Democracy

Economy

Education

Development

Global Issues

Research

01/19/2009

To be sure, a mixed-color and minority in the White House is something that Americans should celebrate, a historic achievement that surely should put the liberal Europeans, if one is aware of their view of integration and assimilation in America as described in recent Bruce Bawer’s book, into shame. Since the huge victory party in Chicago about two months ago, the nation has essentially been in party mode, or at least it is conditioned to be in that state, despite the constant depressing economic news that fills the air and the papers daily. Even before being sworn-in, the president-elect himself has already had his own seal, regular conference presses and radio addresses, creating almost an unprecedented phenomenon in the nation history.

Understandably, the party should reach its climax at the Inauguration Day. Let’s do what we are supposed to do: be cheerful of our democracy, regardless of its current state of quality, and let the new leader carry his nation duty to protect and serve the country—with substance not symbols, not slogans, and not rhetoric.

But a number of signs may have indicated that the latter could be the outcome. Arguably, Obama was largely elected not because of substance, but symbols and slogans. How else you can explain the release of a new children book titled “Change has come” with the portrait of the new leader waving his hand? What about the new leader with “Yes we can”, and “I promise you—we as a people will get there?” Not to mention that the leader himself proclaimed that his candidacy “was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…”

The fact is, most Americans believe the slogans and rhetoric and that’s why they elected him. Americans, for better or worse, are relatively generous to give some ideas and some people the benefit of the doubt. About the release of “Change has come” book, one commented: “Oh my soul. I cannot wait for the book to come out. Obama’s words are so inspiring and wise. I can’t think of a better way to celebrate.”

It seems that the nation has been so desperate for an inspirator as if the million copies of self-motivational books sold and the thousands of successful motivational speakers including the super rich Dr. Phil and Oprah, are not enough. We need one at the White House and Obama apparently fits the bill.

Viewed this way, the record breaking of  $150 million price tag for Obama’s inauguration gala, four times higher than that of Bush in 2005, is really nothing. In fact, his Inauguration committee already stated that the cost is rather meaningless compared to the benefit of having the nation united under a common purpose. Whatever the common purpose brought by the most leftist president in a relatively center-right nation may be, rationalizing this huge spending is not a difficult task. However, the fact remains stubborn: the nation’s economy is not in a good shape as the new president himself keeps reiterating; and no matter one can spin it, a lavish party at this troubled time is a sign of irresponsibility. Ironically, Obama’s Inauguration speech calls for an era of responsibility. You would think that Obama himself will show the path to that.

But what is more entertaining, if not laughable, is the attempt to bring back Abraham Lincoln from his grave. At least, that’s how some people will interpret Obama’s claim to be share Lincoln, from his Bible, his inaugural theme “A New Birth of Freedom,” which was inspired by Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and his train journey to Washington from Philadelphia to follow the final leg of the train route taken by Lincoln.

Obama Lincolnesque is not something new. Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama, who hails from the Land of Lincoln, reminded audiences from coast to coast about the similarities between himself and Lincoln, the most beloved political leader in the American history on par with George Washington.

To be fair, Lincoln has become something of a model for politicians on both sides of the aisle. Foner, author of the new book Our Lincoln: New Perspectives on Lincoln and His World said, “Lincoln is a Rorschach test. Everybody finds themselves in Lincoln. Everybody finds what they want to find in Lincoln. There are dozens of Lincolns out there. So saying ‘I’m reading Lincoln or modeling myself on Lincoln’ doesn't really tell us a heck of a lot.”

But Obama is claiming beyond that. Writing about Lincoln in Time magazine in 2005, Obama drew some parallels of his life to those of Lincoln, only his is sort of better.

“In Lincoln’s rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat—in all this he reminded me not just of my own struggles.”

Back then, Peggy Noonan, who was not a fan of Obama before she converted into one, wrote:

“Oh. So that's what Lincoln's for. Actually Lincoln's life is a lot like Mr. Obama's. Lincoln came from a lean-to in the backwoods. His mother died when he was 9. The Lincolns had no money, no standing. Lincoln educated himself, reading law on his own, working as a field hand, a store clerk and a raft hand on the Mississippi. He also split some rails. He entered politics, knew more defeat than victory, and went on to lead the nation through its greatest trauma, the Civil War, and past its greatest sin, slavery.

Barack Obama, the son of two University of Hawaii students, went to Columbia and Harvard Law after attending a private academy that taught the children of the Hawaiian royal family. He made his name in politics as an aggressive Chicago vote hustler in Bill Clinton's first campaign for the presidency.

You see the similarities.”…

And she further wrote:

Mr. Obama said he keeps a photographic portrait of Lincoln on the wall of his office, and that "it asks me questions."

I'm sure it does. I'm sure it says, "Barack, why are you such an egomaniac?" Or perhaps, "Is it no longer possible in American politics to speak of another's greatness without suggesting your own?"

