Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Limits of Lincoln Bashing Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_limits_of_lincoln_bashing#24231 Post contents: I think there is a good point contained in Mr. Havers' thesis, albeit he gets a bit too carried away with it. I'd agree that the tendency of some Southron paleos to render Lincoln into a larger-than-life monster may be just as unfortunate as Jaffa and his idolatory. We're talking about a man, not a superman (whether good or evil). But shifting from this to an attitude of asking "What Would Lincoln Do? No, really?" hardly seems an improvement. Still, again, I do think the thesis has merit -- just as most Americans can't hear criticism of Lincoln without being mortified beyond belief, some Southern partisans can't hear his name without losing all capacity for self-control & cool thinking. This may be a function of their passion re/ war crimes committed against our ancestors, though, so I'm not inclined to see it as something entirely pernicious. I don't know if Mr. Havers has a copy of DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" handy, but if so I suggest a quick perusal would indicate that DiLorenzo and the libertarian critics of Lincoln are in fact doing something like what is recommended here. That is, portraying Lincoln as somebody more interested in banking & railroad interests and tariffs and commerce, etc., than somebody genuinely interested in messianic liberation projects. It's important to recognize that paleocon/paleolibertarian critics of Lincoln can be divided into two distinct camps. Consider the analogy to Iraq: Some criticize it as just a scheme to ensure access to oil, others criticize it from a very different angle, criticize *its own professed principles*, as being a fanatical crusade. There's probably some truth to both assertions. In any event, my point is that there are two very different and distinct critiques of Lincoln: One is based on the assumption that he was a proto-Putin, so to speak, while others operate on the assumption that he was exactly who he is claimed to be. I think both critiques to be of value, because it is the *symbol* of Lincoln rather than the man himself (he's dead, after all) that does the damage today. The libertarians erode the Straussian position by making it clear that the Straussian idol does not live up to Straussian expectations, while those who attack the professed principles of Lincoln's war make the point that the Straussian expectations are themselves warped and wrong. Sent at: 2008 07 24