we should ourselves dedicate.
May
31
Is Democracy Feasible? (Reflections on the Gettysburg Address)
Filed Under lincoln, politics | 10 Comments
The Gettysburg Address
Abraham Lincoln
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Commentary:
The Opening Lines
“Four score and seven years ago” from 1863 is 1776. It is curious that Lincoln would pick the Declaration of Independence as the founding document as opposed to the Constitution, for the question of whether the Southern States can legally secede from the Union or would be in rebellion if they so attempted is a Constitutional question. It is agreed that both North & South did indeed revolt against Great Britain for the reasons listed in the Declaration.
Then again, the Declaration is the more universal of the documents, when contrasted with the Constitution. The Preamble of the Constitution begins with “We the People,” meaning we as citizens of these United States. But the most famous passage of the Declaration, that which the Gettysburg Address is a direct commentary on, reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
Jefferson’s “we” is most certainly universal, not just the rambling of a particular people, for to effect a just break in the bonds uniting Britain and her colonies, both sides must understand what is just. The basis of justice is truth here, self-evident truth: all men are created equal; all men have certain Rights. If they didn’t, there never would have been a government anywhere, at any time. The purpose of any given government is to secure equality, to secure rights.
Lincoln understands the Civil War to be the most significant war. The question is whether people can govern themselves or not, “whether any nation so conceived can long endure.” Is any attempt at democracy doomed to failure, since majority/minority divergences mean one group may always be slighted to the point of war? You can see all throughout this speech Lincoln’s refusal to talk about the Civil War in particular terms: there is no mention of Gettysburg, no mention of the number dead, no mention of the Confederacy or slavery or the battle itself or even the fact this is America. Something far more significant, encompassing all of mankind, transpired at Gettysburg.
Lincoln & Jefferson are agreed on the universal significance of the American enterprise, but there is divergence. This nation was “conceived in Liberty” & “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” “Conceived” implies that maybe not all governments are conceived such, that maybe Jefferson’s notion that all governments derive their right from the consent of the governed is false. “Dedicated to the proposition” again implies a defect in Jefferson’s formulation. For Jefferson, that all men are created equal is a matter of knowledge. It is self-evident truth.
But a “proposition” is something that has to be proved true or false. It is not necessarily true. To be dedicated to a proposition is a matter of belief. To be an American is to believe all men are created equal, to work to make that a truth as best one can.
The Third Paragraph
“Dedicated” & “consecrated” & “hallowed” are the most interesting words for our purposes in this paragraph. This speech is loaded; if you read Dr. Thurow’s or Dr. Brann’s work, they consider Lincoln in the light of his other speeches, and Gettysburg is indeed the culmination of a career in political rhetoric. The thoughts Lincoln develops about democracy are more thoroughly explored in Shakespeare and Rousseau, the former of which he quotes elsewhere. The latter he probably knew in a second-hand way through acquaintance with Bentham; Leo Paul de Alvarez has argued Lincoln’s Temperance Speech shows familiarity with the notion of a civil religion in Rousseau.
“Hallowed” is the word to start with. It only occurs once in the speech, and is proclaimed to be impossible to do. Man cannot make anything holy. Only God makes something holy, and such holy things will show in the providence of time.
“Consecration” is something the crowd at Gettysburg, or anyone reading the speech, cannot directly participate in. The blood of the honored dead, who fought that this nation might live, has consecrated the ground.
One wonders how much ground they have consecrated, for the entirety of the people must be re-dedicated. It seems like the blood of the few at Gettysburg has consecrated the entirety of the American nation, maybe the world. For everyone must now engage in the project that has been advanced thus far.
Note that the fathers “conceived” a nation so “dedicated,” and now the soldiers “consecrate” a nation so “dedicated.” But what are the people who are witnesses to the sacrifice that has been made dedicated to?
The answer is a “new birth of freedom.” What on earth does that mean? So far, everything mentioned has been squarely within the confines of preserving the American project…
…except that to preserve the American project, of course, means to be dedicated to equality and liberty. Which means the Emancipation Proclamation, set forth earlier that year, is not merely “Look, here are some people to aid our war effort.” It means that the former slaves have to be made full citizens and treated fully as human beings, so we are truly in the spirit of the Declaration, as the Constitution, which did its best to marginalize slaveholders (”slavery” is never mentioned once in the Constitution. The attempt to say it was a protected right to hold slaves, i.e. Dred Scott, was pretty ridiculous), was.
It also meant that those in “rebellion,” as Lincoln considered the Southerners, had to be treated with the utmost respect, and accepted once again into the American enterprise. This is clear from the Second Inaugural, where in the face of an unknowable will of God, we must do our best to be united, and restore justice to all.
Democracy is feasible, but it requires beatitude. Otherwise, it is worse than worthless: it is merely prelude to anarchy. It is truly tragic that awareness of the need for beatitude should come at the expense of so much blood.
Addendum (Credit to Wikipedia for reminding me of these things)
- The birth metaphor of the opening is echoed in the phrase “a new birth of freedom.”
- There are indeed parallels between this speech and Pericles’ Funeral Oration. From my own work on Thucydides, though: Does Pericles see the ancestral as important to a democracy
- “Four score and seven years ago” is Biblical language: see the King James Version, Psalm 90 (credit/discredit Wikipedia and Lincoln scholar Guelzo for this - I haven’t checked this yet, or why exactly it might be relevant)
- Another way I’ve been using recently to talk about the speech: It opens with a birth metaphor, closes with the idea of a new birth of freedom. In between there is a baptism of a nation. The organic and spiritual metaphors both contrast with “self-evident” and “instituted,” words that hearken to science and positivism.
- Oh, and anyone that tells you “Lincoln is a racist” or “Lincoln didn’t have to fight the war, the South would have gone broke” and “His transcendental ideals were costly” is someone who loves slavery, and would be glad to know you’re comfy as a slave somewhere if it meant they felt free. Lincoln: “If slavery isn’t wrong, nothing is wrong.”
Bibliography
Thurow, Glen. Abraham Lincoln and American Political Religion. SUNY Press, 1976.
Leo Paul S. de Alvarez. “Reflections on Lincoln’s Political Religion.” Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address, and American Constitutionalism. ed. Leo Paul S. de Alvarez. Irving: University of Dallas Press, 1976.
Brann, Eva. “A Reading of the Gettysburg Address.” Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address, and American Constitutionalism. ed. Leo Paul S. de Alvarez. Irving: University of Dallas Press, 1976.