About the notion that Lincoln and Obama both rose politically in Chicago, Doug Powers from WorldNetDaily wrote: “Not a bad deal when Lincoln was climbing the political ladder in the Windy City, but for the past several decades, bragging that you ascended through the ranks in the Chicago political machine is like saying you were the best swimmer at the city sewer.”

The mainstream media and political pundits often tell us that both Obama and Lincoln are both great orators and eloquent speakers. But there are big differences between the two.

Lincoln, who had great instinct for the realities and “high, squeaky voice” as described by Carl Sandburg in his famous biography of Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and The War Years, was a master of the informal debate and interaction such as the town hall meetings whereas Obama’s success has largely been in his prepared speeches and presentation with their choreographed repetition to draw enthusiasm of the masses.  Lincoln was very modest in his appearance and most said was awkward, while Obama’s well-staged appearances were the product of 21^st century marketing genius.

Lincoln historian and author Ronald White said that Obama and Lincoln had a “tremendous trust in words and the power of language.” Said White, “And I think today, we come with a real kind of cynicism. ... It’s only words. And yet I think underneath the words are the public's perception of looking for someone with integrity and authenticity and not someone simply playing a role.”

Indeed.  The big difference is Lincoln spoke as someone with great intellectual and spiritual depth which was driven by his core beliefs while Obama made splashy oratory but they are so often ambivalent and hallow in core beliefs as if he is trying to hide his true conviction. Lincoln would have never said in the similar spirit of Obama’s "I can no more disown him (Rev. Wright) than I can my white grandmother…” only to disown the preacher when he has become political liability. And what does it mean that his candidacy “was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless” as if for decades Americans left the sick people to death and never created good jobs for the jobless. Even many American still have no clue as what Obama’s religious conviction really is.

In sum, Lincoln succeeded in spite of his appearance and speech, while Obama because of them.

Even as the media and Obama’s supporters are pushing the image that his is another Lincoln, the ample evidence should be convincing enough for rational Americans to believe that Obama is no Lincoln. The fact that one is 6 feet 6 inches, about 200 pounds, playing basketball at Chicago Bulls, wearing jersey no.23, does not make him another Michael Jordan before demonstrating enough evidence to claim it.

Why don’t the media and political pundits, including some historians, wait ten or twenty years before they try comparing him to the President on Mt Rushmore. Leaving his U.S. Senate seat before producing anything substantial, the new president hasn’t done anything in his entire political career that is worthy of comparison to the nation’s most celebrated President.

One can certainly argue that this is just another 21^st century marketing strategy with the mainstream media as the main advertiser. “Hope”, “change”, “uniter”, “savior”, “the soul of America”, and “back to people” are all jargons that have become part of the marketing. In the process, whatever policies that Obama administration will enact, the media will likely praise them and they can always generate polls to support them. Already The New York Times and CBS, two of media outlets which were so bizarrely wrong on the last presidential election polls, have conducted a poll with finding: 79% of Americans have confident that Obama can turn the economy around. By how? Don’t bother to ask.

If Obama has indicated that he is very keen of the grandiose image of himself and will likely make his presidency as a perpetual campaign, which means that symbols, slogans, and marketing will likely be keys to his administration instead of leadership and clear decision at tough times, the Republicans, on the other hand, is like the Israelites in the desert: no clue about their direction. Gingrich, still widely influential among the conservatives and republicans, has thundered, “You’d have to be irrational not to want the new president to succeed.”

Whether that includes Obama’s success in further promoting America deeper into socialism is unclear. Equally unclear is whether partisan politics means political attack with grounded principles or out of mean-spirited motives when Saul Anuzis, a leading candidate to become the next leader of the Republican National Committee, said, “partisan politics in times like these for the sake of politics is not healthy.” Or whether the Republicans should give Obama the benefit of the doubt in all his policy proposals when Michael Steel, a spokesman for Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said, “We want to work with him on behalf of the American people and hope that he governs in the open and bipartisan way in which he promised”, is to anyone guess.

The somewhat predictable big losses in November have left the Republican Party in a big trouble of formulating the right role and strategies in the next four years. By reaching across the aisle, as actively promoted by McCain is almost surely a great recipe for another even bigger disaster. By constantly attacking Obama’s policies might be viewed by the voters as an attempt to fail Obama’s historic nature of the first African-American president.

To be sure, let Obama enjoy his honeymoon for a few more days. But sooner or later, the Republicans better hurry to find the right role in the next four years.

Without meaningful and forceful opposition to Obama administration and with the eager mainstream media to promote and market Obama’s policies as well as provide him a strong shield from any political attacks, Obama could easily be another Lincoln and perhaps the greatest president in the American history—only in the Clintonian sense: it depends on what “the greatest” is.

  Your comment

Back to top