Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: On Lincoln-Bashing Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/on_lincoln_bashing#24903 Post contents: Here are <i>all</i> of the references to Lincoln in the piece by Pat Buchanan: <i>By late 1863, Lincoln’s war to crush Southern secession was about whether “government of the people, by the people, for the people shall ... perish from the earth.” By 1917, the European war whose causes Wilson professed not to understand in 1916 had become “the war to end all wars” and to “make the world safe for democracy.”</i> <i>Leaders alchemize wars begun over lesser interests into epochal struggles for universal principles because only thus can they justify demands for greater sacrifices in blood and treasure. But Bush has gone Wilson one better. He is not only going to make the world safe for democracy, he is going to make the world democratic. Where Lincoln abolished slavery in the South, Bush is going to abolish tyranny from the earth: “So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”</i> Does Dr. Havers mean to suggest that the first sentence is not literally true? Did Lincoln not utter those lines at Gettysburg, or did he simply not mean them? Buchanan does not go on to suggest that Mr. Lincoln's War was the same as Mr. Wilson's War or Mr. Bush's War; he simply says that all three used similar appeals to abstract, universalist principles. Does Dr. Havers deny that “government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth” is abstract and universalist? As for the second paragraph, Buchanan not only draws a distinction between Mr. Lincoln's War and Mr. Bush's ("Where Lincoln abolished slavery in the South, Bush is going to abolish tyranny from the earth"), he even makes a distinction between Mr. Bush's War and Mr. Wilson's ("Bush has gone Wilson one better"). This isn't an attempt to conflate the three men; it makes proper distinctions while discussing one thing that all three had in common: "Leaders alchemize wars begun over lesser interests into epochal struggles for universal principles because only thus can they justify demands for greater sacrifices in blood and treasure." That does not mean that Mr. Lincoln would have agreed with Mr. Wilson's War, or even Mr. Wilson with Mr. Bush's. Of course, such elementary distinctions undoubtedly seem arbitrary when the point is making sure that we "control the Lincoln legacy." Sent at: 2008 07 24